One Great Magazine (among others) Underutilizing the Potential of the Internet

Writers for The Economist are masterful at producing information-packed little articles, and such an economic approach to word count is useful, but the Internet has given such publications an opportunity to provide depth without necessarily using much more space.
A recent issue of The Economist had a story about the world’s biggest lake. Lake Baikal, which happens to be in Siberia—Russia’s freezer—is “stuffed with endemic plants and animals.” And it’s “home to the world’s largest colony of freshwater seals.” On more than one occasion, the author refers to the natural beauty of the lake and its uniqueness, yet there isn’t a single photo of the lake, its species, or its surroundings.
SUGGESTION:
1. There should be a link to a photo slide show focusing on the lake’s history and uniqueness.

2. And/Or: There should be video: a slow, panoramic shot of the lake, also with insightful, contextual commentary.

The author of the article opens with a paraphrase from a six-fingered shaman. “What does this shaman look like?” was my first question when I read the article.
SUGGESTION:
3. There should be a photo of this man on the Web site. And, perhaps a few minutes of video (with subtitles) of him talking about the lake.

According to the article, a Russian environmental commission approved the building of an oil pipeline within spitting distance from the lake, but—you many want to sit down for this one—Russian President Vladimir Putin intervened to have the pipeline be at least 25 miles from the lake.
SUGGESTION: The author acknowledges that this move by Putin—“who had previously insinuated that environmentalists were foreign agents”—is a bit unusual.
4. There should, therefore, be a table with a brief outline of Putin’s decisions on the environment.

Also, the author doesn’t mention that Putin’s decision came around the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, which is no small detail.
SUGGESTION:
5. This fact should be mentioned, and the word “Chernobyl” should be hyperlinked to Economist articles on the topic. This will not distract the reader but only provide historical context to those less familiar with the topic.

6. While I’m on the topic of links, the following words should have hyperlinks to Economist articles on the topic: Putin, Irkutsk, Lake Baikal, tourism (to the region), poverty and joblessness (in the region), oil pipeline, etc.

7. Most readers probably don’t know where the lake is, even if they know where Siberia is. There should be “view map of this region” and “view map of suggested oil pipeline” links at the margin.

Lastly, a downloadable audio transcript of the story should be available. This should be available from other great magazines, too, like The New Yorker, The Atlantic, and Harper’s. I prefer to read the printed word, but desperate times—like standing upright in a packed subway without an inch to spare—call for audio articles. And to make a few rubles, these companies can have a short, 10-second ad: “The following article is brought to you by…”

The Unintended Consequences of Various Technologies

Journalists don’t have much to say about the unintended consequences of technology. I believe it is one of the most fascinating topics out there.

Let’s take the personal computer as an example of the technology and writing as an example of the action we want to examine. Certainly, the use of the computer — as opposed to the typewriter — to write has changed not only how we write but what we write. The ability to type 60 words per minute, to cut and paste with ease, to correct errors and forget they ever existed, to go back and change the slightest bit of punctuation — the list seems endless — has certainly brought advantages; yet, at the same time, it has created just as many unintended consequences… The process we use changes the way we think. Imagine for a moment if we’d have to go back to using a sharpened feather and ink to write. Would we write the same things? Wouldn’t the mere pace of our method affect the pace of our thought process? Thousands of questions like this can be raised… but they’re not.

Whenever new technologies come out, little thought is given to their unintended consequences. To a degree, this is justified: the consequences tend to reveal themselves slowly and — most important of all — covertly.

But isn’t it the job of journalists to look under rocks, no matter how heavy they seem?

Journalism and Entertainment

When talking about journalism and entertainment, it is important to make a distinction. I will purposely present a dichotomy whose parts are the opposite sides of a long spectrum: 1) journalism of entertainment vs. 2) entertaining journalism.

1) Covering the entertainment industry. I don’t consider this journalism. I consider this type of “journalism” precisely what it is covering—entertainment, and nothing more. News of movie-star breakups, rock-star drug use, athlete orgies, and so fourth, is not news. There is no value in those stories.
2) Presenting the news in an entertaining way. Legitimate journalism can certainly be done in a witty, interesting manner. I am tempted to use “The Daily Show” as an example, but a case could be made that it isn’t journalism (or that it’s perhaps too entertaining): there’s no original reporting and the interview questions are pretty soft. On the other hand, it filters out a lot of bullshit, especially that of politicians and television news (and the combination).

An example, among many, of a magazine article I found to be gripping and entertaining was “A Foreign Affair: on the great Ukrainian bride hunt,” which appeared in the June 2006 issue of Harper’s. It presented a serious issue—American men looking for, and sometimes finding, “brides” in the Ukraine—in a way that made you care about the characters involved and even about the reporter’s methods (he went undercover and presented himself as an American looking for a “bride”). But not all issues are—pardon the context—so sexy. There is usually no way to present WMDs or the Israeli/Palestinian conflict in a way that is both entertaining and penetrating. They are certainly interesting topics, and should be presented as such, but it is important to keep in mind that the primary goal of a journalist is not to entertain but to inform.

Although journalists should create stories that are relevant, interesting, and when possible witty and entertaining, they should not confuse the meat with the seasonings.

Lastly, I do believe that almost any topic can be relevant and interesting if approached from the right direction. I have already admitted to the slippery nature of the dichotomy I presented in the first paragraph. An interesting and insightful piece can be written about the drug use of a certain rock star, for example, if the journalist asks the right questions of the issue. But asking the wrong questions or sensationalizing the issue makes for a leap across the spectrum—from entertaining journalism to “journalism” of entertainment, from value to nil.