1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Digital Edition in Orlando

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by Moderator1, Mar 19, 2008.

  1. txscoop

    txscoop Member

    How is it complicated????
     
  2. pressmurphy

    pressmurphy Member

    I believe the Star-Tribune instituted the same policy about two years ago, making one more good reason Keith Moyer needed to have the title "publisher" distanced from his name.

    In the big picture (as an archiving tool, etc.), the digital edition concept is fine. As a practical matter, it makes for a needless extra step for a reporter needing to get up to speed on a story. Much easier for them to grab a tearsheet and mark it up on the fly with notes they need on their way out the door to cover the game or meeting.

    BTW, I believe the Strib threatened employees with termination if they took more than one copy of the paper from honor boxes located in or near the building.
     
  3. Frank_Ridgeway

    Frank_Ridgeway Well-Known Member

    This is dumb for at least two reasons:

    1.) They probably won't save any money. On most papers, the newsroom gets the first readable copies off the press that would have been thrown away anyway because they aren't clean enough to sell.

    2.) You need to see the paper. I've encountered some glitches in which a photo looked fine on the screen (even as a PDF) but on newsprint it looked like someone took a dump on the page, and you can't always count on the pressroom to call you. And you'll never catch those (admittedly rare) instances when the pressroom puts, say, the same plate on twice (in place of the pages that were supposed to go there) or even the occasional blank page that gets printed.
     
  4. mdpoppy

    mdpoppy Member

    And vice-versa -- some things just look better in print than on the screen.
     
  5. deskslave

    deskslave Active Member

    Because I'm sure the Audit Bureau will LOOOOVE that. You distributed 100,000 "digital editions"? Awesome! We'll just go ahead and count all those.
     
  6. shotglass

    shotglass Guest

    This is true, because we live it.

    We haven't been able to look at the paper for about five years now. Our press is across the river, five miles away, and pages are sent by satellite.

    The opportunities for disaster are greatly, greatly increased.

    All I can say, Frank, is that yes, we DO have to depend on the pressroom -- or more accurately, a proofing editor who stations himself at the press site nightly. That's the only person who's going to catch if a photo is still RGB (there's no stopgap for that on our pagination system, either), or if a big mistake was missed before the button was pushed at the source.
     
  7. zebracoy

    zebracoy Guest

    That was my first thought. I don't like reading the black pages that make me feel like I was out playing in the barbecue again, but it's my only chance to read it.

    We have an e-edition of our paper and I don't mind it. Hell, I use it when I'm on the road to check out the paper itself. But it's not what I prefer - I like the hard copy.
     
  8. JackReacher

    JackReacher Well-Known Member

    Not sure what to think about the newsroom not getting copies of the paper, but I think the e-edition is a good idea otherwise.

    I read the Virginian-Pilot's e-edition every day. It costs like seven bucks a month, but it's worth it. And I hear it counts toward its official circ number as well, although I could be wrong.

    There are few newspapers I'd pay to read online in this fashion. Orlando would be one.
     
  9. BigSleeper

    BigSleeper Active Member

    Can't say the print edition means as much to me anymore. I'll occasionally glance at one, but a well-constructed Web site makes for a more time-efficient experience.
     
  10. RustyHampton

    RustyHampton Member

    We have an e-edition. We're not pushing it yet on readers, but will be soon as we pull back circulation from far-away counties. I like the e-edition. It's much easier to read than our Web site.

    But I still think you need to see copies of the paper in the office. That's a bit much.
     
  11. Metin Eniste

    Metin Eniste Member

    Somebody mentioned that these things are searchable, which is good, but otherwise isn't this just a glorified PDF? Am I missing something? How on earth is that easier to read than a website? Certainly your website would be more timely, since (in theory) it's updated constantly. If I were an advertiser, why would I want my print ad slapped into an e-edition? I suppose it's better than nothing, but wouldn't advertisers be better served by developing web campaigns that take advantage of the digital medium?
     
  12. WriteThinking

    WriteThinking Well-Known Member

    This is the key, the rhyme and reason for E-editions, and their existence in newsrooms, even over that of hard-copy editions.

    I like E-editions fine, and in our computer-driven world today, they're a good, even enjoyable idea that may even become profitable someday.

    But this is all just another step toward the day that print editions are unavailable anywhere, not just at the Orlando Sentinel. The Sentinel, in fact, probably even sees itself and these moves not as dumb, Frank, but as actually being ahead of the curve.

    And if the Sentinel does anything similar to what Rusty suggests the Clarion-Ledger will be doing in the near future, and the readers/customers respond the way papers hope, and still will, in fact, read the online E-editions, then yes, it will also be a cost-saving move, too.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page