Peter gives worthwhile paise to the e-zine you are reading right now.

On Line Opinion is a vehicle which encourages discussion of a wide range of topics, discussion being the key word here.

For so long, whatever appeared in the old hard press was the outcome of the reportage, but also sometimes personal opinions, of a relatively small number of people whose pronouncements were made with limited opportunity for readership reaction or comment.
There was a degree of tokenism in the "letters to the editor" sections in which that publication's attitudes would seldom be contested or challenged.
I feel that frustration developed in readers who felt left out of any chance of personal engagement with the news.

Sure - there have always been publications targeted to specialised groups but the story content was usually equally specialised, meaning that societal knowledge was restricted in terms of attitude and opinion.

What Peter does not discuss is the electronic media's role in opening public discussion more widely.
This began with the introduction of broadcast radio with it's regular, broad news reportage, later it's adoption of the radical talkback format.
Television then followed adding the communication subtlety of imagery in shaping opinion, and thereafter the enormous one-to one power of the internet allowed highly personalised debate about any topic.

We enjoy this right here in OLO in which a vast amount of innovative and creative posts help to dissolve the arcane nature of many issues. We also are able to enjoy an amount of sceptical amusement at the recurring thought of some contributors.
Although OLO Editor, Graham, may recoil at the suggestion, I hope that the day does not arrive where this publication is so heavily saturated with advertising that it threatens the presence of articles.

But then that is one example of where E-journalism can benefit - the removal of physical size constraint, leaving only the boredom of overlength writing as a constraint.

The papers are all suffering loss of circulation because people are finding better ways to get their news and reliable information. Tough titty; they deserve everything that happens to them.

One paper a day over twelve months is a thousand dollars PA.
I can spend a grand in many happier ways.
Boat, diving gear...zap that's gone!
Dan

Its a pity that the billion dollars a year given to the abc/sbs is by and larged used for propaganda. There seems to be enough eyes on olo to see through the flood of marxist rubbish. The world would be a much better place if all the marxist sponsored nonsense on most American, European and Australian networks ceased. It is good having a forum like olo to express opinions.

From the article at head of this thread by Peter Curson, copied and pasted here; "In the final analysis, On Line Opinion pioneered a new form of e-journalism for engaged citizens in Australia focusing on social and political debate about issues relevant to Australian society. For this it deserves considerable recognition."

I think Graham Webb deserves absolute recognition.

Peter,

This is an excellent, though brief, discussion on the movement towards e-journalism.

I hit a brick wall with the pay wall of the hard copy newspaper that has become e-newspaper. For example, The Brisbane Times (Fairfax) used to be free online. It's not anymore. Today, The Sydney Morning Herald (Fairfax) only granted me access to 3 free articles. When I can't read items from the BT online I go to The Canberra Times (also Fairfax) and generally am able to read the articles online. Why is there no pay wall at the Canberra Times?

If the e-newspapers continue this approach, it will push more of us to ABC News and its free bulletins.

Why can't e-newspapers give free access and gain revenue from advertisers online, like radio and TV have done for years and years?