Long Form Journalism and the Web
Two perspectives on the compatibility of long form journalism and web audiences.
The first from TIME.com Managing Editor, Josh Tyrangiel, who states that 95% of TIME.com content is original to the web and doesn't show up in the print edition of the magazine because readers want intelligent reporting -- quick -- when they read news online and what's in the print edition is just too long.
And from the New York Times assistant managing editor and editor of The Times Magazine, Gerald Marzorati, who states in his response to a reader's inquiry posted in Talk to the Times that "long form reporting and ambitious photography" are the essence of the Magazine. And, opposite from Tyrangiel's claims about TIME.com, the longer pieces attract the most traffic.
The first from TIME.com Managing Editor, Josh Tyrangiel, who states that 95% of TIME.com content is original to the web and doesn't show up in the print edition of the magazine because readers want intelligent reporting -- quick -- when they read news online and what's in the print edition is just too long.
And from the New York Times assistant managing editor and editor of The Times Magazine, Gerald Marzorati, who states in his response to a reader's inquiry posted in Talk to the Times that "long form reporting and ambitious photography" are the essence of the Magazine. And, opposite from Tyrangiel's claims about TIME.com, the longer pieces attract the most traffic.
Staying True to the Mission
Q. Could you comment on how changes that have occurred in the various magazine as a result of the NY Times needing to cut back financially have affected the way you and your staff choose, cover and report stories. Has this made a change in the topics you cover or the depth you give them? Has your staff been reduced? Are people able to deliver the same quality? Do the topics you cover have less range? Are there any improvements that have occurred? — Judith Feinleib, Belmont, Mass.
A. Dear Ms. Feinleib: I am not going to sit here and tell you that the cutbacks that have happened at the Magazine, or magazines, were painless. We no longer publish Play, the sports magazine we launched several years ago that in its brief life managed to win awards, publish memorable pieces (David Foster Wallace on Roger Federer, for example, which I found myself thinking about just yesterday, watching Federer glide to still another championship), and find many, many fans. In the weekly magazine, we no longer publish The Funny Pages; a magazine is a mix, and the diversion that fiction and serial comics provided is missed. Style pages are gone from the weekly magazine, too, which is hard not only because those pages have been a part of the magazine since its founding but because those beautiful full-page photographs of fashion and design lifted each issue visually.
That said, the cuts have not threatened the magazine's essence. THAT is and remains long-form reporting and the ambitious photography that accompanies it. We do no less of either. We make no decisions about which stories to pursue based on cost — we have not cut back on foreign coverage, for example; nor have we asked those writing and photographing for the magazine to spend less time on a story. Long-form journalism is very expensive, especially in war-torn areas of the world, but we will continue to do it and do it well because that's what our readers look to us for. (See yesterday's issue.) And, contrary to conventional wisdom, it's our longest pieces that attract the most online traffic.
Q. Could you comment on how changes that have occurred in the various magazine as a result of the NY Times needing to cut back financially have affected the way you and your staff choose, cover and report stories. Has this made a change in the topics you cover or the depth you give them? Has your staff been reduced? Are people able to deliver the same quality? Do the topics you cover have less range? Are there any improvements that have occurred? — Judith Feinleib, Belmont, Mass.
A. Dear Ms. Feinleib: I am not going to sit here and tell you that the cutbacks that have happened at the Magazine, or magazines, were painless. We no longer publish Play, the sports magazine we launched several years ago that in its brief life managed to win awards, publish memorable pieces (David Foster Wallace on Roger Federer, for example, which I found myself thinking about just yesterday, watching Federer glide to still another championship), and find many, many fans. In the weekly magazine, we no longer publish The Funny Pages; a magazine is a mix, and the diversion that fiction and serial comics provided is missed. Style pages are gone from the weekly magazine, too, which is hard not only because those pages have been a part of the magazine since its founding but because those beautiful full-page photographs of fashion and design lifted each issue visually.
That said, the cuts have not threatened the magazine's essence. THAT is and remains long-form reporting and the ambitious photography that accompanies it. We do no less of either. We make no decisions about which stories to pursue based on cost — we have not cut back on foreign coverage, for example; nor have we asked those writing and photographing for the magazine to spend less time on a story. Long-form journalism is very expensive, especially in war-torn areas of the world, but we will continue to do it and do it well because that's what our readers look to us for. (See yesterday's issue.) And, contrary to conventional wisdom, it's our longest pieces that attract the most online traffic.