Subject: Re: J-Schools and the Info Highway From: dowjone!rexb (Rex Ballard) Date: Mon, 9 May 94 10:07:59 EDT

Cc: online-news@marketplace.com
Sender: jvncnet!marketplace.com!owner-online-news
Content-Length: 3021
X-Lines: 60
Status: O

There are several different aspects of on-line journalism that may be
significant.

Computerized processing did not funamentally alter the principles of accounting,
but it radically altered the practices of book-keeping.

In the same way, on-line journalism doesn't radicaly alter the fundamental
principles of journalism, but it does radically alter the role of reporting
and editing.

The principles such as gathering information and verifying it's accuracy,
following up on information received and investigation are still primary
tenets of electronic publishing.

The breakthrough is that now there are "electronic forums" from which to
draw a wealth of information.  This newslist is such an example.

These forums are not a reliable source of information.  I have often shared
opinions which do not represent the official policies or practices of Dow Jones.
In electronic forums, mailing lists, and news groups, the raw information is
available.  This information must be filtered, verified, and put in perspective.

Many articles in the Wall Street Journal appear to have been sourced from this
list.  The sum of 40 or 50 postings is correlated with government statistics,
interviews with on-line services, and other resources.

Finally, there is the editorial "slant" or perspective.  Some Newspapers
look for the sensationalism - making a relatively boring story seem incredible.
Some Newspapers are the eternal voice of cynicism and resignation.  Press
releases can be turned into scandals.  Others, such as WSJ are harbingers of
opportunity, nearly every article is an opening to take some kind of action
(buy stock, joint ventures, contact marketing,...).  Even "bad" news is an
opportunity to sell short.  When DJ readers got the news about the world
trade center exploding, they got on the phones to set up offices in
New Jersey.

What disappears in on-line journalism is the sense of context.  In a newspaper,
you might see a front page that has first columns of a rape, a robbery,
a bombing in the middle east, and in the bottom right corner, an announcement
that Microsoft has released a new product.  Because the Context of the
first page is "Bad News", the product announcement may be perceived as "bad news"
too.  The best example of "Bad News" was 60 minutes.  If the 60 minutes team
were to cover a breakthrough in cancer treatment, it would be perceived as 
"bad news".

In the on-line universe, parsers, profilers, and filters deliver only the
subjects and topics the reader requested.  How many people will want to read
about disasters and crime?  A few lawyers?  Insurance adjusters?

Most people are going to want the information that calls them into action.
What are their suppliers, customers, and competitors doing?  What breakthroughs
are happening in their industry.  How might today's news give them an
opportunity to act?  Even the "bad news" is more likely to be read by someone
who is likely to take action.

This is just one person's opinions and views.  Does it fit?

	Rex Ballard



From gregb@warlock Tue Dec  7 21:38:39 1993
Return-Path: 
Received: from warlock.ypserver_eng by dowv.eng.dowjones.com (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA01235; Tue, 7 Dec 93 21:38:37 EST
Received: by warlock.ypserver_eng (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA03278; Tue, 7 Dec 93 21:32:54 EST