"I'm OK with the idea that standards might be a smidge lower online"

Anyone else find that kinda scary? In the print world, say a daily paper, I presume an article has to be in by (I really don't know and am guessing) 11pm? 10pm? to make the next day's edition...online the 11am edition needs to have the article in by 10:59am...if anything, the standards for the web should be higher given the ease at which an item is published.

I read a great deal online and am constantly amazed (although I shouldn't be) at what passes for "fact" or even research...I've had people claim something to me (from wikipedia of course) and then gone to check and find "needs citation"...

With budget cutbacks, 24 hour reporting comes laziness...far too few well thought out or researched ideas...it's simply easier to produce something based on hearsay, press releases or simply what sounds reasonable enough to be true....

Deadlines depend on the paper, but they usually range from 9 p.m. to midnight, depending on how many editions they print. Whereas deadlines for blogs and online posts are usually much earlier and more frequent - which is why I think the story alluded to slightly lower standards, since it's impossible to produce the same depth in 3 hours than in 8-10 hours.

I don't think the author meant to lower standards in terms of accuracy or fairness - just in terms of complexity. So, instead of calling five sources, you might call two. But the reporter still has to check the facts and present all sides of the story. I don't think any publication - online or not - would deliberately compromise that.