The sports website for my high school is not up to par with the ESPN website. It's organized pretty well, but it doesn't look as clean as the ESPN website. There are advertisements on both sides of the page, so the text is in a block down the middle of the page. The site has a menu bar which viewers can scroll through to find the particular sport they're looking for. There are also team pictures that flash at the top of the page, and there are updates of upcoming events. Below that information are the "Wildkit Announcements", which are stories written about the teams and their sporting events. For a high school website, it's a good website. The information is well presented so it's easy for one to find what they're looking for. The text and the pictures flow well together. Although the high school website may not be as high caliber of a website as ESPN, it still serves its purpose.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
ESPN vs. ETHS- Let the Games Begin!
I am comparing the website of ESPN to my high school's sports website. The ESPN website looks more official, because the type is bolder, crisper, and cleaner. The menu bar is also easier to use because the option are lined up near the top of the page. The text easily guides the reader to where they want to go. The stories are also organized well and they fit the space on the page well. The website has a good mix of text and pictures, and the website overall looks very professional. It's also nice because the page is not overtaken by advertisements, so the information is easy to focus on. Sometime advertisements can be distracting, but this page looks clean and sharp.
Monday, October 27, 2008
National vs. Local
For this blog piece, I’m comparing the websites of a national TV news station and a local TV station.
CNN’s homepage (cnn.com) has lots of options on it. The different options appeal to many different demographics, which is key. There are lots of graphics and nearly 30 stories I can link to. The page also has a really nice layout and the design makes it not feel cluttered; it is very simple and user friendly.
Newschannel21’s homepage (newschannel21.com) is not nearly as wonderful as CNN’s, as it feels very cluttered and has several ads that distract the reader from the news. Although I love the color blue, this homepage is so saturated in it that it is just way too busy. Also, the website displays two different names – Newschannel21 and KTVZ. The site also displays the name “z21”, which is what the news channel was called three years ago before it was changed to Newschannel21. But anyway, the page has too many graphics and I feel that it detracts from the page overall.
When you go to an article on CNN, you immediately see the headline of the story and a few story highlights. The highlights are a great feature because you can just get the facts and go. On the pages with articles, CNN also has a list of the 10 most viewed stories at any given time, which is nice because the average reader will probably only read what others feel is important. These attributes make the page more user friendly.
Even on the pages with stories in them, Newschannel21’s pages are saturated with ads. The page layout is very simple and not impressive. But, I do really like that at the bottom of each story; you have the option to rate the story and comment about it. I find that it is usually very interesting what locals have to say about hometown issues.
It is difficult to compare the content of the two websites as the both have a very different niche in the news world. Newschannel21 is great when I want to see highlights of my sister’s last soccer game or when I feel the need to catch up on news at home. But CNN is great for getting information about world and national events.
Overall, CNN is the better website because of it’s layout and user friendly options and Newschannel21 would be better off if they made their website simpler and more logical.
CNN’s homepage (cnn.com) has lots of options on it. The different options appeal to many different demographics, which is key. There are lots of graphics and nearly 30 stories I can link to. The page also has a really nice layout and the design makes it not feel cluttered; it is very simple and user friendly.
Newschannel21’s homepage (newschannel21.com) is not nearly as wonderful as CNN’s, as it feels very cluttered and has several ads that distract the reader from the news. Although I love the color blue, this homepage is so saturated in it that it is just way too busy. Also, the website displays two different names – Newschannel21 and KTVZ. The site also displays the name “z21”, which is what the news channel was called three years ago before it was changed to Newschannel21. But anyway, the page has too many graphics and I feel that it detracts from the page overall.
When you go to an article on CNN, you immediately see the headline of the story and a few story highlights. The highlights are a great feature because you can just get the facts and go. On the pages with articles, CNN also has a list of the 10 most viewed stories at any given time, which is nice because the average reader will probably only read what others feel is important. These attributes make the page more user friendly.
Even on the pages with stories in them, Newschannel21’s pages are saturated with ads. The page layout is very simple and not impressive. But, I do really like that at the bottom of each story; you have the option to rate the story and comment about it. I find that it is usually very interesting what locals have to say about hometown issues.
It is difficult to compare the content of the two websites as the both have a very different niche in the news world. Newschannel21 is great when I want to see highlights of my sister’s last soccer game or when I feel the need to catch up on news at home. But CNN is great for getting information about world and national events.
Overall, CNN is the better website because of it’s layout and user friendly options and Newschannel21 would be better off if they made their website simpler and more logical.
Hometown News...
I took a look at the websites of papers that my hometown people usually look to for news...
The Rolla Daily News is the paper from where I was born and raised, Rolla, Missouri. At first glance I couldn't tell whether or not I liked it, it is boring, but I could tell it was at least organized, and I'm not gonna lie - it is better than I expected from them...
The homepage is a lot like other papers, with featured articles, a picture or two, ads along the right... I didn't like the advertisement on the left column, it distracted me, and it moved, which was just irritating. I liked the tabs for different topics along the top, and that the weather was always there too. By the weather there was a search bar, which was convenient. If I were them I would make sure to put the title way bigger, instead of having it small and putting an election advertisement next to it. It was very obvious that it was a site for a smaller town, with articles about PCRMC, the highway control, Dollar General, and the Rolla Marching Band.
STLtoday is much more technologically advanced than Rolla's. I liked the layout much better, with a rotating section of featured articles accompanied by big pictures to catch your attention near the top. There are scattered ads, but they don't annoy me like the ones from Rolla's site, and the name of the site is more prominent. There is a similar bar with the different subjects, but here there is a drop down menu when you run your mouse over it to narrow down your interests. There is more information on the site as well, with some local stories, but with more state and national news too. Another thing that I like a lot from this site is that there is more reader input - there are featured photos, a 'most popular' articles section, and you can comment on articles if you are a member. And this one isn't so boring...
For me, I don't mind either of them, I would prefer STLtoday, but it is nice to get more localized news from Rolla's. It works well to get a combination of both, which is what my family always did, but I wouldn't say either of them are bad, just different.
ABQ Journal vs. NY Times
When I was at home, I got basically all of my news from The Albuquerque Journal (abqjournal.com) and local TV stations. Every once in a while I would visit The New York Times' website (nytimes.com) for a different perspective.
The Albuquerque Journal website does have some advertisements, but on the first frame of the homepage you see the ABQjournal Video section, Albuquerque weather, a search box and hot search topics, as well as tabs to different sections of the paper. A little bit below that they have the ABQNews Seeker and an ABQ Arrest Map and a picture of the front page of the paper with a link to the eJournal login on the left side bar. The layout is simple with three columns and boxes separating the sections within the columns. The content is very recent, with crime information last updated at 1:17 PM MST. The main story is about Tony Hillerman who died on Sunday night. This story is both local and national news because Hillerman taught journalism at the University of New Mexico for more than 20 years and lived in New Mexico for more than half a century. Although the majority of the news is from the Albuquerque Metro Area and New Mexico in general, they do have national and international news.
