Written for “Advanced Narrative Journalism” independent study course with professor Bob Sipchen at Occidental College, spring 2010.

The Digital Revolution. The Information Era.  The Computer Age.  These are just some of the names used to describe the explosion of the World Wide Web over the past two decades and its opportunities for quick communication and rapid discovery.  Now a new moniker has emerged: The Attention Age.  The Web’s ever-expanding pervasiveness and the surge of social networking opportunities have made information so abundant and accessible that attention itself is the new essential commodity.  As information clamors for attention, many question the future of traditional forms of writing to meet this demand.  Now that we’ve fallen in love with the 140-character “tweet” will readers still turn their attention to more substantial narratives?  Will readers insist on instantaneous bursts of information, packaged for accessibility rather than literary merit?  What will become of the book, the short story or the essay?   Is there a future for narrative journalism, the form that blends fact and literary style?  If narrative journalism continues to be written, where will it be published and read?  Will it be appreciated?  How will the writing and publication of narrative journalism earn the financial support needed to exist?

Early Roots

For evidence that narrative nonfiction will survive, one needs only to examine the roots of storytelling.  As graphic novelist Will Eisner reminds us, “The telling of a story lies deep in the social behavior of human groups – ancient and modern.”[1] In primitive times, people carved drawings onto rock walls.  As language developed people told stories within their social groups, passing them from generation to generation to preserve historic memory.  Storytelling has been a popular form of entertainment throughout time. Even after writing developed and texts supplanted oral stories as historical records, the story form prevailed.  Epic poems such as Homer’s Iliad and the Odyssey as well as the Tanach (Old Testament) and the Bible exemplify society’s storytelling impulse.  Jumping forward to today, the popularity of movies and novels reveals the continued desire to rely on narrative formats.  This makes sense because “The story form is a vehicle for conveying information in an easily absorbed manner,” according to Eisner.[2] Humans have been socialized and taught over centuries of humanity to think in terms of stories – linear narratives with a progression from beginning to end that typically are engaging and entertaining.  While the internet promotes new ways of thinking, it’s doubtful that it can rob the innate love of story and narratives.

Many writers support this idea.  Washington Post staff writer Joel Achenbach wrote, “Story-loving isn’t just culture; it’s biology. The human brain has evolved in such a way as to enable the construction and comprehension of narratives.”[3] Jim Bettinger, the Director of the John S. Knight Fellowships for Professional Journalists, pointed out that “narrative mimics the oral tradition that has proven to be an effective means of communication among humans for thousands of years.”[4] Novelist Jonathan Franzen presented another justification for our need to tell and hear stories. “We experience our lives in narrative form,” he said.  “If you can’t order things in a narrative fashion, your life is a chaotic bowl of mush.”[5] This idea relates to essayist and novelist Joan Didion’s famous observation, “We tell stories to help us survive.”  Similarly, former Washington Post Magazine editor Tom Shroder pointed out, “You cannot stamp out that genetic coding to understand the world through narrative.”[6] He concludes that technology is not the “enemy of narrative.”

The Snare of the World Wide Web

To uphold that claim, we must understand the role of technology in our daily lives.  The reigning technological device of the modern world is the Internet, also known as the World Wide Web.  Often called simply “the Net,” the term provides an apt metaphor for the way people use the Internet to encounter information.  As if approaching a massive sea of information of all kinds and formats, the Web-user casts a net and draws out a diverse sampling of information.  The kind of information retrieved depends on their location or the topic being researched, and the size of the net – the extent of the search.  At this point, the metaphor falters.  While sea creatures out of water are often dead, information on the web is alive in its capacity to propel the user to new sites and locations via links and embedded pages.  One can quickly find near-infinite amounts of information.  Nicholas Carr, who writes about technology and culture, interacts with the Web in the same way that many do.  He often forages in the Web’s “info-thickets’ reading and writing e-mails, scanning headlines and blog posts, watching videos and listening to podcasts, or just tripping from link to link to link.”[7] He adds, “For me, as for others, the Net is becoming a universal medium, the conduit for most of the information that flows through my eyes and ears and into my mind.”  However, Carr isn’t entirely charmed by this notion.  He argued in The Atlantic that Google is “making us stupid” by limiting our ability to grasp deep concepts in our desire to always skim as much as we can.  Social media entrepreneur Timothy Young said the web leads to “infobesity,” arguing that people can’t cope with sucking in too much information.[8] These comments reflect the impulse to view the Internet as a scapegoat for an inability to manage information overload.

