This is a manual aimed essentially at newspaper reporters, but the Internet has opened up a new world which they, like their colleagues in radio and television, cannot ignore. For the reporter interested in human rights coverage, the Internet is an opportunity.
Kim Fletcher

A New World of Journalism

The Internet has changed the world of information. That's becoming a cliché - everybody says it - but it doesn't change the fact. No other medium is capable of reaching so many people, in so many places, in so few seconds.

The web is a notice board to which the entire world has potential access, so that a story posted in Delhi can be read immediately in Lahore or in Moscow; the Jerusalem Post can find more online readers in New York City than it has circulation in Israel; a disgruntled spy in Britain can publish his colleagues' names where security agents in China can read them.

Voice of America and the BBC World Service achieve near global penetration. The reach of CNN is growing. The satellite empire of Rupert Murdoch expands by the day. All have a broadening reach. But neither radio nor television conveys more than an infinitesimal amount of the information that is available on the World Wide Web.

Newspapers need printing presses and a means of distribution; radio and television stations require a means of broadcasting. These are expensive. All three media are subject to the close scrutiny and sometimes censorship of the state, whether at point of broadcasting or point of reception.

By contrast, the cost of posting on the Internet is tiny and state means of controlling it are few.

How the Old World is Changing....

If we look at the existing print and broadcast media, we see that all are including the Internet in their operations, though they are inconsistent in their reasons for doing so.

In the last five years, most newspapers or any size have developed web sites. Yahoo, one of the top Internet search engines, lists more than 50 newspapers in India with a web edition, plus eight radio and four television services. Some papers, particularly in the United States, have started publishing editions on the web rather than in print, saving the cost of newsprint and making their profit in advertising revenue.

One day, say the hard core Internet enthusiasts, no one will read papers any more. All information will be read online.

Newspapers will never die, say the traditionalists. Who likes reading on screen? The Internet is a gimmick.

Somewhere in between are the publishing pragmatists, who foresee a world in which readers choose the "platform" on which they receive their news, whether it be paper, digital television, mobile phone or computer screen.

In the meantime, most publishers see the web as a means of marketing their titles to readers who would not otherwise buy them and achieving advertising revenue for doing so.

In theory, it would appear commercially suicidal to place information on the web for nothing while simultaneously charging for it at the newsstand, but research suggests that papers are not losing buyers by publishing web editions.

Some, cautiously, allow only a part of their content to appear on the web. Others, bolder, publish not only their entire content, but make it available before the paper is even on the streets. A few - notably the Wall Street Journal, with its specialist, financial audience - are making people pay to read online.

The bold ones are driven, like all journalists, by the desire to be first. Once you have set up a web site, what is the point in putting old news on it? Newspaper web sites find themselves in competition with the radio and television companies, which are used to pumping out live or "real time" news. If papers are to compete online, where the audience expects instant news, they have to do the same.

That means that it is no longer enough to publish online their daily edition. They are turning themselves into 24-hour news operations, which means changing traditional work patterns geared to producing a flow of copy aimed at a single edition of the newspaper.

A good example of the new world was the 2000 Olympics in Sydney, Australia, where time differences meant that newspapers in many parts of the world were printing results and reports hours after readers had heard them. To compensate, many posted reports on the Internet before they appeared in the paper.

Once newspapers start doing this, where does it end? It is easy to see how big news stories and sports results must be posted early on the Internet, but why not features? And editorials? The challenge of the Internet is to rethink the way in which a newspaper and its staff operate.

Such changes are less marked in the world of radio and television, where the media are already used to working around the clock, putting out news as and when it happens. Broadcasters have been quick to put their news on the Internet. For them, the main change is in bringing their news to an audience that might otherwise not see it. The BBC has been particularly efficient in this respect, putting out a very effective news service on the Internet, drawing on its network of staff and special correspondents.

The same is true of news agencies, whose staff are used to filing instant updates, rather than the more considered pieces of newspaper correspondents. Some agencies have toyed with becoming suppliers of news direct to the reader. Most, however, seen their future as it was in the past - the supply of news to broadcasters, newspapers and net publishers.