The ABQ Journal has 4 other editions, The Mountain View Telegraph, The Rio Rancho Journal, The Journal North/Santa Fe and The West Side Journal, that has the majority of the same news but some information that is more relevant to the different parts of New Mexico it is delivered to.
The New York Times website is definitely more focused on national news and has less specifically New York news because their audience is so diverse. Their website looks very clean, but I think it could use some more color. The main story is about the presidential election and politics, of course. I like that you can individualize the website by going to My Times so you can choose what kind of content you would like to see.
The Tony Hillerman article that was #1 on the ABQ Journal website is #4 on NY Times, showing that the different audiences want a different kind of news. I really like both websites, but overall, being an Albuquerque native, I am more interested in the news on ABQ Journal because it seems more relevant to me, even though NY Times is easier to navigate and is less cluttered.
Blogs are just better.
When it comes to news and information updates there's no better way, in my opinion, than a blog. Blogs are easily updated daily and can easily adjust to breaking news stories.
Engadget is a prime example of a blog that uses simplicity to get technology news out quickly, with a little personal flair to it as well. Its design is clean and simple, using blues, grays, and whites, which is also easy on the eye's. It header is crisp and if your a nerd very clever. It keeps its adds to the side which make's it very easy to avoid having to look at them. It updates relevant technology news. The site steers clear of a lot of rumors that don't have a whole lot of clear sources behind them and posts a lot of interesting stories about technology. The best feature of the site is its story layout. It has the most recent post on the top of the page and all you have to do is scroll down. Most of the time all you have to do is read the blurb underneath the picture to understand the topic of discussion.
The Drudge Report is a very popular blog, frequented many times a day. I however, can't stand the layout. When I visit the page to see what the major news stories of the day are, I find it very hard to find anything. There is no continuity to how the posts are laid out. On one side of the page the topics can range from the economy to something about the environment. There is no blurb telling what the story is about. All there is is a headline, giving very little information. I do however like the large headline at the top of the page. It usually has a very important topic and is usually of great interest. However, it is still just a headline sometimes followed by a picture. Not a whole lot of information and I usually lose interest in the article very quickly.
I think that one day blogs and RSS feeds will play a much larger roll in getting information out to the public. Americans like things quickly and immediately. Even the iPhone and its access to a fully functioning web browser isn't as fast as push email or an RSS feed sent directly to your phone. Getting the news out in a simpler format may be the best way to go for us fast paced Americans.
Local vs. National?
So for my blog I decided to see how a local news site would stand up to a national news website, let's say Fox News' site. So for my local news I decided I'd go with Fox 2 News' site, which is the local affiliate of Fox in my hometown of St. Louis (cheap plug). Before I compared the two I thought the sites would be similar, with Fox two being an affiliate of Fox. I found out that I was mistaken, when I looked at both sites.
First, we have my local station Fox 2. When you first open the page your eyes are drawn to the picture of the top news story on the left side of the page. Underneath that story summary are other selections for top news stories. As you scroll down you'll find more news stories and links that have to do with St. Louis and some global news. At the top of the page is a number of buttons; each of which will take you to a different type of news (weather, entertainment, etc). Along with all this there are some adds on the bottom of the page and on the right side. While the site is laid out very nicely, it feels a bit cluttered, as if they we're trying to cram a much news as they could on one page.
Now we move on to Fox News' site. This one really surprised me. Now I'm no fan of Fox News, and visiting the site didn't help much. The first thing you see is, again, the picture of the main story, dead center of the site. To the left is a number of links to the other stories. However, they are just that, links. There are no pictures, no flashy icons, just a link to the story. As I scrolled down I found that the layout wasn't bad. It had different sections for all the different kinds of news as you might expect. It didn't help the main problem of the whole site to me though, that being that the website was terrible boring.
Overall I actually liked my local news site a lot better than the national. It was more colorful and was laid out a bit better despite being cluttered. In the end, I think I'd go to the local website than the national for my news.
St. Louis Post Dispatch vs. Columbia Tribune
The St. Louis Post Dispatch's website (STLtoday.com) is fairly appealing. It is a little boring with its lack of color, but it is an informational website and fulfills its job well. The site is well organized and not too cluttered. It has a search box at the top along with list of topics. I like how the topics stretch horizontally across the screen, but when you move the cursor over them, a drop down box comes and it is a little annoying. Under the topics is a box that changes pictures between a few hot stories. To the right of the picture is a box with two tabs, Top headlines and Columns and blogs. As you scroll down the page, there are more specific stories. They take the topics from the top of the page and have a little section on each listing top stories, including videos from select stories. I am most pleased with the fact that the page is not being consumed by ad after ad. Overall, I like this website a lot. It is easy to find what you need and looks appealing because it is not overdone.
The Columbia Tribune has no search box at the top and basically consists of four columns. The first is a navigational list of topics, and the second is of a picture with a ton of top local news stories following. The third is a long list of AP top stories, and the fourth is today's front page, most visited stories, and Election 2008 information. In my opinion, this website has way too much information on one page. It looks very crammed and does not pull out top stories, there are just too many there. It think the best thing about this website is that the advertisements are not intruding on the information. They are off to the right or at the bottom of the page.
From evaluating these websites, I have found that the St. Louis Post Dispatch definitely has a better website in comparison to the Columbia Tribune, but when looking for some local Columbia news, this website is the place to go. It has a lot of information and you can find just about anything that you are looking for. The St. Louis Post Dispatch is more attractive to viewers and easier to navigate, but they both have information, from local to nation news, so I would say that they both serve their purpose of bringing the news to the people just fine.
SportingNews takes on the BBC sports
When a person calls upon their internet to get some type of news or story, they want it to be a couple of different things. They mostly want it to be convenient to use and easy to look at. That is why they are looking at the internet in the first place, because it is readily available and they can access the information they want to get quicker. That being said, some sites are better at accomplishing this than others are. I am going to look at two sports pages and see exactly how they stack up against one another in their quality and ease to which a person can navigate them.
SportingNews.com is a site that covers specifically sports stories. When you first enter the site there is one large graphic on the left. Next to the large graphic there are the top stories that are really easy to see. I really like the set-up that this website uses as far as the placement of their stories and their graphics. On the right of the screen there is a large advertisement, but it doesn't really get in the way of anything. Another thing that I really like about the site is that they place all of the scores at the top of the screen and they are all there for you to look at. There is an auto refresh as well, which is a nice feature when you are looking at it to see what the live scores are. Then at the bottom of the page they have stories that are divided into categories based on which sport you are interested in. this is a nice feature because it makes navigating to the stories that you specifically want to read that much easier. The last thing about this site that I absolutely am obsessed with, is that they give you access to their radio station as well and you an listen to live feeds any time you want. SportingNews is my first choice when it comes to finding a website that is easy to use and I want to look at.