In fact, there is much evidence to support that the Internet is not dulling the senses but in fact making people smarter.  David Wolman, journalist and contributing editor for Wired Magazine, affirms this idea, writing, “The explosion of knowledge represented by the Internet and abetted by all sorts of digital technologies makes us more productive and gives us the opportunity to become smarter, not dumber.”[9] As we become more proficient with web use, we develop skills that enable us to absorb large amounts of information quickly, learning more about the world and our place in it. Writer and political commentator Andrew Sullivan supports this idea.  As a blogger, he posts about 300 entries a week.  He says, “I’m certainly not more stupid than I used to be; and I’m much, much, better and more instantly informed.”[10] He also notes that “I process information far more rapidly and seem able to absorb multiple sources of information simultaneously in ways that would have shocked my teenage self.”  As well, these multiple sources of information create context for what we read.  With a grasp of “the bigger picture,” the specifics suddenly become more relevant and significant.  This is important because people are reading more than ever.

While the web features graphics, videos, animations and audio, its main form of expression is text.  As New York Times book-reviewer Motoko Rich pointed out, “spending time on the Web, whether it is looking up something on Google or even britneyspears.org, entails some engagement with text.”[11] Carr noted that, “Thanks to the ubiquity of text on the Internet…we may well be reading more today than we did in the 1970s or 1980s, when television was our medium of choice.”[12] The rise of social media in particular has made web-users writers as well as readers.  Popular sites for user-to-user interaction such as MySpace, Facebook and Twitter all employ writing as the dominant communication form.  Of course, blog-hosting websites such as Blogger and WordPress also make encourage users to develop writing proficiency. While these sites all support photos and video, they are designed around written expression and are largely used for that purpose.  Writing, an extension of speaking, is the most natural, easy, quick and personal way for people to communicate and express themselves.  Immersion in a text-dominated environment encourages people to become better writers.  With so much text available online, people develop an appreciation for writing that is engaging, thoughtful, well-expressed, creative and interesting.  Web-users find little value in reading anything that is poorly expressed.  With so much content available, why waste one’s time with the mediocre?  Web-users are realizing that if they want their own thoughts to be read, they must write well.

The Twitter Threat?

One venue for online writing is the website Twitter, which provides a writing platform for anyone who can construct a message in fewer than 140 characters.  Posts, called “Tweets,” range from the banal to the profound.  The limit on characters makes Twitter the antithesis to long-form narrative writing.  The site has become so popular and has so many users that some are questioning if it will cause an aversion to reading anything longer than Tweet-length.  By all accounts, the answer is no.  As Dan Conover, a former newspaper reporter who considers himself an authority on new media, pointed out, “Human beings process different types of information in different ways, with different needs at different times.”[13] Twitter satisfies our need for quick, brief snippets of information and text, and so will likely endure, but it can’t replace long-form narrative.  As Philip Lee, reporter and narrative journalist author puts it, “Twitter is low impact.”[14] He explains, “No one is being moved by a Tweet, except maybe to marvel at how clever you are.”  In arguing why Twitter isn’t a threat to narrative, he says, “We can’t Tweet stories, and it is the stories we need in order to live.  The Tweets we can live without.”  David Remnick, editor of The New Yorker, agrees, saying “I can’t imagine a world in which the only thing of interest is the brief, the ephemeral, the flickering and the tweeted.”[15]

At the same time, writers are learning to use the site to their advantage.  Reporter and journalism educator Deborah Potter has pointed out that Twitter encourages better writing because users have to get out a message in 140 characters.[16] Succinctness is crucial.  As well, Twitter provides a venue for finding and sharing breaking news.  This can help journalists gather the facts they need to construct a well-researched story.  As well, users can post links to longer stories posted elsewhere.  As a host to accessibility, Twitter can actually complement long-form narrative.  It also provides a welcome contrast.  Conover has pointed out that, “The more efficient, short-form information we consume, the more we’ll long for the pleasures of a good story, nicely presented.”[17]

Digital Tools

While Twitter can direct readers toward narrative stories, many other tools serve to augment the stories themselves.  Photos, illustrations, slideshows, audio-slideshows, videos, maps, charts, and interactive graphics are some examples.  The American Journalism Review has coined the term “charticle” to mean articles that consist solely of these elements, without the full text of an article.[18] But without sacrificing text, many publications place these elements alongside articles in websites.  The “Promise and Peril in South LA” article series on the Los Angeles Times website offers one example.[19] While the articles on South LA’s gang life were published in print with photos, maps and graphics similar to those that appear on the website, the online experience is entirely different.

