Nora Paul, the limitless newshole, and online journalisms full potential.

After reading this piece I have to say I don't wholey agree with it.

For starters, when it talks about the initial expectations, it doesn't take into account that the full potential of online journalism hadn't really been realised and I don't find it surprising that the internet hasn't been used as a facility to showcase what didn't get put into the final edits of the newspapers. Generally what we read in the papers is what the journalist deemed to be the vital information, what the reader needs and wants to know. I would consider the use of linking to pages relivant to the story, which may be of interest to the reader, is how the internet has been used to give that little bit extra information.

It also doesn't talk about the freedom online journalism brings to the writing. It does briefly mention how a change of style was expected, but I think the internet has made a huge impact on journlism, because it gives it a more personal, intimate feel.

The article also gives he impression that the only way of communication between journalist and reader is email and says that initially it was thought that more communication would be established, but this hasn;t happened. What about comment boxes? And blogs? Thanks to these most news sites have build a bridge between the journalist and the reader.

Over-all I found this article interesting, but as one of the comments described rather 'blind'. I get the impression that she thinks the nation is disapointed that the internet hasn't done for journalism, what was promised. But the internet is providing more possiblities all the time, providing more possibilities for journalism. Developments like blogging, and online only publications weren't invisioned 10 years ago. Maybe online journlism should be given a little more time to develop, it's still reaching it's full potential. Maybe we don't have a limitless newshole just yet, but who knows what will happen 10 years from now?