One week ago I sent a letter to the editor of the National Post that wasn't published. 48 hours later I posted the same letter as an article at Digital Journal. I now have readers, new intellectual sparring partners, and money in the bank.
Twentieth century media prophet
Marshall McLuhan observed that new technology decentralizes power. Apply that observation to the newspaper business model and you’ll see why, unless you are a full-time professional with a regular gig, it probably makes more sense to write online.
Face this near-universal truth: all media content serves the goal of selling advertising. It was true of terrestrial radio; it is true of newspapers; it is even true of Digital Journal.
But this is where the idea of decentralization comes into play. When you post an article at Digital Journal, advertising revenue is generated. How much? It depends on how good your article is and therefore how many people view it. But whatever revenue it does generate, Digital Journal acknowledges that you assisted in the generation of that revenue and they share it with you.
Compare this with a typical letter to the editor: When you send a letter to the editor, the editor decides whether or not it will be published. This decision is based at least in part on how much advertising revenue your letter creates. It may be indirect, and it may not be much, but the fact is that you provide the paper with free content that they publish for profit. To add insult to injury, if your comment is published you still need to buy the paper the next day to see your letter in print.
Unfortunately, that is the end of the line for your letter unless, of course, you are the subject of a letter to the editor about your letter to the editor. Here is how the system works:
On Saturday a feature article is published. On Monday the first letters to the editor about the feature article are published. Reasonable enough so far, but then it gets a bit strange. On Tuesday the first letters to the editor about other letters to the editor appear under titles like (real example)
“Re: Who’s Really Doing The Fear-Mongering? letter to the editor, July 26; Anti-Muslim Fear Mongering, letter to the editor, July 21; At War With Radical Islam, letter to the editor, July 19.”
These letters often make eloquent refutations of letters published earlier in the week, but what is the point? Are we to buy a back issue to read the letter of the writer to which this new letter is addressed? Wouldn’t a hyperlink come in handy?
There is some generational divide between those who read newspapers and those who read online, but such anonymous or semi-anonymous activity in the online world is known as “drive-by commenting” and is looked down upon. This is why many blogs and most online news sites will not allow you to leave a comment without you first providing valid contact information. To be clear, I am not saying that all letter to the editor writers are cowardly, only that they would probably be perceived as such in the online world if they provided no avenue for contact or follow-up.
Of course where accountability is absent, bad behavior flourishes.
The convenience of the anonymity of being published in the letters section of a newspaper is second only to the convenience of the same anonymity afforded to those who comment on others’ comments. If that sentence sounds convoluted, try following a thread of “conversation” as it happens in a newspaper.
Everyone who posts to the Digital Journal knows exactly how many times their article has been viewed and how many comments it has generated. In the last four days,
my article has had almost 900 views and generated 87 comments.
How many people read your last letter to the editor?
Article author's Blog can be found at [url=http://www.michaelkrahn.com/blog]www.michaelkrahn.com/blog
