“Real news is what somebody is trying to hide from you. All the rest is just advertising.” – Lord Beaverbrook.

Thanks to Gerry McCusker at PR disasters

What is real news? : PR Disasters.

People spend less time reading online news than reading printed newspapers is because online reading can be more mentally and physically taxing.

I’ve no hard and fast evidence to offer. This is just my observation. It would make a great research project for someone.

People certainly do read less online than in print. I discovered this today in a different context at Newspapers online – the real dilemma.

Here, Australian online media expert Ben Shepherd was examining why online newspapers earn proportionately less money than print newspapers. He says it comes down to engagement. A typical online consumer of Rupert Murdoch’s products spends just 12.6 minutes a month reading News Corporation web sites. In comparison the average newspaper reader spends 2.8 hours a week with their printed copy.

There are other factors. But I’d argue, the technology behind online reading is part of the problem:

• Newspapers and magazines are typically printed at about 600 dots per inch.
• Computer screens typically display text and pictures at 72 pixels per inch. Some display at 96 dots per inch.
• The contrast is usually far better on paper than on screen.
• Screens often include distracting elements. This can be particularly bad where online news sites have video or audio advertising on the same page as news stories.

Lower resolution means it takes more effort for a human brain to convert text into meaningful information. The bottom line is that screens are fine for relatively small amounts of text, but over the long haul your eyes and your brain will get tired faster. You’ll find it harder to concentrate and your comprehension will suffer.

I’m a reader who can stay up all night with a decent novel, but I found it hard to stick with most eBook readers for more than ten minutes.

It’s also worth noting here that many sub-editors and proof readers will find more errors on a printed page than on a screen.

What does this mean?

• The online reading revolution is going ahead without anyone worrying about readability, but it’ll be better when improved screen technology arrives.
• In the back of my mind I suspect this is one reason why the 140 word Twitter is so successful. Again, I’ll leave the research project to someone else.

Without fear or favour | The Australian.

Miriam Cosic writes in The Australian about journalist Nick Davis who says more than half the news in Britain’s top five newspapers was generated by public relations companies or taken from wire services. Davis is in Australia to promote his book Flat Earth News.

While this is a great background piece that makes me want to rush out and buy the book — I will look for it this afternoon — it paints a depressing picture of the state of journalism. I’ve worked in the industry for almost thirty years and agree with Davis’ basic premise that today’s journalists are now expected to do a once-over-lightly job and rock the boat as little as possible.

Davis points the finger of blame at the media corporations. This analysis can’t be separated from the widely reported decline of traditional news media. Conventional thinking says people are moving away from newspapers, magazines and broadcast news because of the Internet. I believe the audiences would be declining even without the arrival of online news because news audiences are being turned off by the news media.

One aspect of this whole issue that was overlooked in The Australian story is that public relations companies now massively outgun newspapers in terms of personnel, expertise and experience. This is particularly noticable in New Zealand where the newspapers appear to be largely staffed by young reporters in their 20s and early 30s while many of the brightest and best of the older generation are now employed by PR companies.

This post was updated at 20:00 on August 25.