Print and/or online

by Charles Klotzer

     It was not my intention to discuss the future of the St. Louis Journalism Review in this issue, but the report in the Webster University student newspaper, The Journal, and national coverage by the Poynter Institute for Media Studies in St. Petersburg, Fla., changed my mind.

     Within the SJR family, as probably in many print publications, an interesting discussion is in progress: should the print version be retained or should it be abandoned for a blog.

     The arguments for a Web site presence are powerful. The expenses of printing, mailing and many related expenses would be saved. Many of the younger generation, so it is claimed, do not subscribe to print publications but pick and choose from thousands of offerings on the Internet. A blog could be more current than a monthly. Moreover, since it is so much easier to click on to a Web site than subscribe to a print publication, Web sites are likely to grow much faster than print. After all, we now live in a world dominated by the Internet, why not take advantage of it?

     Are these advantages sufficient to stop the print edition or, say, reduce its publication schedule to a quarterly? I do not think so. An online presence can supplement, but never replace the impact of a printed product demanding your attention.

     I am strongly in favor of a better Web presence, which we have now only as an archival site. This on top of the radio program SJR editor Ed Bishop now conducts on KDHX-FM can only boost recognition of SJR. Double Helix may even produce a television program, which will add to the presence of SJR in our community.

     Rather than being one among many Web sites, today we have a national reputation of being the only local journalism review in the United States. Print is physical and real. You can present issues in depth, while Web presentations are usually for quick consumption. Information on the Web is virtual in the infinite world of no borders. A print version is specific and addresses the reader directly. Web sites are constructed for quick digestion, while printed matter can explore issues in depth and at length.

     Moreover, a professional, attractive Web site can be more expensive than a print version of SJR if one plans to make it rich and interesting. To administer such a site requires constant attention and funding. Because SJR has neither the personnel, resources nor knowledge to create a professional Web site, it would most likely be merely a blog and fade in comparison to the Web sites of other online journalism reviews and print media publications, which have the means to maintain elaborate Web sites.

     SJR can thrive with its commitment to investigative journalism dealing with the media or on issues that have been ignored by the media. Such journalism usually produces lengthy pieces and requires commitment to digest.

     A study by David Tewksbury and Scott Althaus, professors of communication at the University of Illinois, found that online readers tend to avoid-and insulate themselves-from the goings-on in the larger world around them, reports Andrea Lynn in Humanities Editor. The same study showed that print audiences read more than 60 percent of the stories, while online readers read only 41 percent. Speed and superficiality are obviously more characteristic of the Web than print media. College students reading The New York Times online, the professors found, were less likely than their paper-reading counterparts to have read local political, national and international news.

     While SJR cannot claim to represent the highest form of print journalism in its 36-year history, that option is still open to us if sufficient resources are made available. Indeed, our aim should be a redesigned format and contents, which cannot be ignored by the media or public. Nothing would please both Editor Ed Bishop and me more if that could be obtained.

     A printed version can be like a sculpture. It represents credibility and gravitas, which cannot be matched by any slick Web site and even less by a poorly run and under-financed blog. Print is art. You cannot just grab part of it, as a link, and digest the words-you see it, as a finished, complete product. A publication is a quilt, made up of many pieces, multiple points of entry, intriguing parts of a whole. The Web is ephemeral-it's passing-it's a just a click here and a click there.

     An online view is not real. A new click and it is gone. What do online viewers do when they want to save and store the information? They print it out. How often have you heard, "all this talk about the computers doing away with paper, we now generate more paper than ever."

     In print, readers have cues as to what is important by layout, size and position. Online topics are organized by categories and indexes. The consumer decides to search for a topic, not necessarily the most significant feature the editor has worked on and wishes to circulate.

     Currently, many readers and especially libraries archive SJR. That stored knowledge would be lost. How many SJR online consumers would personally save each issue on their site? They would not have to, is the argument, because SJR would maintain the archive. Well, SJR does so now where news consumers can read it without subscribing. But SJR readers still do subscribe because a print version represents their participation, their involvement, their commitment to a vision, which can never be duplicated by a screen.

     While all have informative Web sites, print media publications are retaining their print version. Indeed, some online publications have acquired print publications, such as Bizbach, an event journal, and Tech Target, a company of online publications.

     Here I am writing this digitally. It extends over several screens. To get a better perspective, to see what to omit, what paragraphs to exchange, what do I have to do? I print it out to allow me to review and edit it easier. Indeed, I could not edit it having to absorb and remember five double-spaced screens simultaneously. As a reader, most likely I would have clicked off after the first two screens in the assumption I know about what the author tries to convey.

     Your comments are invited.

     Charles Klotzer is the founder and Editor Emeritus of the St. Louis Journalism Review.