Digital Media = Brevity?

Emily Bell in the Opinion page in The Guardian's Media Suppliment (11th Jan 2010) made fascinating point about a previosuly unknown (unknown to me at least) benefit of digital media.

Unlike her traditional print media article for the paper which has to fill a certain amount of space, digital media allows for a reappraisal of "what is enough in terms of good reporting, or commentary". Unlike the print media, digital media has no minimum or maximum word limit.

Bell points out that the format media is being presented on is changing rapidly as the technology revolution is altering the way we access media. Just as users are questioning the need for music albums as a format (if music is being downloaded why have a dozen tracks when I only like two or three of the songs) or the need for TV channels now that their favourite programmes are available online; we are now questiong the way our news is delivered.

She argues that "content, journalism, programmes and visual communication" will have to become comfortable moving onto the "smaller screen" as we start accessing them on mobile technology.

Despite the need to be versitile (ability to be accessed on the smaller screen) this doesn't translate directly into an increased apitite for brevity.

Despite the success of Twitter (which limits posts to a mere 140 characters) there is evidence according to Bell that "well differentiated long form content is as eagerly consumed as the quick soundbite". She points to statistics on The Guardian website which showed that a feature piece in the G2 suppliment (on Victorian sewers of all things) was the most viewed article of that specific month, which challeneges preconvied ideas of the results of the switch to digital media.

In addition Bell even questions the need for quotes in the new media as journalists can now link to other articles, statements or blogs.

As academic work, research and articles will be increasingly posted and debated online there is a tendancy to assume that for it to compete in the Twitter age the authors will need to be both brief and exciting - however this is an assumption which isn't supported by evidence.