Electronic media affects the discourse in several ways. At each site the travel discourse is approached in two very different ways. Salon and Wanderlust are designed for use on an electronic medium, whereas the Lonely Planet is designed on the print model and adapted for hypertext. This makes an enormous difference in the results produced by each site and the feeling that the browser gets from contributing to the site.
"The figure of the hypertext author approaches, even if it does not entirely merge with, that of the reader; the functions of reader and writer become more deeply entwined with each other than ever before." Landow p. 71 Wanderlust allows the reader to freely add comments to the site, and in doing so accomplishes what Landow was talking about. It is truly blurs the boundaries and even breaks down the distinctions between readers and writers. The main difference between the sites is that at Wanderlust the reader has free range to add to the text, while at Lonely Planet, the readers comments are filtered through by the authors and researchers of the site. This seemingly minor detail is monumental when looking at discourse. Each of the methods of allowing browsers to be a part of the text give the reader a much different feeling. At Wanderlust, the structure and the medium allow the reader the feeling of freedom and contribution. It brings the readers closer to the text and to each other by allowing them to add their thoughts and share their own experiences whenever they desire. At Lonely Planet, that feeling is not present because even if the reader's comments are posted, they are not posted instantly. Moreover, the readers are simply adding suggestions and tips for fellow travelers. Occasionally, a reader will contribute their thoughts about at topic, but for the most part the information is very practical.
These two sites are good examples of how the medium affects the discourse because even though they both are on the same medium they produce different results. This indicates what the medium is capable of doing, depending on the use. What is important is to realize that while the medium does allow browsers to be authors, in order to have a successful conversation/discussion on-line, the site must be designed with this intention in mind. So while the medium plays a role in facilitating on-line discussion, it must be combined with a site that is properly structured for that purpose.
Wanderlust has that exact intention and goal. They are attempting to add to discourse by using electronic media. They believe that "communication in the 90's can be more than the ugly cacophony of talk radio." They seek to recapture and celebrate the feelings that travel can provide; feelings like adventure and escapism that are so deeply cherished by the travel community. So far, from what I've noticed in reading Table Talk, Wanderlust has been successful in generating conversation about travel. Each story and topic has at least a couple of reader-generated responses, and some of them have pages and pages of dialogue. The medium in combination with a well-formatted site and intelligent articles, provide a great atmosphere for the traveling community to share their love of re-telling their stories.
Lonely Planet does not provide a similar feeling. The site is simply a print publication altered for electronic media, and it is not successful in encouraging on-line discourse. The browser is not able to share authorship and as a result the reader has a different relationship and attitude toward the site. In the end what is produced is information in the form of a "postcard," a term that even suggests information from the print model.
The medium affects the text and the reader when total control is taken away from the author and given to the reader. At travel sites, when the all control is relinquished from the author the result is much a more productive and open discourse. When control is maintain by the author, the reader has little incentive or interest to contribute. Realizing that these two sites have different origins and intentions, I think what is important to understand that the Lonely Planet could be an excellent location for travel discourse, but currently it is not. Lonely Planet does have the advantage of name recognition and an excellent reputation within the travel community. The population is there. It already has a following and with the proper structure in combination with the media it could be a natural site for productive on-line discussions. Wanderlust is half-way there. Their name may be recognizable within the computer-literary community, now they just need to tap into the travel community so they can increase participation.