BBC sports, however, is a poorly designed site that makes me feel a little queasy whenever I look at it. When you enter the page there is just one picture in the middle of it, with the story right next to it. There are maybe a couple of stories off to the side as well, but there is basically only one one story that may interest you. They only cover a few sports, so if you are looking for something in particular you might as well give up and go look someplace else. It is also not very easy to navigate and not very pleasing to they eye. There is a lot of text, which I normally like, but in this case there is too much of it. Besides the text there is not much else on the page, and you are left wondering if they are always on a slow news day. Whatever the case BBC news is not the place to go if you are looking for an informative sports news website.
Hometown Quality: The Star Tribune vs. The New York Times
For the longest time I have gotten my news from one main source, that being the Minneapolis Star Tribune. The paper itself has given me every sort of news I have needed in the years I have lived in Minnesota. While their hard copy of their paper is great, the online edition is just as good. Even when putting it up against some of the nations largest papers, the Trib seems to hold up to their content and quality of their online counterparts. One of the biggest papers in the nation, The New York Times, was perfect to compare to the Star Tribune.
One of the main qualities of the Star Tribune I always enjoyed was it's local feel, and it's ability to still deliver on strong national content. The first thing you see on the site isn't the most breaking international news, but local stories that more of the public can connect to. There is no reference to a national or international story until the bottom of the page. If you do want to find news on a larger scale, it is easy enough to find by using the convenient tabs at the top of the site, outlining almost everything that the Trib has to offer. The site also manages to keep the same feel of the hard copy paper by maintaining it's green and black look that so many connect to the paper.
The Star Tribune also manages to integrate other forms of media into the site better that other sites I have seen. Right below the breaking news stories sits a multimedia player that shows everything ranging from prep sports wins to world economic news. Even an appearance of The Prairie Home Companion radio show on occasion. The one downside to the side of the site is the slight feeling of it being cluttered. Links to the latest news and most popular news fill the right side of the screen while attempting to squeeze in advertisements as well. Other than this flaw, the Star Tribune manages to create a website that engages Minnesotans with local and international news.
The New York Times other the other hand also creates a site that replicates it's hard copy with its look and feel. Yet, the first thing you see on the site is not information on the latest New York news, but the latest news of what is happening throughout the world. Since it is The New York Times, this content seems to fit with the reader base. People all over the world come to the Times to get their news. Many people may find this site to be more informative do to this sort of content.
The multimedia is set up much like the Star Tribune, with a media player right below the main stories. Instead of having sports and other local stories, everything consists of the latest breaking news, as well as fluff regarding entertainment and health. The NYT also manages to allow readers to take the stories they enjoy and share them throughout the web on social networking sites such as Digg and Facebook.
When looking at these two sites, it really comes down to your personal preference of what type of information you like to read. If you are someone who cares more about the news around home and the state, you would defiantly would prefer the content of the Star Tribune. If you enjoying hearing more of the international buzz and more fluff stories, the NYT is for you. Either one is a solid choice for obtaining good news content.
South Bay Smackdown: Weekly vs. Merc
If you’re on the hunt for news in the south end of the California’s Bay Area, you’ll probably see two newspapers fighting for most of the rack space: the hometown paper, the Palo Alto Weekly and the much larger regional broadsheet, the San Jose Mercury News.
The fight is even harder on the Internet, because both papers see an advantage in what is probably a microcosm of the future battle in online journalism: The Weekly figures it can dominate local coverage with up-to-the-moment stories because it is physically close to stories; the Mercury provides fast coverage, with a larger budget to bring readers video and a broader range of columnist blogs.
Ask around about the Weekly’s Web site in town and the favorite feature is their TownSquare Forum. It’s popular for the same reason that letters to the editor used to be: people feel their opinion gets noticed. The difference on the web is that you don’t have to limit the number of letters (typically 2-3 in the print edition) for page space. Instead, a reader can comment on several stories and can do so in brief little blurbs instead of an extended letter, so that debates in the comments really resemble a discussion.
The Weekly’s site, however, has a couple of big problems. Probably the biggest for me is the ad (usually animated) sandwiched between the flag and top story. It’s a big distraction (perhaps a selling point?), since it’s just bigger than any story on the page.
Second is a personal peeve of mine, the lack of section organization. You’ll see this in the sidebar, but I believe that stories from each section should be represented on the front page, think (alert: personal bias) the Maneater, or my old high school paper.
The Merc, as its known casually, does a better job of this. The top of the front page is still dominated by local news, but sections are clear in a bar that is prominent on the page. That paper also does a skillful job of integrating blogs, with a top box that also identifies the authors I like. Ads are also well-managed here: they have a place on the page to pay the bills, but its clear the paper isn’t slave to its advertisers.
Were I to be vested with the power to change the Merc’s webpage, I’d probably tweak it just a little bit. I think they should move up their breaking news box to be right under the blogs in the right-center bar, with paper stories in the left-center where they have the video box. Really, the breaking news features are what seperates a news Web site from the paper.
I don’t know where I’d move the videos; I might just cut the number of ‘paper’ stories to the spotlight and then two more. Really, the site is pretty well-balanced, I just think the priorities could be different.
Sorry this went long, but these are both good papers and deserve a little bit of space.
The fight is even harder on the Internet, because both papers see an advantage in what is probably a microcosm of the future battle in online journalism: The Weekly figures it can dominate local coverage with up-to-the-moment stories because it is physically close to stories; the Mercury provides fast coverage, with a larger budget to bring readers video and a broader range of columnist blogs.
Ask around about the Weekly’s Web site in town and the favorite feature is their TownSquare Forum. It’s popular for the same reason that letters to the editor used to be: people feel their opinion gets noticed. The difference on the web is that you don’t have to limit the number of letters (typically 2-3 in the print edition) for page space. Instead, a reader can comment on several stories and can do so in brief little blurbs instead of an extended letter, so that debates in the comments really resemble a discussion.
The Weekly’s site, however, has a couple of big problems. Probably the biggest for me is the ad (usually animated) sandwiched between the flag and top story. It’s a big distraction (perhaps a selling point?), since it’s just bigger than any story on the page.
Second is a personal peeve of mine, the lack of section organization. You’ll see this in the sidebar, but I believe that stories from each section should be represented on the front page, think (alert: personal bias) the Maneater, or my old high school paper.
The Merc, as its known casually, does a better job of this. The top of the front page is still dominated by local news, but sections are clear in a bar that is prominent on the page. That paper also does a skillful job of integrating blogs, with a top box that also identifies the authors I like. Ads are also well-managed here: they have a place on the page to pay the bills, but its clear the paper isn’t slave to its advertisers.
