In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status: 



On Fri, 21 Apr 1995, Stan Jones wrote:

> >Seems to me that the prime advantage of online newspapers over their
> >printed cousins (and tv too) is the ease of interaction with readers. I
> >read an editorial and immediately register my opinion; I click on a
> >reporters byline and offer my thoughts on a story, etc...
> >
> This is also potentially the prime disadvantage of online newspapers. If
> very many readers (as seems highly likely) take advantage of the ease of
> firing off their opinions, thoughts, etc, reporters and editors will
> swiftly become unable to deal with the crush.
> 
> Then the publisher will have maybe four options:
> 
> 1. Stop accepting email from readers.

Better yet, set up newsgroups where they can respond TO EACH OTHER over 
your article.  You just browse through for anything juicy.  Let them pay 
for each POSTING, they are so egotistical they will.  People get addicted 
seeing the responses to their postings.  Some of it even makes good copy.

> 4. Set up forums where the readers can talk to each other about what was in
> the paper, with voluntary participation by reporters and editors, mostly on
> their own time.

Even better, just include a "responses to:" and direct them to 
one of the 16,000 newsgroups that are already out there.  This also tells 
advertisers, follow-up researchers, and tabloid publishers where to get 
the next scandel.  The story my drum up information in the form of 
counter announcments, detailed explanations provided by the subject of 
the story, and/or "me too" experiences.

> My hunch is that some combination of Options 3 and 4 will be the most popular.

The "thanks for sharing" doesn't really do much.  You don't even have to 
hire anyone.  You get a "thanks for sharing" response each time you write 
"whitehouse.gov".  Often you get more direct response by posting to a 
newsgroup.

	Rex Ballard


From rballard@cnj.digex.net Wed May  3 01:10:45 1995