...And how it is staying the same

The excitement of the new technologies does not mean that the whole world has changed. Everyone said that radio would destroy the newspaper industry. When it didn't, they decided television would be the medium to kill off printed news. Now it is the Internet that will finally put paid to newspapers.

The reality, at least for the foreseeable future, is that the Internet will complement rather than destroy printed media, let alone radio and television. So far, as we have seen above, there are no indications that people are buying fewer papers because of the Internet.

Now that people are no longer amazed by the sheer excitement of the technology, they are looking more closely at the use to which it is being put.

For the early years of the Internet, it was enough merely that a computer screen could download information from the World Wide Web. Then, inevitably, web sites began to compete with each other for an audience.

A vulgar word has come into common play to describe what is on those sites: "content". Where newspaper editors once asked for news stories, or features, or articles for their papers; where broadcasters asked for news bulletins, or programmes, those who run web sites demand "content".

They have used the term as if it could be bought and sold by the bucket load, or in metre lengths, as if "content" were merely multiple words and sentences strung together.

But now the older values are reasserting themselves. A new and more sophisticated Internet audience is demanding not only all the new technology of the medium but also that there be something of quality to see there. They are looking - as they have always looked in newspapers and magazines - for what is well-written, or new or otherwise interesting or entertaining.

The result is that Internet journalism is not different from other forms. The importance of accuracy, of relevance, of clarity remain. A journalist who can write well for a newspaper, news agency, radio or television station is a journalist who can write well for the Net.

The New Rewards...

For the journalist already employed in off-line media, there are new rewards. If journalists want more than anything to be read (and watched and listened to), then their copy goes many times further on the Internet. For some there may even be the opportunity to negotiate new deals with employers.

If they believe they can be first with the news, then they no longer have to wait for the printing press or the news bulletin. British newsmen arrive at their offices these days to find their words already published and dissected on the American West Coast. Correspondents around the world where there is sudden drama, may find themselves talking to a larger audience than they have known before.

But the Internet potentially provides a far greater freedom, in allowing journalists - and anyone else - to publish to the world without the help or hindrance of employer, print works, censor or government.

And the new pitfalls...

The Internet does away with the daily or weekly deadline - but creates a constant, rolling deadline. If newspapers can publish around the clock, how can they do it without having journalists to work around the clock?

It is easy to publish fast on the Internet. Is it too easy? One of the first currencies online has been rumour. But putting something in print doesn't make it true. Journalists need to make sure that they apply the checks and balances of their normal work to publishing online.

And just because your words seem to exist only in cyberspace: don't dare think that the lawyers won't find you.

Writing for the Web

Bob Doran

A journalist who can write well for a newspaper, news agency, radio or television station is a journalist who can write well for the Net.

- Kim Fletcher

The Web is a new medium for journalism, so we need to give some thought to the way we write for it. It's different from radio, because the words are read not heard. It's different from television, because it depends so much on its message being read, rather than seen. And it's different from newspapers, because the words appear on a computer screen, often linked with sound and video, and are read in a different way.

But essentially, people accessing a web-based news site will read the news. So we have to sell them the story in much the same way that a newspaper journalist does. The difference comes in the way we develop the story.

Web users tend to scan news pages rapidly to see if they are of interest, just as a newspaper reader does. If their attention is not immediately grabbed, they'll move to another page or site. So you need to make the opening words - your intro - sharp and interesting. And people are more likely to stay with a site if it's easy on the eye, so avoid long, dense blocks of text .

Some basic rules

Starting your story: Begin with the main points and then work back through the detail. Many people don't scroll down , so the key facts must be in the opening paragraphs. This is crucial for people who get their news on their mobile phones, and the experts think that is going to mean a lot of people in the next few years.

Starting your first sentence: Begin with the key fact; don't build up to it.

DO SAY
Hundreds of children from villages in Murshidabad are being forced to work as beggars, say human rights investigators. According to the New York Times , the children …….