Were I to be vested with the power to change the Merc’s webpage, I’d probably tweak it just a little bit. I think they should move up their breaking news box to be right under the blogs in the right-center bar, with paper stories in the left-center where they have the video box. Really, the breaking news features are what seperates a news Web site from the paper.
I don’t know where I’d move the videos; I might just cut the number of ‘paper’ stories to the spotlight and then two more. Really, the site is pretty well-balanced, I just think the priorities could be different.
Sorry this went long, but these are both good papers and deserve a little bit of space.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
MTV News versus Australian
OK so the news websites that I picked were mtv.com/news and news.com.au. Both relatively good pages, MTV obviously being more entertainment based, but whatever. First of all on format, both of the websites have their main stories to the left, with the biggest picture and headline. It works well for them, but the main difference that I notice here is that MTV has a picture of the person talked about in the news article- Jennifer Hudson- but the picture has nothing to do with the actual event, which is that she is offering $100,000 to whomever finds her nephew. I'm not hating on this, in fact, this is a normal practice of websites that are more entertainment- related and not directly supported by a news TV station or newspaper. AU, however, has a more news-in-action picture, but the story itself seems to be fluff, a feature piece. It's interesting to me that they would use that as their attention getter- some story about video games and how their fan base is getting older.
From this point, they kind of use the same format in that they have the rest of their big stories sitting one on top of another in the center of the page, although MTV has little pictures to go with theirs. The MTV site is more flashy, in accordance with the channel on TV, and it has a dark blue patterned background and a few more graphics than does AU, which has a white background. They both feature ads at the top and, scrolling down the page, more ads to the right, but not too many. MTV has their stories in 3 categories, split by parallel vertical lines that are not eye-catching- Music, Movies, and Games news. AU has a better system, which puts each category into a colored box and has a main story for each with a picture.
Both sites have a place to post comments on each story, and a prominent blog section. MTV has a more obvious place for which to view videos, but both of them are generous with their photo galleries.
The diverse things about them - MTV has a moving graphic which at the top reads 'YOUR OPINION' and scrolls through a few fan comments on the stories. They have a separate video section called 'must see'. Most of their features, in fact, involve viewing videos and pictures. They have an 'ABC' search section at the top of the page, but it's for searching artists, not stories. Again, they are an entertainment based news web page, so whatever. AU, however, has a few interesting things that I don't think that you would find on the NY Times webpage. For example, they offer options to personalize the page by dragging the category boxes around or clicking certain things to expand so that you can see them. They really make this feature obvious. Another thing that I found amusing was their news graphic titled 'WTF (Weird True Freaky)' That had pictures rotating though with headlines on them, a few of which were so interesting sounding that I clicked on them. They refresh every 10 minutes or so, and they have sections like 'breaking news' and 'most popular'. They have their different categories also listed across the top of the page, in case you are too lazy to scroll down. Oh, and they have a section called Stars 'n' Snipes, and guess what country that section is about. Haha. At least they are concerned with affairs outside of their own country. They also feature a horoscope section.
Overall, I'm gonna have to say that personally, AU was the site for me. I just couldn't stop checking out the stories on their page! Crazy Aussies.
The Chicago Tribune vs. The Daily Herald
As a resident of the Chicagoland area for eighteen years, I grew up with two newspapers in my life: The Chicago Tribune and The Daily Herald, a newspaper that focused on the suburbs of Chicago. While both these newspapers report similar news, the designs of their corresponding news websites (chicagotribune.com, dailyherald.com) are vastly different.
The Tribune website has a much cleaner layout than that of the Herald. Its letterhead is simple, and the use of negative space on the Tribune website is appropriate and easier on the eyes. This is the website’s strength. Moreover, the advertising is correctly placed (upper right-hand side of the page and along the edges of the page) and does not disturb the viewer’s consumption of the news. The pictures are the proper size and the crop adds visual interest. For example, the website has a photo story section that displays “25 inspirational pumpkin craving.” The crop on the picture teaser on the website’s homepage focuses on the detail of two carvings that are portraits of President Bush and Senator Obama. Also, I feel that the Chicago Tribune homepage contains a good mix of top news and entertainment (“soft news”)—like “The Lighter Side” and a link to their corresponding entertainment website, chicago.metromix.com.
The Herald website, on the other hand, is crowded. On the letterhead space alone, the designers jammed the name of the paper, an animated teaser, the search bar, and tabs to browse the classified section all along the top of the webpage. The congestion did not end there. As you scroll further down the viewer is bombarded with countless headline links, ridiculously small pictures, and misplaced advertisement. The pictures that accompany the video teasers and some stories are too small to decipher that they have nothing to offer the design or in creating interest in a story.
But I do like how you can post a comment on the articles on the Daily Herald website and view other readers’ comments as well. Also, I like how both the websites have a section reserved for popular stories: most viewed, most emailed etc. that is fairly easy to locate.
The Tribune website has a much cleaner layout than that of the Herald. Its letterhead is simple, and the use of negative space on the Tribune website is appropriate and easier on the eyes. This is the website’s strength. Moreover, the advertising is correctly placed (upper right-hand side of the page and along the edges of the page) and does not disturb the viewer’s consumption of the news. The pictures are the proper size and the crop adds visual interest. For example, the website has a photo story section that displays “25 inspirational pumpkin craving.” The crop on the picture teaser on the website’s homepage focuses on the detail of two carvings that are portraits of President Bush and Senator Obama. Also, I feel that the Chicago Tribune homepage contains a good mix of top news and entertainment (“soft news”)—like “The Lighter Side” and a link to their corresponding entertainment website, chicago.metromix.com.
The Herald website, on the other hand, is crowded. On the letterhead space alone, the designers jammed the name of the paper, an animated teaser, the search bar, and tabs to browse the classified section all along the top of the webpage. The congestion did not end there. As you scroll further down the viewer is bombarded with countless headline links, ridiculously small pictures, and misplaced advertisement. The pictures that accompany the video teasers and some stories are too small to decipher that they have nothing to offer the design or in creating interest in a story.
But I do like how you can post a comment on the articles on the Daily Herald website and view other readers’ comments as well. Also, I like how both the websites have a section reserved for popular stories: most viewed, most emailed etc. that is fairly easy to locate.
CNN vs BBC
Television gives us a ton of valuable information, depending on what channel is on. Even better, we can now have access to this information online! Two triple-letter organizations that pop into mind: CNN and BBC. Both are dedicated to reporting the news, but each chooses a unique layout for their website.
