I think the big takeaway from Kenny Goldsmith’s article is that the way written work is presented makes an impact on how the content itself is perceived. The example he used of the New York Times article was a good one because NYT has an authoritative reputation. I’ve noticed that many newspapers use stripped down versions of what their physical papers have for their websites because it’s easier for people to scroll through. Still, when you see the article as a clipping, it holds way more authority than the online version. I think part of the reason for this is that content that is on the internet doesn’t really hold as much credibility as something that somebody made the effort to print on paper. How many times have you heard the question “Do you really believe everything you read on the internet?” Since virtually anybody can post content online, there is a lot information out there that should be taken with a grain of salt. This doesn’t necessarily mean that the news you find on the NYT website is not as reliable as what you find would read in their physical paper, but I think most people are more skeptical about online content.
I had an English professor last year who insisted that we turn in our essays as if they were being published in scholarly journals. This meant he wanted us to use fonts that suggested a certain amount of academic prestige–, like Garamond. He also insisted that we use 1.5 spacing as opposed to college standard double because you’d most likely see 1.5 in an academic review. Obviously since we were only writing for him, we realized that our work wasn’t going to be published in a literary magazine but I think the point he was trying to make was that presentation matters.
The example used in the article is very effective to show how different the same story can seem based on what it looks like. The image of the newspaper looks pretty standard and authoritative, though of course it looks less serious on the website since it didn’t have the same layout as the physical version. The email version was completely stripped down and you probably wouldn’t even know where it came from if it didn’t say so in the heading. When the text is copied and pasted from the email to a word processor, it loses pretty much all of the original authority afforded by the New York Times.