By Joshua Le Suer


The first printing press was invented by Johann Gutenberg in 1450, according to an on-line site. Everybody who ever sat through an entire season of "Jeopardy" knows that. What these people may not know is how the printing press revolutionized the medieval world. The printing press wrested knowledge from the grip of the church and allowed for wide distribution literature. The very first presses were the very same used by farmers in making olive oil. A heavy screw would force a printing block against the paper below. An operator manipulated a lever which increased and relieved the pressure of the block against the paper. Not only did many have knowledge at their fingertips that they never could with hand-printed texts, but the Web site even goes so far as to say that the Bard's masterworks may not be with us today if not for the inspiration of Gutenberg's widget.

Now here we are in the 21st century, experiencing a second renaissance in how knowledge is spread. The Internet allows anyone with even the most rudimentary hunt-and-peck typing skills and primitive sense of grammar to air his opinion globally. Sites such as www.epinions.com, www.bn.com, www.amazon.com, www.imdb.com and www.mrqe.com, not to mention countless forums, are available to let people gas about the products they purchase and the movies they see, give vent to their secret sexual fantasies and personal grudges.

Yes, everyone has a voice, but is there any voice worth hearing? Is there anybody slinging the lingo on the World Wide Web who has any credibility, intelligence, who is presenting well-researched, unbiased opinions? In other words, are there any good writers and are they getting the respect they deserve?

For the answers to these broad questions, two writers for the Web magazine Salon.com, Jeff Stark and Andrew Leonard, have volunteered to interface about their experiences as Web wordsmiths.

Stark never worked for a daily newspaper, though he worked for four years at alternative weeklies in Denver and San Francisco. He's freelanced at "Spin" and "Wired." For the past four years Stark's been the associate editor for arts and entertainment at Salon.

Concerning his own Web site, Stark asserts, "I think good writers know good writing - no matter what venue. Most media people know about Salon and generally respect it to some degree."

"I think writing for the Web is somewhat more accepted as a legitimate pursuit than once was," Stark says, "primarily because now at least most people know what the Web is."

As to whether Web word slingers are more credible than when they first appeared, Stark states, "More credible than whom? Geraldo? Sure...The answer is 'No.' Web writers are still not as legitimate with the general public - like my parents - or the industry - I work with movie companies - as traditonal newspaper or magazine writers. A lot of people think that Web writers are either BBS cranks or Matt Drudge-Harry Knowles types - fast and loose with the facts, quick to sensation."

As to whether there is a greater abundance of good Web writers, Stark declares, "No. Actually, there are fewer. At least, fewer professionals. In the earlier days of the Web, you had all these publications created by young writers who thought they were the revolution. Salon was started by newspaper writers fleeing their boring daily papers. Suck and Feed were both established by even younger writers. It turned out that it isn't so easy to make money on-line, and that has killed some good journalistic efforts. There are more bloggers now, but that's a different skill."

Leonard, the technology and business editor, weighing in on the topic, states, "I think these might have been meaningful questions back in the mid-90s, when Web publishing was just getting started, but at this point there is so much overlap between print publications and the Web that it isn't too useful, in my mind, to draw too many distinctions. The main thing separating Web publications from print publications is that purely Web-based publications aren't yet profitable, which is a big problem for doing quality, independent, on-line journalism."

Although, as Leonard and Stark both agree, the Web has yet to start turning out tidy profits for most of the writers who slave away at their PCs night and day to fill it with data both trivial and of deep import, if a farmer's olive oil press can change the world, than surely a storehouse of information as wide-reaching and abysmal as the Web will one day, as they say, do a Rocky, and gain some measure of success to match the great tradition of print writing.