Online Writing

~ Laura

Sigh. This is probably true. 

To write for a screen, in the sense of writing for online consumption, is entirely different. Whereas you can whisper or scream on to a page, you can only yell towards a screen. Because everything written specifically for online consumption is written in the expectation of addressing a hostile community, the writing process demands, as a prerequisite, either a defensive or antagonistic demeanour.

Published by Laura

11 thoughts on “Online Writing”

  1. I think that’s only true if you write about politics or other contentious topics. There are plenty of blogs and columns about things like genealogy or cooking that don’t attract a hostile community.

    Of course, here am I, arguing with our hostess, forcing her into a defensive or antagonistic posture.

    Like

  2. When I write something for the Atlantic, I’m in a cold sweat the entire first day it comes out. I brace myself for bile, sexism, and outright hatred.

    Like

    1. The local newspaper’s comments are far, far worse. There is a huge contingent of people who exist for no other reason than speculate about the race of people accused of crimes when it isn’t specified in the article and kvetch about how some people don’t ride very carefully in every article about a cyclist killed by a hit and run driver.

      Like

    2. Is Fallows the only one at The Atlantic who gets to have his comments turned off?

      Because if they aren’t paying you to moderate, and they aren’t paying anyone else to moderate, they should just do without.

      Like

  3. Doesn’t a lot depend on how the comments are moderated? I’ve wondered why the ny times comment section is so much more reasonable than the wa post and can only assume comment moderation is the main cause.

    I remind myself of the cartoon about “something being wrong on the Internet” every day.

    Like

  5. Re: difference between NY Times and WaPost comment sections. I assumed the opposite: that the New York Times had a readership that was not a bunch of crazies.

    Like

    1. I’m pretty sure bj is right. Even if the NYT has a readership with fewer crazies, it would only take a half dozen crazies to make the comment section completely crazy without moderation.

      Like

  6. Comment moderation can be expensive, so that’s one reason the local papers are worse – they probably don’t have great resources to throw at the issue.

    Pre-Twitter and Facebook we used to quip that print editors know what you _want_ to read, and web editors know what you _actually_ read, so 10 ways to cut 100 calories did better than some longform brilliant nuanced piece. With social media being about (in part) what you want your friends to know/think you are reading, that is changing again, but it’s still hard not to go for the headline that makes people click faster.

    Like

    1. Comment moderation can be expensive, so that’s one reason the local papers are worse – they probably don’t have great resources care to throw resources at the issue.

      Fixt.

      Like

Comments are closed.