If you haven't had a good reason to whack yourself in the forehead today, here's one: In Britain the notoriously luddite National Union of Journalists is arguing against the placement of plasma displays in the newsroom of the Independent showing what's live on the newspaper's website. The rival Observer quotes a union official:"We are worried that such large visual displays are being sited directly above staff, and the stress they could bring through visual disturbance and heat." (Thanks to journalism.co.uk for the link.)
Comments
Don't know about the visual disturbance, but I agree on the heat
In our newsroom we have plasma screens too. They radiate an unbelievable amount of heat. But in a modern news room they need overview screens such as this, so the union rep should have angled this in a positive fashioned and demand LCD screens instead. They're much cooler (as in colder).
The initial problem I can see
The initial problem I can see is that there is nothing interactive about viewing your paper's website on a plasma screen as it is a completely passive way of looking at what you've got up.
Wouldn't it be better to encourage all employees to look at the website from their desks, where they can interact with the contact, not to mention the proofreading and link-checking that happens as an added bonus? This would also familiarise journalists with how readers are using what they produce and how it can be improved.
If a paper's journalists don't know what's on their own website already, a plasma screen isn't going to change many minds.
While the union reason may well be the right response for entirely the wrong reasons, I think Luddite is a bit wide of the mark -- surely it depends on what the screens are being used for? Are they just to show that the newsroom is "on board" with digital publishing? Or to look cool for visiting dignitaries? Or do they serve a useful function that isn't served by other means such as a PC?