Both include their names on the upper left corner and advertisements on the right, with stories and blurbs mingling in between. The CNN page focuses more on Latest News, which takes up a large part of their front page, and only later are small categories such as Sports and Travel. The BBC page, however, headlines one large feature and then separates other news blurbs into boxes with headings, photos, and blurbs. This highlights the main story under each topic. Farther down, they too have one-line headings for other stories that are relevant to certain topics, displayed as links with main ideas. The CNN site puts more of a focus on videos, keeping them at the top of the page and making them visible with thumbnail images, while the BBC site has links to videos further down on the page.
The CNN site has a lot more content on its front page, including quick stock market information and a poll for users. The BBC site keeps it simple, but offers links to information for other places, as it is a worldly news source. BBC also allows you to Customize your Homepage at the top, while the CNN site features "Hot Topics" and tabs with major topics at the top. Because CNN is more geared toward the US than the globe, it also features a little box about the election, granting quick access to specific topics that users may be looking to read about.
Overall, each site design is geared toward a specific purpose, which is, in turn, revealed by the design. It's possible to determine a news outlet's goal simply by looking at the website. CNN is more geared toward the US; it has "hot" topics right at your fingertips, such as the election, and features videos; it is a television station, after all. BBC is more of a global news source, giving users the option to customize their homepage based on location as well as topics they may be interested in, while also offering general topics on their front page to users who may just be looking to keep up with big news. They choose what is generally newsworthy, but also let their users decide for themselves, since they are coming from all parts of the world. Like anything else, your experience depends upon what the news source is.
My favorite place to receive new is from the Chicago Tribune. The layout for the website is very well done and easy to navigate. Right on the top of the web page reads “Chicago Tribune” with the date and local temperature. On the top left side of the page there is a search bar and on the right side there are listings for cars, jobs, real estate ect.- very convenient. Further down on the left side of the page, there are subjects that can take you to specific articles such as Local News, Business, Politics, and Travel. This makes it very easy for people to just point and click on the articles or subjects that they wish to read about. In the very center of the page, you can find major headlines, accompanied by pictures and videos. Also, the Tribune will put a couple of headlines on their home page, all of which are sorted by subject. Another great feature on this website is by putting the cursor over a certain subject, a window will pop up with a list of subtopics. For example, when the cursor is over Chicago Weather, subtopics such as “Tom skiing blog”, “ Almanac”, and “Moraine Weather” will show up. When looking at politics, you can choose from local or national, or even between McCain and Obama. A unique feature that the Tribune offers is the “Columnists” section. Here, you can choose between sports, news, business, entertainment, ect., and the name and picture of each columnist in that specific subject will show up, along with the article that they wrote for that day, or week.
When I go to the site for The New York Times, I immediately notice that the page is very busy. While everything is organized, it just seems that there are too many headlines on one page, and it is a little distracting. Another problem that I have with this page is the font. While it may not seem like a big deal, the font has a great impact on a person’s ability to focus and read an article. While fonts such as Times is fine for the headline, simple fonts are better for the bulk of the article because it is much easier to read and less distracting.This whole internet thing will blow over as soon as nerds get tired of arguing about Star Trek
*Note: Blogger can go to hell. It deleted this whole thing the first time around*
I've been on and around the Internet for about 7 years now, so I've seen as things have changed from AOL's splash page to all the shiny, upload it, leave comments features of "web 2.0." The only thing that all these new bells and whistles have granted us as is a faster, easier, way to act stupid and waste time without the fear of repercussions.
The Internet does in fact, make you stupid.
One of the most visible outgrowths of the Web 2.0 era is the blog. Which gives every person in the world the ability to be heard and endlessly frustrated by the lack of user traffic. Blogs are not entirely new inventions, they have existed since the beginnings of the Internet. One of the most famous, and most ugly blogs out there is The Drudge Report. A conservatively focused news blog that aggregates all the conservative focused news into three columns. These headlines are usually in a fixed width 10 point font, and stacked one upon another giving the reader no idea where they are supposed to go. Usually a few pictures will be thrown in randomly. Bigger news stories will either be posted above the main header and below the featured ad.
The website actually dates back to 1994, and is notable for it's breaking of the Monica Lewinsky scandal when Newsweek decided not to run the story, since then the Report has done little reporting, and instead focuses on posting links. Though the Report's writer, Matt Drudge, will occasionally post an article based on tips and rumors he has received. In the 90's, the simple design made it easy to run the website using just HTML hyperlinks and minor formatting, but now the website looks hopelessly antiquated next to shinier politically radical blogs such as The Huffington Post.
Yes that is really what the website looks like.
Despite all the limitations of the non-Flash, non-Java, format and the overall immature look of the blog, The Report attracts almost 7 million visits a year, and is the 184th most popular website in the United States.
Enough on ugly websites.
As a soccer fan, I usually have no where to turn in the mainstream media to get all the scores, highlights, headlines, and scandal for my beloved sport. ESPN, who specialize in 24 hour coverage of all the above has heard the plight of the American soccer fan, and as an outgrowth of their already extensive website, created ESPNsoccernet.
The current front page.
The website features all the things a soccer fan could want, except video highlights which are incredibly hard to get the rights for. In the top is the obvious name, and a constantly scrolling guide to coverage offered through their online video service ESPN360. The large picture accompanies the most compelling picture of the day, and a short wrap up of scores and stories in the English Premier Leauge. Directly below is the opinion and features sidebar, which offers indepth coverage on everything from interviews with retired stars to fantasy soccer strategies. The features also automatically scroll from page to page of 3 featured stories, giving more space on the main page for fan written collumns and coverage of other leauges.
In the center there is a current scoreboard for every leauge that is playing soccer anywhere on the planet. Directly below that is the headline roll out, with the most recent story getting a summary and a picture to accompany it. On the far right is the videobox, which offers a miniture version of SportsCenter that reports on the scores from the big leauges, and the main stories of the day.
The website is very clean, easier to navigate than most ESPN websites, and offers an extensive comment system, as well as SportsNation polls, scoring tables, and limited customization options.
The website is focused on Americans and other English speakers, but offers full coverage in Spanish, German, Italian, and French. The language change also changes the coverage to the top flight of the corresponding leauge and other national team centered news.
For an ESPN website, it runs incredibly well, and is constantly updated. Most of ESPN's mainstream sports pages can't even boast that.
Despite just how thoroughly well designed and maintained the website is, it is seldom visited in the United States, as it lags far behind Yahoo Sport's Soccer website and several British soccer websites (BBC Sport, Daily Telegraph, and several club run websites) in terms of visits from around the world, but it has seen a 20% increase in traffic in the last 3 months.
I've been on and around the Internet for about 7 years now, so I've seen as things have changed from AOL's splash page to all the shiny, upload it, leave comments features of "web 2.0." The only thing that all these new bells and whistles have granted us as is a faster, easier, way to act stupid and waste time without the fear of repercussions.
The Internet does in fact, make you stupid.