The main feature of the site is a screen that offers photo slideshows and audio slideshows to accompany each of the 18 articles of the series.  There is also one video. The slideshows feature about 15 photos – far more than could ever be published in print, and in high-quality sharpness and color, too.  The audio slideshows run about three minutes long and are as captivating as video, capturing not just audio-interviews but the sounds of clinching handcuffs, rushing cars and shouting children.  Viewers can also view a map of South LA with various areas and landmarks marked brightly in different colors.  Other links lead to graphs and numbers that visually depict the area’s demographics.  An “About” section offers background information about the article series, as well as links to further information.  It is easy to navigate between the various features, all of which are visually appealing.  The visual and audio presentations help the viewer to visualize and imagine the stories in a way that text cannot.  However, the screen of multi-media features does not stand alone.  The page also includes links to all 18 articles, organized in a list format down the page along with blurbs of summary so that they are easy to browse.  While the slideshows and graphics can give the reader a broader and more visual understanding of gang-life in South LA, they cannot replace the written articles.  However, using these tools in tandem with written articles is an effective strategy for promoting narrative.

As journalists recognize this idea, more and more are learning not only to write well but also how to use digital tools to promote their stories.  In author Michael Connelly’s recent novel The Scarecrow, a reporter at the LA Times laments that he’s being fired and replaced by a “mojo.”  He explains that, “She was what they call a mojo – a mobile journalist nimbly able to file from the field via any electronic means.  She could file text and photos for the website or paper, or video and audio for television and radio partners.  She was trained to do it all…”[20] The newspaper hopes to benefit from the new reporter and her digital skills at the cost of losing a strong reporter with years of experience.

Humor writer Joel Stein is an example of a mojo-type from real life who includes videos with his Time Magazine columns.  He loves video as a way to help readers understand that his stories are real and not exaggerated.  As well, he thinks more people will read his column if there’s an accompanying video.  Stein learned to shoot his own videos because he felt a camera crew was too imposing and worked against him.  When asked if he thinks the new generation of journalists will learn both to write and create videos, Stein noted that even the average person can do that now, and that he himself learned on the job.  In thinking about the role of videos in journalism, Stein mused,

I kinda figure people are just going to stop reading.  There’s just so much video, and it’s so easy to make that why would you read?  Except, when I was starting to think of people just not reading someone explained to me that TV journalism’s been around a long time, the movies have been around a long time, and people are still….reading.  So I kinda figure there’s something about that process that won’t be seen in video.[21]

Even so, he noted “The days of CNN.com being a print site are over.”  But for print journalists, the ability to make videos “just seems like another cool trick to have.”  A group of panelists at a conference hosted by the American Society of Newspaper Editors concluded that “Technology is our friend.”[22] They noted that technology increases accessibility, and that “…we need to use it. We need to reach out to non-readers — young people — to ensure we’re reaching the broadest possible audience.”

However, these innovative tools serve a different purpose from narrative journalism and can’t be used to replace it.  As Shroder explains it, “Narrative journalism is not about delivering information. It’s about delivering the experience of something.”[23] He notes that tools like “sidebars and timelines and hypertext and graphics and mapping” cannot “deliver the sense of experience.”  Even the one exception, video, is a form of narrative.  He also points out that long-form interviews are just “an excuse for the person being interviewed to tell a story.”  Even as journalists develop digital media skills, the ability to write well will retain importance.

