Lists for sure. Don’t work with them but I do enjoy them from time to time: who doesn’t love a Buzzfeed list comprising of red panda GIFs?! Saying that, I think there is something to be learned from the blog form, although I still do prefer the rigorousness of an online publication that acts like one, and as such has (read: employs) a stable of editors that ensure facts are correct, and text is proofed.
Yes, but I find it interesting how many galleries still place more importance on the print review. As a writer who publishes both online and off, I also find it incredibly curious how writing is devalued online, especially among the more active blog sites that publish content daily (or relentlessly?).
Yes and Yes.
Yes, you definitely get a better sense of who is reading and how the text is being circulated, and how it has been received, though it only allows for a partial image of ‘your public’, I guess.
Yes and No. Again, depends on the publication, though I would say it certainly doesn’t affect the breadth of research or references to sources, online or off. I would say what changes my approach is actually the working structure of the publication in question: Do they have a robust editorial system? Do they remunerate their writers for their labour or do they take advantage of blogging as a kind of casual labour (which it is not, if you take your craft seriously)? etc.
Yes and no. It depends on what publication I am writing for, and what kind of writing I am producing, and so on.