One of the most visible outgrowths of the Web 2.0 era is the blog. Which gives every person in the world the ability to be heard and endlessly frustrated by the lack of user traffic. Blogs are not entirely new inventions, they have existed since the beginnings of the Internet. One of the most famous, and most ugly blogs out there is The Drudge Report. A conservatively focused news blog that aggregates all the conservative focused news into three columns. These headlines are usually in a fixed width 10 point font, and stacked one upon another giving the reader no idea where they are supposed to go. Usually a few pictures will be thrown in randomly. Bigger news stories will either be posted above the main header and below the featured ad.
The website actually dates back to 1994, and is notable for it's breaking of the Monica Lewinsky scandal when Newsweek decided not to run the story, since then the Report has done little reporting, and instead focuses on posting links. Though the Report's writer, Matt Drudge, will occasionally post an article based on tips and rumors he has received. In the 90's, the simple design made it easy to run the website using just HTML hyperlinks and minor formatting, but now the website looks hopelessly antiquated next to shinier politically radical blogs such as The Huffington Post.
Yes that is really what the website looks like.Despite all the limitations of the non-Flash, non-Java, format and the overall immature look of the blog, The Report attracts almost 7 million visits a year, and is the 184th most popular website in the United States.
Enough on ugly websites.
As a soccer fan, I usually have no where to turn in the mainstream media to get all the scores, highlights, headlines, and scandal for my beloved sport. ESPN, who specialize in 24 hour coverage of all the above has heard the plight of the American soccer fan, and as an outgrowth of their already extensive website, created ESPNsoccernet.
The current front page.
The website features all the things a soccer fan could want, except video highlights which are incredibly hard to get the rights for. In the top is the obvious name, and a constantly scrolling guide to coverage offered through their online video service ESPN360. The large picture accompanies the most compelling picture of the day, and a short wrap up of scores and stories in the English Premier Leauge. Directly below is the opinion and features sidebar, which offers indepth coverage on everything from interviews with retired stars to fantasy soccer strategies. The features also automatically scroll from page to page of 3 featured stories, giving more space on the main page for fan written collumns and coverage of other leauges.
In the center there is a current scoreboard for every leauge that is playing soccer anywhere on the planet. Directly below that is the headline roll out, with the most recent story getting a summary and a picture to accompany it. On the far right is the videobox, which offers a miniture version of SportsCenter that reports on the scores from the big leauges, and the main stories of the day.
The website is very clean, easier to navigate than most ESPN websites, and offers an extensive comment system, as well as SportsNation polls, scoring tables, and limited customization options.
The website is focused on Americans and other English speakers, but offers full coverage in Spanish, German, Italian, and French. The language change also changes the coverage to the top flight of the corresponding leauge and other national team centered news.
For an ESPN website, it runs incredibly well, and is constantly updated. Most of ESPN's mainstream sports pages can't even boast that.
Despite just how thoroughly well designed and maintained the website is, it is seldom visited in the United States, as it lags far behind Yahoo Sport's Soccer website and several British soccer websites (BBC Sport, Daily Telegraph, and several club run websites) in terms of visits from around the world, but it has seen a 20% increase in traffic in the last 3 months.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Newsweek vs. Time
As an avid Newsweek Magazine reader, I can confidently say that I am very pleased with their website, www.newsweek.com. Their website is very similar to their magazine in appearance and layout. The front page is not packed with advertisements and flashing images. The only thing flashing is the video box displaying the current lead stories in that issue of Newsweek. On the left hand side of the page, Newsweek has their Top 10 stories. In the middle, all of the main stories are displayed neatly. Their main page even has features unique to their magazine, such as the Conventional Wisdom Watch and the Periscope section Underneath each main story in the specific categories are related stories, which I think is very appropriate and really appeals to the readers of that specific story. Under "The Magazine" tab, Newsweek allows readers to view the exact content of the current magazine on the stands and see past issues. The individual categorial tabs at the top, (such as, News, Politics, Tech/Business, Culture/Ideas, etc) make it easy for people to navigate the site. The search bar at the top of the page is very clear, allowing people to easy search for specific articles. The only complaint I have about their website is when you actually do click on a story to read it, it's often many pages of reading because the page is filled with advertisements, random boxes, and unnecessary white space.
Time Magazine's website (www.time.com) is very different from Newsweek's. Although the website is similar to the magazine's layout, there are too many pictures and not enough text. A small description about each story would be nice. The automatic refresh of the website is convenient, though. Time put their "Must Read" section on the left, which I think is good positioning on the page. Their multimedia section is halfway down the page, and I think it should be closer to the top. The site looks dated and not very user-friendly. It does have a Most Popular Stories section, but unlike Newsweek, Time does not offer related stories on their homepage; you have to click on the story itself to find related articles. Time has the same problem as Newsweek when it comes to actually reading stories, though -too much white space, advertisements, and random boxes. Under each tab (U.S, Election '08, World, Business & Tech, etc.) the page layouts are very similar to Newsweek's and much easier to navigate. Overall, both websites are similar to their magazines, and I don't think readers of either one would be incredibly disappointed when visiting these websites.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Stopping the home stretch U-turn!
Given the long nature of the '08 presidential campaign and all of the history it has made and the wild accusations flung through the primaries and the general election race, I would have thought I'd be pretty jaded to politics at this point.
But this week, I found myself a little more disheartened with the people who are and who could be in charge of America at this complicated moment.
It's a complicated moment, of course, because there are so many problems. I never did think I'd see a day when the two wars that we are entrenched in would take a back seat to anything. Except that now the financial sky is falling and there seems to be no government fix fast enough to prevent at least some temporary, severe pain.
And there are only 27 more x's to make on the calendar before the Big Day gets here.
With under four weeks to go, I hadn't expected William Ayers to come up again, because that connection, described as tenuous at best, had already been exhausted months ago (at least I thought it had) in the Democratic primaries. Even less reassuring was to hear again about Sen. John McCain's involvement in the Keating Five scandal of almost 30 years ago.
There's a bigger problem with these rehashed accusations. The final month, I would think, would be when candidates try to make their best case for why he should be elected, not why the other man shouldn't. To see that the future president (whoever he is) would devote any time to malice at a time like this disproves the notion that either candidate is a change or represents the future.
The good news is that that future in those 27 days includes another debate between the presidential candidates. We should demand that the candidates stop taking chainsaws to each other’s character and firmly nail down how their going to be a “maverick” or bring about “change” in the nation’s highest office. They have to do it because there is a funny thing about change: we don't really have a choice about it whether we want it anymore: We need change in politics now, because the future is coming at us very fast.
But this week, I found myself a little more disheartened with the people who are and who could be in charge of America at this complicated moment.
