1 What does the newspaper jargon "below the fold" mean in digital terms? There is, obviously, no fold and, in this case, the video is above the bottom of the screen.

2 If you go to the main page, you won't see the stuff "below the fold", you have to click "more" to see it.

3 Ah. That's strange. Then the newspaper jargon equivalent of that should be "after the jump" rather than "below the fold." Turning to the indicated page for the continuation of a newspaper story is going "to the jump." In case you care. ;-)

4 What are you, some kind of journalist or something?

All the blogs use "below the fold", that's bloggish for "what you see when you click "more"".

5 You should read a blog's "about" file, then you wouldn't have to ask. I spent 35 year as an editor/reporter in newspapers. It's strange that bloggers would adopt newspaper jargon, but even stranger that they would use it incorrectly.

6 We don't like today's "journalists" too much, that's much of the raison de etre for the righty blogosphere.

And I don't know about incorrectly.
You're not going to another part of the "blog" to see the rest of the story, you're just "unfolding" it to read the rest.

7 It's incorrect in newspaper jargon. Bloggers obviously can do what they like with it. It's strange, though, that they would do anything with newspaper jargon, given the dislike you mention. Closer to contempt, from what I've seen. And often justified, if a little shrill from time to time.

8 Why is it what I said incorrect? You can't just say, "That's incorrect".

I like my explanation. What's wrong with it?

Follow "after the jump" and you're in a completely different part of the paper, sometimes another section, usually a bunch of pages away, Patterico loves the LA Times use of "after the jump" where they hide info they don't like 17 pages away.
Click "below the fold" and you've just "opened" the paper(blog) to read the rest of the article, just like "below the fold" in the newspaper.

"After the Jump" would work at say, the Jawa Report, where the co-bloggers link to their own websites for the rest of the article.

9 I should say, my point is that's your opinion, not objective fact as you seem to imply.

You can't equate blogs to physical papers in any point for point way.

10 It's incorrect in newspaper jargon. That's objective fact, not just my opinion. I'm not equating blogs and newspapers. Just talking about newspaper jargon which is where "below the fold" comes from. It didn't originate with bloggers.

The jump page is always inside, whether three pages away or seventeen. And "hiding" things there, I assume, just means whatever fact that Patterico thinks is being "hidden" is way down in the story, so it winds up on the jump page instead of on the front page where Patterico (I guess) thinks it ought to be. Whatever it is.

I understand your "unfolding" usage. It's a reasonable interpretation. But it's a new use of the old jargon.

11 What I didn't make clear, I guess, is that "below the fold" in newspaper jargon means something that is on the front page but below where it's been folded to fit in a newspaper rack on the street. So what you see in the rack is the front page "above the fold." The way bloggers are using it is incorrect in newspaper jargon, but that's just an academic point. It's purely of interest, I guess, to someone who worked in newspapers and sees bloggers using the jargon but using it in a new way.

12 That's what I was hoping for, you to tell me why I'm wrong instead of just telling me I'm wrong.

But it's a new use of the old jargon.

I agree, but I think it fits better, you don't. Maybe you're right, but I bet I could find some newspaper people to agree that "below the fold" fits better.
Of course, I could probably find magazine people who would say it should say "continued".
We're bloggers, if we're not outraging someone (or showing Star Wars porn) we're not getting hits. 

I have my problems with Patterico, but he has the LA Times' number.
Do a search for patterico "after the jump", and read the hits from his site, it's an interesting read. He notices how often the headline is disproved by something, "after the jump". 
His year end review of his coverage of the LA Times' coverage is pretty interesting too.
Just don't disagree with him, he doesn't take that well.

13 Lots of bloggers don't do well with disagreement. Some, like Instapundit, don't even take comments. I stopped for a while, but I figured out I could just delete them if people got nasty with me. But being definite, assertive, feisty, etc., gets you hits, as you say. And the hits are the only way most of us have of keeping score.

I have read Patterico, once in a while, though I don't recall him using the "after the jump" phrase. But, then, if I saw it, I wouldn't think anything about it, since it's "correct" to me. I think he's a lawyer, a group that's usually well below journalists in opinion polls, who are already near the bottom in popularity and trust.

I don't disagree that newspapers are a) liberal, b) treat conservatives and conservative issues badly, and c) are often wrong. I don't intend to defend them. Most of them are pretty bad. When I retired I was freed to do what I want. The stuff I write on my blog is shocking to a lot of my old newspaper colleagues who are more liberal than I am. Some comment on it in emails. Most ignore me. They never comment on the blog because they're afraid of their names being seen there. Heh.

It's easy, as you say Patterico does, to say the true headline is deeper in a story, because sometimes it is, either by accident or by design. In the news biz that's calling "burying the lead," the lead being the first one or two paragraphs and the headline. But it's not always the reporter's choice. Editors rewrite as well as edit and editors are closer to management's wishes.

But some conservative bloggers aren't fair in criticizing newspapers. Without them or the AP what would we have to comment on? And writing headlines is hard, even (or especially) when the headline writer is trying to be fair and accurate. Bloggers get a taste of that trying to summarize a post with a good title.

14 I didn't mean they were burying the lede, I meant that the info in the story belied the lead.
They did it with a lot of "Bush lied" stories. The headline would say something that Bush said wasn't true, but "after the jump" was something that showed it was the truth.
He also claimed it was a way to "hide" stuff they were ethically required to print. He called it "the power of the jump", not "after the jump", he also notes its placement in the physical paper.

He's been doing it for years.

I'll stick up for Instapundit, he gets so much traffic that his comments were more cesspool than conversation. He's tried it a few times and it's been heavily guarded after the first few times. But it takes a lot of dedication.

He's been well hated forever. I'm sure you've seen the Four Horsemen of the Ablogalypse deal, he was usually listed first.
That was like 6 year or more years ago and he's pretty much always been one of the most trafficked bloggers.
As I'm sure you've noticed, all comment threads that go over 100 comments are all exactly the same, full of threats and insults after about comment 110.

I usually get in trouble at a blog where I can't argue with the blogger. I don't agree with everything anybody says, including myself.

I don't mind people disagreeing with me, I enjoy it.
Just tell me why I'm wrong.
Attack my words instead of me. If you can't explain why I'm wrong, you will never change my mind. I don't care who agrees with you or how racist you think my words are.