Las Vegas Review-Journal/Dan Wheldon

Then may you enjoy the most perfect career in journalism in the world.

Because for a lot of us, we know that there will be at least one day, and probably a lot more, in which we do end up fucking up. And we'll learn from it, and try not to make it happen again.

And readers will find a way to bitch about anything. That's not to say they're always wrong. But if management cares enough about them, then maybe they'll devote more resources to make sure these mistakes don't happen.

 

No, because there's no space limitations in the Internet so the story needs to run on both, as it almost always does.

I should add, http://lvrj.com/sports now has a nice presentation up on Wheldon with plenty of stories.

 

I can't believe this debate dissolved into "readers will find a way to bitch about anything." That is inexcusable in this argument.

And Versatile is right. Like others, I bookmark my newspaper sports page. In my case I go directly to the Denver Post sports site, bypassing the main page. If a Bronco player died on the field, and the sports page looked similar to this one, I might never visit the Denver Post site again. I wouldn't want my news coming from a shoddy operation, no matter the excuse. It could be the best reason in the world, but I'll never know or take the time to find out.

 

You've worked at one newspaper, kid. I'm sure you count your college campus paper, but I don't.

So when you say "most reporters I've known" you are talking about your classmates from a no-name journalism school and your colleagues from the Podunk Press.

Meanwhile, there are professional journalists out there whose entire jobs revolve around online content and website presentation. To imply that a reporter, whose job should entail maybe 10 percent thinking about the web, is better at that job than someone who thinks about the web 100 percent of the time is shortsighted.

How would you feel if the online editor didn't trust your ability to report and sent you a list of questions to ask Coach Snot after Friday's game? You'd be offended.

So if your paper has an online editor, find a way to endear yourself to that person and be helpful. The product will be better for it. Don't talk shit about their job performance behind their back.

 

Also, I've worked at two papers (one was once pretty good sized) and two national websites. I can tell you there wasn't a reporter at either paper who looked at the website to see if their story was there. Not a one.

 

IJAG, I'm sure it's because they trust their web counterparts to do their jobs.

I know there are some reporters who do, and I don't think that's a bad thing. Like I said, if people work together it will improve the product. I think young reporters trying to tell other people how to do their jobs is a bad thing.


(I'm not speaking specifically about the LVRJ here; obviously this is a valid topic for discussion, but I don't know enough about the situation to really make a judgment call. I'm just addressing Matt's post.)

 

You ... I mean he was barely a writer when I was there. And when yo ... he was writing, he wasn't in the office. So I didn't check on him to see if he was bitching about his content.

 

I know what you're saying, and whenever there's an issue I always check up with those responsible for handling online content, but we're entering an era where the location of content on the Web is arguably more important than where it is in print. Like I was saying earlier, I'm a stickler for these type of details, so I may be in the minority here. I don't care if it's my story or Stringer X's, if a story is in print, it should definitely be online. Even when I was at Rivals.com sites, I liked to see the most important news as the main story, even if it wasn't the most recent.

 

We post our stories ourselves, post photos ourselves, write headlines ourselves ... leads to some awfully bad stuff getting online (by other people, of course!)

 

No way. Most reporters I have worked with were always checking the Web to make sure stories were posted. I did it, too. A lot.