It's a complicated moment, of course, because there are so many problems. I never did think I'd see a day when the two wars that we are entrenched in would take a back seat to anything. Except that now the financial sky is falling and there seems to be no government fix fast enough to prevent at least some temporary, severe pain.
And there are only 27 more x's to make on the calendar before the Big Day gets here.
With under four weeks to go, I hadn't expected William Ayers to come up again, because that connection, described as tenuous at best, had already been exhausted months ago (at least I thought it had) in the Democratic primaries. Even less reassuring was to hear again about Sen. John McCain's involvement in the Keating Five scandal of almost 30 years ago.
There's a bigger problem with these rehashed accusations. The final month, I would think, would be when candidates try to make their best case for why he should be elected, not why the other man shouldn't. To see that the future president (whoever he is) would devote any time to malice at a time like this disproves the notion that either candidate is a change or represents the future.
The good news is that that future in those 27 days includes another debate between the presidential candidates. We should demand that the candidates stop taking chainsaws to each other’s character and firmly nail down how their going to be a “maverick” or bring about “change” in the nation’s highest office. They have to do it because there is a funny thing about change: we don't really have a choice about it whether we want it anymore: We need change in politics now, because the future is coming at us very fast.
Sandy Davidson, a Communications Law professor came and talked to our FIG last week. We delved into our opinions of limits journalists should have, or if they should even have limits. With ever-increasing technology, communication has of course become much easier, allowing for more quick access to information. America has gotten spoiled because of the constant flow of ‘news’ and since then it has switched gears into looking into the personal lives of politicians, and even less interesting to me, celebrities.
I understand why people want to know about the personal lives of politicians – who smoked crack when they were a kid, who goes to church with people who hate America, who has sex with 18 year olds when they are 50, or who is having an affair with someone… Things that could possibly influence your view on their morals, but I don’t see the need to follow every step they take, every hour of the day, every day, and photoshop pictures of them holding an alien baby or something ridiculously crazy like that. That isn’t really journalism.
I don’t want to turn on the T.V. (well, if we had a functioning T.V. in our room and I turned it on) and only be able to see how long Paris Hilton was in jail, or why Brittany Spears shaved her head, or that Tera Reid doesn’t always wear underwear underneath a mini-skirt. In my opinion, news that is too close into their personal lives is not worth watching.
On the other hand, I believe that politicians and celebrities chose their path, they chose to be in the spotlight and must take whatever consequences come from that. They signed up to be the star, whether it is in the White House or in Hollywood. I don’t think that journalists should be censored, I believe they (along with all Americans) should have freedom of speech, be able to say anything and everything they want, but I do think that a truly good journalist can find more substance than gossip to write about. It is a market out there for in-depth details of personal life, I know that ‘if it bleeds it leads,’ but seriously guys, is that the best you can do?
I don't want to hear your bullshit anymore.
Not trying to be too overly egotistical here, well maybe I am. So, just get over it. Anyway onto the blog post.
Don't you just love the informality of blog posts? I love reading them and seeing mistakes and errors. But its not a big deal because thats the way of the blog. Anything goes.
Seriously though, onto the subject at hand.
Am I the only one tired of being labeled a Liberal, Conservative, or Independent or any other means of describing your political views? I understand the fact that our system of government runs on a two-party system. But come on. Why can't people just listen to what's being said and make their own decision based on their own unbiased research into topics? I'm tired of people saying "I'm a liberal" or "I'm a conservative." News flash. No one cares. Especially if all you do is act like its the cool thing to be one or the other and flaunt it around, thinking that no one can tell your doing it. Stop. Its annoying and is getting on my nerves.
Today it seems like its the cool thing to be a "moderate." Not a true conservative or a true liberal, just in the middle. Taking in both sides. Almost every moderate I've ever met has still leaned one way or the other. Doesn't sound like a moderate to me.
I'm changing my view on issues and politics today. I'm going to be labeled as "Kelsey Brown." Hearing the issues and making his own damn decisions without letting the parties shove their bullshit down my throat. Which is one reason I don't watch the debates. All they do is show off their stances on issues and support them the best they can. Thats what they've been doing for months. And frankly I'm tired of hearing the regurgitate the same old shit over and over again.
I'm more than ready for the day when the majority of people truly vote for the person and don't base their decision on how bad the vice presidential candidate can speak or how ridiculously boring he or she may be.
Ok. I'm done ranting and raving. Its what I do when I don't feel like doing the research to write something interesting. So instead you get to hear me bitch. Much Love.
Who is to blame?
In a lecture with Sandy Davidson, the boundaries between public vs. private arose. With the upcoming presidential election, it is impossible to turn on the television without hearing personal information about various candidates. Whether it is from comical news reports such as The Colbert Repot, or a hard-hitting news station such as Fox News or CNN, it is impossible to escape these juicy, yet irrelevant stories that is now commonly called “news”. Who is to blame for the destruction of the “privacy wall”? Could the media be the 100% at fault? Or could the news and other forms of media simply be a reflection of what the public really wants to see?
News is a necessity for a society to survive. Not only is it a way to quickly pass information, but could also be considered a source of entertainment. People love to be informed on issues, whether it be politics, or celebrity gossip. As much as people claim that “gossip is bad”, or “I hate gossip”, hearing private information about someone is a guilty pleasure for everyone. So while many blame the media for the invasion of privacy and the spread of “gossip”, it can be argued that the media is merely giving the people what they want. The media has a duty to provide information, but they also have to make money. While members of the “elite” class, crave news, and nothing but news; majority of the population are more apt to read the newspaper, or watch the news if there is some kind of entertainment value.
The issue of public vs. private is in constant debate. While the debate that the media has gone too far, and crossed the line dividing public and private information continues, thousands of people are joining Facebook; an internet site (public domain) where one can create a profile and divulge personal information to the world. Could we all just be a society of hypocrites? Everyday you can walk down the street and hear someone barking into their phone about their “crazy night last night!”, or be sitting in class and watch students creep through photos on Facebook. Even upon meeting people, we a quick to share personal information such as taste in music, movies, embarrassing moments, ect. While the media defiantly participates in the invasion of privacy, if one were to take a step back and look at society today, the destruction of privacy is largely a result of the public.
Sarah Palin!!
Sandy Davidson, a Communications Law professor here at Mizzou, mentioned the September 22, 2008 issue of Newsweek with the "What Women Want" cover while discussing the way the media portrays Alaskan Governor and Republican vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin. Inside that issue of Newsweek, in their Campaign 2008 section, there is an article titled "From Seneca Falls to...Sarah Palin?" that goes back to 1984 when Democrat Congreswoman Geraldine Ferraro was picked to be Walter Mondale's running mate. Ferraro was the first woman to be nominated for vice-president and according to the article, in a debate with then-vice-president George H.W. Bush, he asked her if the "Soviets might be tempted to take advantage of you simply because you are a woman." Now I know that Saturday Night Live skits aren't the best source of information, but they are so funny! And they often have valid points. When "Sarah Palin" said "In the next six weeks I invite the media to be vigilant for sexist behavior," "Hillary Clinton" said, "although it is never sexist to question female politician's credentials." I totally agree with "Hillary." The media should not set different standards for female politicians. They should continue to find out as much as possible about any candidate's views on issues that the public cares about and question every politician's credentials, no matter what gender they are.
