Versatile said:
Do you think it's a bad thing for readers, or just not a good thing?
Honestly, I haven't given it much thought until this thread. The last time I worked at a daily newspaper that also had a website was nearly five years ago. My most recent job was at a web-only place that had this rule in its style guide:
Understanding we're read all over the world, and our today could be somebody's yesterday, always write the day of the week. Exception: Cover stories based on events happening now.
So I haven't had to have an opinion on this for five years. I won't pretend to be 100 percent certain on much of the conversation because, frankly, I've grown weary of how many people on this board are 100 percent certain about everything. But I do wonder. I think our industry has a history of thinking readers read and think like we do, and they don't.
I do think if you're Joe Reader and have been reading a daily newspaper for 20, 30, maybe 40 years, you're accustomed to seeing "today" in a Monday paper about something happening on the day of publication. It's the way you're conditioned to read. Chances are if you see a "Monday" reference in the Monday paper, you think it's about the previous Monday, or the next, or that someone messed up.
I'm just asking -- not 100 percent certain, mind you -- but isn't it possible longtime readers (and by that I mean
readers) would find it jarring and a tad confusing to suddenly never see "today" in print? To instead see the day of the week even if it's that day? And while we're at it, are we headed toward using days + dates a lot more?
The first PTA meeting of the school year is scheduled for 7:30 p.m. Monday, Aug. 26. We'd never have published that at the daily newspapers I've worked at, but if we're going all-Monday all the time, isn't that inevitable?
We also seem to be talking about places where stories are written and edited for print, then tweaked for the web after print deadline. More of my friends work instead at places where stories are written for the web first, THEN edited after going live, then reworked or edited for print last. Lots of variables here. And from what I've seen of web writing, it does not always make for a good read in print, especially not the next morning. Not every place has the personnel to crank out distinctly different versions for web and print, so there's that. And as we've discussed many times on here, there's no one-size-fits-all solution. What works at The New York Times isn't necessarily the right approach for the Podunk Occasional.
But I'm rambling. To answer your question, I'm not sure, but I think it would be bad for readers -- at the very least, an awkward adjustment. Still mulling. It's an issue that hasn't been on my radar in a long time. And the last time I seriously considered it, I actually believed grammar and style and copy editing had a place -- a future -- in the business. Whatever our business is now, I'm no longer as sure anymore.
So there's my answer, with all of those qualifiers dropped into it.
