I do try to find a weblink for quotes I find in the print Guardian. Today in print the Review has The Week In Books on page 5 with Philip Ardagh suggesting that it "would have been nice" if "someone bookish" and linked to the announcement of Pottermore had nudged the organisers of the Carnegie and Kate Greenaway medals. both had less publicity thatn some would think right. thing is though, maybe the online world is connecting better with the telling of stories. There are publishers in London at some sort of prize ceremony most weeks. And why is this the aspect of the news of most interest for the Guardian in print.

When I look online I can't find "The Week In Books" but there is a blog post that considers the implications for the book trade.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/booksblog/2011/jun/23/pottermore-jk-rowling-marketing-genius-harry-potter

A Radiohead moment, no less.

So there seems to be two versions of the Guardian now. In print the assumption that books should be promoted in print through awards ceremonies in London that should be widely reported in print by the sort of people who also go to them. Then online, a fairly different set of assumptions for people who look online.

Should I carry on spending money to be shaken by the print version, then have to look online to find something sensible?

Not sure this will carry on for much longer. If JK Rowling can do a switch, whatever next?

The Guardian can report on the finances of Haymarket. Could it work vice versa? there will be a future online equivalent of both but there is a story on how we get there.