Two threads of thinking that formed, eventually, the Internet:

• explosion of information, particularly after WWI

• Cold War defense; if we are attacked, the communication system needs to survive

DoD led development of computers and systems that could communicate over long distances

Computers in the 1960s and 1970s were mainly for academic and defense purposes; no one much thought about them for everyday use by lay people; newspaper industry began automatic typesetting in 1960s and some kind of automated copy entry in the 1970s (with IBM Selectric typewriters, of all things)

By 1980s, the "personal computer" had come into being; the first for the general public dealt with text and bizarre, computer-only codes. Then, in 1984, there was the Macintosh, the computer for the rest of us.

And by the early 1990s, the technical structure was in place to allow them to begin communicating fairly easily; actually, this structure existed in the 1980s, but it was difficult to get to and opaque in its operation. Mass media organizations – particularly newspapers – didn't think much about using them to share information. The big thought of newspapers in the 1980s was television and something called videotex (don't ask).

But, in the 1990s, this thing called the World Wide Web came into being, and "web sites" developed – whatever they were. They were novelties, and few people thought of using them seriously for communication purposes. The web, at first, was a good place for geeks to hang out.

Unfortunately, newspapers held to that thought for far too long.

General attitude among newspapers:

• Ignore it – it will never amount to anything.

• Nobody ever made any money off the web. (We were still hearing this one as late as 1999.)

• OK, we gotta have a web site – as long as it doesn't cost very much.

• Advertising departments: it doesn't mean anything to us.

• Just give it to the geeks – or the young guys. (Bob Benz says that the Rocky Mountain News' first site was produced by the two guys in the newsroom who had ponytails.)

The phenomenon of shovelware

These attitudes led to a truly bad thing: shovelware.

Shovelware means:

• whatever we do for print is automatically transferable to the web

• it's cheap

• it doesn't require many people

• we got a web site so we're cool

• we don't have to think about it very much

Actually, shovelware worked in a sense; the inverted pyramid news story structure just happened to be a good one for the web; lucky break for newspapers.

But shovelware led to an awful dilemma for newspapers; they were giving away on the web what they were trying to sell in print. And newspapers were still not taking advantage of advertising possibilities – or the possibilities of developing content AND advertising.

News organizations, particularly newspapers, found it hard to look past shovelware; even if they began selling advertising for the web, which many did, they did not see its audience-building possibilities.

Shovelware was particularly unsuitable for television news organizations.

• broadcast copy has little shelf life

• video was very difficult to get onto a site

• CNN realized it was really in the newspaper business when it produced its web site

Characteristics of the web

Nor did newspapers (or news organizations in general) see the possibilities of the characteristics of the web: immediacy, capacity, flexibility, permanence, interactivity. And, of course, they did not see how this was going to change journalism.

A few newspapers had an inkling, however. One was the New York Times, which produced the web site we see now in 1996.

• even then, print stayed supreme in both content and appearance

Others who leapt ahead on the web

• Chicago Tribune

• Washington Post

• MSNBC (NBC and Microsoft)

• Washington Post

Some thought it was a good idea to develop completely different web site with different identities, particularly Newhouse newspapers. (I don't think this is a good idea at all.)

Ironically, what most newspapers and man other news organizations didn't recognize about the web was that IT IS A NEWS MEDIUM. It demands new information, all the time. But other organizations did recognize that – and that's the real irony.

-- Court TV

-- Major League Baseball

and others realized that they had information that people wanted. This led to some vital and innovative web sites: ex: WebMD, Craigslist

So, where are we today?

I wish I could say that newspapers have seen the light, that they have righted themselves and their sites, and that we are well on the way to realizing the full potential of the web.

Unfortunately, we're not.

The culture of journalism is so strong that there is till much denial in the news business that the web is legitimate and has value. We are not anywhere close to realizing and understanding this new medium. This generation of students will be the ones to put us on that road.

(Posted Jan. 24, 2006)