The Future

The development of digital story-telling tools comes at a time when many doubt if print publications will stay in business.  While most journalists are shaken by the prospect of the “death of print,” they don’t think it will cause the “death of narrative.”  As Steve Buttry, a journalism educator and former reporter who has outlined new business models for newspapers, put it, “Great storytelling predates newspapers and it will continue if newspapers die.  Stories are how we share the human experience and storytelling is not dependent on technology or business models.”[24] He believes that great storytellers will develop new methods for presenting narrative.  Achenbach wrote, “The story, not the gadget, is what’s irrepressible.  So powerful is the story as a way of communicating that it will even sprout in a cell-phone.”  He’s referring to Japan’s “cellphone novels.”  The books that are written text message by text message became popular enough to garner five out of ten spots on the country’s bestselling novel list in 2008.[25] Conover agrees that “Narrative isn’t under assault.”  Instead, he said “The economic hegemony of mass media is, and with it go the fortunes of journalists who made a living via an advertising subsidy that went away.”[26] Shroder has said that, “Narrative was not an invention of the print media…as print media is struggling and contracting, people think that it could mean the death of narrative journalism as we’ve known it.  I don’t think that’s true.”[27]

Writers must now determine the publication format narrative journalism will take.  It is not as simple as deciding between print and online. Options such as the online publication Flyp[28] and digital reading devices such as the iPad and Kindle all offer different ways of presenting and perceiving narrative.  No matter which format they prefer, writers agree that money is a big factor.  For narrative journalism to flourish, it needs a supportive business model.  As Norman Sims, a journalism professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst said, “The great stories will survive. But the question is who’s going to pay for them. . . . This is not fast food. This is slow food. And it’s expensive.”[29] Shroder also acknowledges that, “The question is who’s going to support the professional collection and craftsmanship required to tell these stories.”  He thinks books might be the answer, citing examples of books on financial collapse and war that have been successful.  He also sees the potential for the development of niche magazines.  On the other hand, Jason Fry, former writer and editor for The Wall Street Journal Online, is reluctant to offer any ideas or guesses for who’s going to pay for “those long stories,” saying “I don’t know that — nobody does.”[30] However, he remains hopeful: “But I do stubbornly maintain that long-form journalism will be a big part of whatever answer emerges.”  Most agree that journalists will creatively adapt to new media and tools in order to continue telling stories.  Carr posits that they have no choice, saying, “As people’s minds become attuned to the crazy quilt of Internet media, traditional media have to adapt to the audience’s new expectations.  Old media have little choice but to play by the new-media rules.”[31] Yet, “rules” are the last thing that writers can depend on.  In fact, writers will need to break out of “the rules” in order to assure the future of narrative journalism.  Only by keeping an open, flexible mind can writers develop the innovations that will allow narrative journalism to survive and thrive, cementing its role in humanity in a way that Twitter can never hope to achieve.

Works Cited

Achenbach, Joel. “The Vestigial Tale.” 28 Oct 2009. The Washington Post. 1 Feb 2010 <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/28/AR2009102804896.html&gt;.

Bettinger, Jim. “Literary Journalism in U.S. Newspapers.” Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas. 1 Feb 2010 <http://www.upc.edu.pe/html/0/0/carreras/periodismo/hojas/JBettinger.htm&gt;.

Buttry, Steve. “Storytellers are challenged, not limited, by Twitter and other digital tools.” 17 Oct 2009.

Stevebuttry.wordpress.com. 1 Feb 2010 <http://stevebuttry.wordpress.com/2009/10/17/storytellers-are-challenged-not-limited-by- twitter-and-other-digital-tools/>.

Carr, Nicholas.  “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”  Jul 2008.  The Atlantic.  1 Feb 2010.   <http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-google-making-us-stupid/6868/>.

Connelly, Michael. The Scarecrow.  New York: Little, Brown and Company, 2009.

Conover, Dan. “Narrative is Dead! Long live Narrative!” 30 Oct 2009. Xarx. 1 Feb 2010

<http://xark.typepad.com/my_weblog/2009/10/narrative-is-dead-long-live-narrative.html >.

Fry, Jason. “Why Long-Form Journalism is Still Relevant.” 9 Dec 2009. Reinventing the Newsroom. 1 Feb 2010 <http://reinventingthenewsroom.wordpress.com/&gt;.

Lee, Philip. “Notes on the Triviality of Twitter.” 16 Oct 2009. PhilipLee.ca. 1 Feb 2010.  <http://philiplee.ca/2009/10/16/notes-on-the-triviality-of-twitter/>.

