Long form journalism, a staple of magazines like Time, is not working, says Josh Tyrangiel, Managing Editor of TIME.com.
In this third part of my chat with Josh, he explains how stories are written and edited for the Web. He says that some 95 percent of content on his site is created exclusively for the Web.
He says that a a lot of the magazine content published on the Web site does not do "too great" online. Some of it is "just too long," he says.
Andy Plesser, Managing Editor
Update: Jim Romenesko has more on the subject today.
You can also find our story up on the Huffington Post
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c0d2f53ef0120a510e5c2970b
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Long form journalism on the Web is "not working," TIME.com Managing Editor:
Long-form journalism is not working for Time which, as he rightly points out, readers come to for a quick, newsy take. It seems to be working fine for Slate, however. Its editors claim "recurring reader affection" for a longer feature initiative it's taken.
I don't know how he can say they are not working.
Most news print media's transitions to the web are flawed specifically because they're lacking in the content they're in a unique position to provide -- regional reporting, investigative journalism and expert analyses
Wyman's analysis takes a longer view and more thoughtful conclusions: The problem with newspapers (and, by extension, news magazines) is not their excess of long-form journalism but rather their lack. And that most news print media's transitions to the web are flawed specifically because they're lacking in the content they're in a unique position to provide -- regional reporting, investigative journalism and expert analyses -- because their print versions had long ago become so top-heavy with the same non-news that a zillion topical bloggers are already providing in better forms.
I don't know how he can say they are not working.