When I have a subscription to Newsweek, which I get when they’re desperate enough to make me an offer I can’t refuse, one of the features I’ve enjoyed most is when they bring together a group of actors for which there is potentially Academy Awards buzz. But this year’s issue was lackluster, and I know why: some of the best stuff was excised and placed on the Daily Beast website. I’m sitting, reading my magazine, and the last thing I want to do is turn on some electronic device. Especially if I’m reading a week-old magazine and am having trouble FINDING the related piece.
Worse is PARADE magazine. On the page right after the cover, there’s a box with a quote, and we’re supposed to guess which celebrity said it. But the answer is not within the pages of the magazine. No, I have to go to Wonderwall.com. I don’t FEEL like going to Wonderwall.com; I’ve been there, and it’s cheesy and a slow-loading site to boot, which I find difficult to navigate.
Of course, lots of TV shows do the same thing. Jon Stewart on the Daily Show, will have an interview run long, and he’ll throw “the complete interview up on the web.” But this bothers me less, because there is a limit to a 30-minute commercial show, and usually I’ve gotten some substance from what HAS aired, so if I don’t get a chance to go online, it usually still has value. And it’s so much easier, now that the website has a dedicated link for the extended interviews.
News networks often have more on the websites: 60 Minutes Overtime gives behind-the-scenes info for some stories. The difference, I guess, is that I can watch the 60 Minutes story on TV, for instance, without going to the website, and feel as though I have a complete enough narrative; the website merely enhances it. While the PARADE example, I either go to the website, or I simply can’t answer the question; I’m FORCED to go online.
Does any of this bother you the way it bugs me?