Onishi, Norimitsu. Thumbs Race as Japan’s Best Sellers Go Cellular. 20 Jan 2008.                 <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/world/asia/20japan.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1>. 1 Feb  2010.

Potter, Deborah. “Twitter vs. Storytelling.” 21 Oct. 2009.  NewsLab. 1 Feb. 2010.  <http://www.newslab.org/2009/10/21/twitter-vs-storytelling/>.

“Promise and Peril in South LA.” Los Angeles Times. 30 Dec. 2009 <http://projects.latimes.com/south-la-gangs/&gt;. 1 Feb 2010.

Rich, Motoko. “Literacy Debate: Online, R U Really Reading?” 27 July 2008. The New York Times. 1 Feb    2010. <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/27/books/27reading.html>

Shroder, Tom. “Nieman Storyboard.” 28 Oct 2009. Harvard College. 1 Feb 2010<http://niemanstoryboard.us/2009/10/28/tom-shroder-former-washington-post-magazine-editor-on-dinner-plates-and-well-done-narrative/&gt;.

Stein, Joel.  Interview with Joel Stein.  Daina Solomon.  20 Apr 2010.

Sullivan, Andrew.  “Google is giving us pond-skater minds” The Times (UK). 1 Feb 2010. <http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/andrew_sullivan/article4136782.ece.

Ward, Butch. “Watchdog Culture: Why You Need it, How You Can Build it.” 28 Jun 2005. Poynter Online.  1 Feb 2010.  <http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=34&aid=82985>.

Wolman, David. “The Critics Need a Reboot: The Internet Hasn’t Led Us Into a New Dark Age.” 18 June 2008. Wired Magazine. 1 Feb. 2010. <http://www.wired.com/culture/culturereviews/magazine/16-09/st_essay>.

Young, Timothy. “Our Changing Information Diet.” 11 Oct 2009. Knowledge is Social. 1 Feb 2010.

<http://knowledgeissocial.com/our-changing-information-diet/>.

---

[1] Page 1, Eisner, Will.  Graphic Storytelling and Visual Narrative.  New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2008.

[2] Page 3, Eisner, Will.  Graphic Storytelling and Visual Narrative.  New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2008.

[3] Achenbach, Joel. “The Vestigial Tale.” 28 Oct 2009. The Washington Post. 1 Feb 2010 <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/28/AR2009102804896.html&gt;.

[4] Bettinger, Jim. “Literary Journalism in U.S. Newspapers.” Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas. 1 Feb 2010 <http://www.upc.edu.pe/html/0/0/carreras/periodismo/hojas/JBettinger.htm&gt;.

[5] Quoted in Achenbach, Joel. “The Vestigial Tale.” 28 Oct 2009. The Washington Post. 1 Feb 2010 <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/28/AR2009102804896.html&gt;.

[6] Shroder, Tom. “Nieman Storyboard.” 28 Oct 2009. Harvard College. 1 Feb 2010 <http://niemanstoryboard.us/2009/10/28/tom-shroder-former-washington-post-magazine-editor-on-dinner-plates-and-well-done-narrative/&gt;.

[7] Carr, Nicholas. “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” Jul 2008. The Atlantic. 1 Feb 2010. <http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-google-making-us-stupid/6868/>.

[8] Young, Timothy. “Our Changing Information Diet.” 11 Oct 2009. Knowledge is Social. 1 Feb 2010.  <http://knowledgeissocial.com/our-changing-information-diet/>.

[9] Wolman, David. The Critics Need a Reboot: The Internet Hasn’t Led Us Into a New Dark Age. 18 June 2008. Wired Magazine. 1 Feb. 2010. <http://www.wired.com/culture/culturereviews/magazine/16-09/st_essay>.

[10] Sullivan, Andrew.  “Google is giving us pond-skater minds” The Times (UK). 1 Feb 2010. <http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/andrew_sullivan/article4136782.ece>.

[11] Rich, Motoko. “Literacy Debate: Online, R U Really Reading?” 27 July 2008. The New York Times. 1 Feb 2010. <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/27/books/27reading.html>.

[12] Carr, Nicholas.  “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” Jul 2008. The Atlantic. 1 Feb 2010. <http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-google-making-us-stupid/6868/>.