DON'T SAY
The New York Times reports that human rights investigators are claiming that hundreds of children from villages in Murshidabad are being forced to work as beggars .

Most people will stop reading before they get to the real story .

Writing style: Use short , simple sentences and short, simple words . Keep subordinate clauses to a minimum.

Paragraphs: Limit each paragraph to one sentence or two very short ones. And only one big idea per sentence .

The look of the page: make your page easy on the eye. Use short paragraphs and don't clutter up the screen. Empty space makes the page easy to take in.

Length: 300-400 words is a useful average length for a story, depending on its importance .

Boxes: Look for ways of taking complicated material out of the main body of the story and presenting it in a separate box . These boxes help to make the page look more attractive, but more important, they make the information easier to digest . Some examples:

Bullet points: If you've got a list of points, such as the main elements of a treaty or the provisions of a new law, it may be easier to digest if you present them as bullet points in a separate box rather than as part of the main text.

Quote boxes: If you've got a strong quote , that can also be put in its own "quote box ''. It doesn't matter whether the quote is repeated in the main text or not. You can decide that depending on the importance of the quote to the story.

Maps/Graphics: Instead of a lengthy explanation of where a place is , you can show it with a map. Similarly, you can make complicated figures easier to understand by making a graph or chart.

Headlines: Headlines must sell the story, so make them attention-grabbing. Don't make them too long - a maximum of six words, and short words at that. The headline needs to make sense in isolation but should not contain too much detail. Don't make them too clever or cryptic, which puts a lot of people off . A suitable headline on the Murshidabad story might be, "Village children forced to beg ". It makes sense but it's not too long . And beware of unintentional ambiguity. In London, the Metropolitan Police promised protection to potential witnesses in a murder case. The headline was: "Met Pledge to Murder Witnesses". The double meaning's not hard to spot!

Sub-heads: It's helpful to the reader if you insert a brief sub-heading every few paragraphs, especially when you're moving on to a new aspect of the story . It helps the user understand the development of the story, and also makes the page appear more lively. But keep sub-heads short, in bold type, and don't repeat what follows in the text word for word.

Page links: On bigger stories, you may have enough information to create separate pages on certain aspects of the subject. You can then link to these stories from the main page , so the user can click from one to the other and back again. You can even link to other sites for the reader who wants to explore the story even more thoroughly.

Punctuation: Take care to get this right. It's not like radio or television, where the audience doesn't see your mistakes. If you get it wrong, you will lose credibility and confuse the reader.

Commas: Too many commas can look messy, but sometimes they're vital to meaning. To write, for example: "As dawn approached the villagers……", looks odd, because it suggests dawn is approaching the villagers and nobody else . If you write: " As dawn approached, the villagers…..", it makes sense.

If you listen to what you write - as a radio journalist must - you can hear where the commas should fall, and if you need too many of them in one sentence, then the sentence is either too long or too complex. Re-write it. Two short sentences are generally better than one long one.

Apostrophes have two main uses: to show that something has been shortened by leaving letters out - can't , won't , shouldn't - and to show possession - my father's village, my parents' home. The latter use can be very important. Madras residents' refuse to be put in bins means one thing. Madras residents refuse to be put in bins means something very different.

Hyphens: these can change the meaning of what you say, so don't leave them out. Mothers-to-be attacked is different from Mothers to be attacked. Dashes are also useful, as more user-friendly alternatives to brackets and as a way of linking two statements without the more divisive effect of colons or semi-colons.

When you've finished your story, go back over it with a web reader in mind and get rid of any superfluous words or information. Clarity and ease of reading are all important.

And always remember that sound journalistic principles apply as much to writing for the web as to any other kind of journalism. So:

Don't make a mountain out of a mole-hill. Web users are suspicious of stories which are clearly oversold. They are far more likely to read your work and trust it if it's not obviously blown up and overwritten.

Don't build your house upon the sand. There is a lot of unreliable material on the net. If you want your site to be trusted, if you want people to come back to it, make sure your news is accurate, fair, well-sourced and dependable.

Oh, and avoid clichés, like the plague!