[13] Conover, Dan. “Narrative is Dead! Long live Narrative!” 30 Oct 2009. Xarx. 1 Feb 2010 <http://xark.typepad.com/my_weblog/2009/10/narrative-is-dead-long-live-narrative.html >.

[14] Lee, Philip. “Notes on the Triviality of Twitter.” 16 Oct 2009. PhilipLee.ca. 1 Feb 2010. <http://philiplee.ca/2009/10/16/notes-on-the-triviality-of-twitter/>.

[15] Quoted in “The Vestigial Tale.” 28 Oct 2009. The Washington Post. 1 Feb 2010 <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/28/AR2009102804896.html&gt;.

[16] Potter, Deborah. “Twitter vs. Storytelling.” 21 Oct. 2009.  NewsLab. 1 Feb. 2010. <http://www.newslab.org/2009/10/21/twitter-vs-storytelling/>.

[17] Conover, Dan. “Narrative is Dead! Long live Narrative!” 30 Oct 2009. Xarx. 1 Feb 2010 <http://xark.typepad.com/my_weblog/2009/10/narrative-is-dead-long-live-narrative.html >.

[18] Quoted in Achenbach, Joel. “The Vestigial Tale.” 28 Oct 2009. The Washington Post. 1 Feb 2010 <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/28/AR2009102804896.html&gt;.

[19] “Promise and Peril in South LA.” Los Angeles Times. 30 Dec. 2009 <http://projects.latimes.com/south-la-gangs/&gt;. 1 Feb 2010.

[20] Connelly, Michael. The Scarecrow.  New York: Little, Brown and Company, 2009.

[21] Stein, Joel.  Interview with Joel Stein.  Daina Solomon.  20 Apr 2010.

[22] Panelists included Andy Barnes, Chairman of the Board, The Poynter Institute; Jeff Bruce, Executive Editor, Dayton Daily News; Doug Franklin, Publisher, Dayton Daily News; Diane McFarlin, Publisher, Sarasota Herald-Tribune; and Orage Quarles III, Publisher, The News & Observer. Quoted in Ward, Butch. “Watchdog Culture: Why You Need it, How You Can Build it.” 28 Jun 2005. Poynter Online.  1 Feb 2010.  <http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=34&aid=82985>.

[23] Shroder, Tom. “Nieman Storyboard.” 28 Oct 2009. Harvard College. 1 Feb 2010 <http://niemanstoryboard.us/2009/10/28/tom-shroder-former-washington-post-magazine-editor-on-dinner-plates-and-well-done-narrative/&gt;.

[24] Buttry, Steve. “Storytellers are challenged, not limited, by Twitter and other digital tools.” 17 Oct 2009. SteveButtry.Wordpress.com <http://stevebuttry.wordpress.com/2009/10/17/storytellers-are-challenged-not-limited-by-twitter-and-other-digital-tools/>. 1 Feb 2010.

[25] Onishi, Norimitsu. Thumbs Race as Japan’s Best Sellers Go Cellular. 20 Jan 2008. <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/world/asia/20japan.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1>. 1 Feb 2010.

[26] Conover, Dan. “Narrative is Dead! Long live Narrative!” 30 Oct 2009. Xarx. 1 Feb 2010 <http://xark.typepad.com/my_weblog/2009/10/narrative-is-dead-long-live-narrative.html >.

[27] Shroder, Tom. “Nieman Storyboard.” 28 Oct 2009. Harvard College. 1 Feb 2010 <http://niemanstoryboard.us/2009/10/28/tom-shroder-former-washington-post-magazine-editor-on-dinner-plates-and-well-done-narrative/&gt;.

[28] Flypmedia.com

[29] Quoted in Achenbach, Joel. “The Vestigial Tale.” 28 Oct 2009. The Washington Post. 1 Feb 2010 <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/28/AR2009102804896.html&gt;.

[30] Fry, Jason. “Why Long-Form Journalism is Still Relevant.” 9 Dec 2009. Reinventing the Newsroom. 1 Feb 2010 <http://reinventingthenewsroom.wordpress.com/&gt;.

[31] Carr, Nicholas.  “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”  Jul 2008.  The Atlantic.  1 Feb 2010. <http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-google-making-us-stupid/6868/>.