When Sarah Palin was nominated, I recognized her name but knew nothing about her stances on anything, except for the fact that she must agree with John McCain a lot because he did pick her to be on his ticket. And now, a little more than a month later, Palin has some pretty interesting sound bytes. If I could see Russia from my backyard I would mention it as often as possible too, but when asked about foreign policy, the proximity of her state to foreign countries is probably not the best thing to bring up. I think that even if she was a man, some of her strange answers in interviews and certain parts of her history as mayor and Governor of Alaska would make people wonder if she was ready to be vice-president of the United States.
Journalistic Integrity
Let me begin by saying that I thought the conversation was interesting, but there is one phrase that I thought could sum up the whole thing: journalistic integrity. I think everything that we talked about in the conversation comes back to being a good journalist and a good person along with that. Journalistic integrity isn’t just about writing about what you think people will read, it’s also about knowing what is right and wrong to talk about, why you should write about it, and how far to push a subject. I think the talk about politician’s personal lives being separate from their political lives was the biggest example of journalistic integrity.
I agree with the speaker when se said that journalists are much more intrusive when it comes to politician’s personal lives. However, I also agree with her point that every aspect of that person’s life could effect how they lead the country. So in that sense the person’s political life and their personal life are intertwined. If there is anything that could prevent the candidate from doing their job to the fullest extent then we, as voters and people, have a right to know before our vote is cast.
However, I believe that there is a line that can be crossed and many times journalists do cross this line. I think that issues should be pressed until the people can get what they need out of the story and then move on. I find that in today’s journalism, an issue isn’t over until it’s been viewed (and skewed) from every viewpoint imaginable. The story is told so many times that it’s like beating a dead horse by the end of it. In my own opinion some examples are the Obama/Reverend Wright controversy and on the other side of the isle, Sarah Palin and her daughter’s pregnancy. I think a politician should say why they made the decisions they made and state their case. If they are upfront and honest, then the media should be understanding and not go overboard with “coverage.”
Presidential Sex Scandals
Sandy Davidson talked about a lot of different aspects of politics and the media. I was especially intrigued when she mentioned about the presidential sex scandals. Why would someone ever think about having an affair, especially someone who is the president of the United States? An affair is wrong, plain and simple. But as the president, you have have the media breathing down your neck everyday and watching your every move. Did these presidents think that they could get away with it? What about the ones that actually did? It is possible that other presidents could have had affairs and just did a good job hiding it.
Sex scandals within the White House are not just recent happenings either. Back in 1802, Thomas Jefferson was accused of having relations with a slave named Sally Hemings. He was a widower and she was the illicit daughter of Jefferson's father-in-law and a female slave. Historians believe that the rumors are just gossip that his enemies and rivals spread about him, but in 1998, DNA testing on Jefferson's descendants showed that either he or a close relative was likely to be the father of Sally Hemings' youngest son.
Another largely publicized scandal was involving President John F. Kennedy. He married Jacqueline Bouvier in 1953, but was supposedly sneaking other women into the White House. Judith Exner and Marilyn Monroe are two of the suspected women. Even those close to him have stopped denying many of the allegations. Along with Kennedy was Bill Clinton, one whom we are all quite familiar with. He had been having an affair with Monica Lewinsky, a White House intern, from November 1995 to March 1997. Everything was made public in 1998 when Paula Jones sued President Clinton for sexual harassment. His impeachment charges for perjury and obstruction of justice were acquitted.
These sex scandals date back to the early 1800s and they just keep coming. The media will look for anything to exploit the politicians, so odds are the public will learn of these affairs. Maybe the day will come when our government will only consist of politicians with morals and honesty, but until then, we can always count on the media to give us the juicy stories exploiting the well-known figures of our nation.
http://www.who2.com/hailtothesheets.html
Politics and media weren't the only things Sandy Davidson brought together last week. Davidson brought together a group of college freshmen to discuss politics in the media, and she had a lot of insightful opinions to share. Davidson, the professor of Communications Law in the journalism school, has an understanding for both politics and media, and her presentation last week sparked some interesting ideas.
One of the topics she discussed in her presentation was the idea that the media pries too much into the personal lives of the politicians. Although a goal of the media is to relay important information to people, a line should be drawn as to how far the media can go. Information about political policies are important for people to know, and the media should present this information to the public. What should be avoided, or at least minimized, is the media's prying into personal business. The media should give an accurate depiction of the politicians without publicizing every little detail of their personal lives. It's important for the public to know what the politicians stand for, and it's helpful to know background information and where the politicians are coming from, but there's a fine line between publicizing necessary information and publicizing the information just because the person is a celebrity.
Cameras are constantly following politicians and political figures; they have no privacy. During the day they are hoarded down by media trucks and journalists with press passes, and when they go home at night they are still being followed, only this time by photographers and journalists eager to make the breaking headlines for the next issue of the "National Enquirer." Their lives are constantly being monitored, and they are always being watched, almost to a fault. Everyone is watching them so keenly, waiting for them to make just one mistake so the next article bashing them can be published.
Even though the politicians should expect to have a lot of media coverage, the media coverage shouldn't overtake their lives. They are people too, and they deserve some privacy just like all the other citizens in this country have. Just because they are famous doesn't mean they should be treated any differently. The media seems to be "out to get them" since they are accessible targets that will provide for a good news story. Journalists should weigh their options and decide if the information they are publicizing is really news, or if it's just a publication of someone's personal life.
Last week, Sandy Davidson, a professor at the School of Journalism, spoke about politics in the media. She discussed how journalists should handle the current economic crisis and questioned "how far is too far" when it comes to investigating and publishing information about politicians.
How should journalists respond to the economic crisis? Most Americans are aware that what is happening to our economy (this "crisis") is not a good thing. Why try to hide the facts? I believe that as journalists, we should be as direct and straightforward with the issues as we possibly can. Journalists cover depressing issues all the time. Depressing issues are what make the news; just because this issue might be affecting us more directly or more personally than others (i.e: the tsunami) doesn't mean that more of the facts should be hidden from the public. It should give us more of a reason to reveal and report on the information that's out there.
So how far is too far when it comes to reporting on politicians? Obviously some things in their personal lives do make a difference, such as background, views, etc. But how many more times do we need to hear about Sarah Palin's pregnant teenage daughter? Is that really newsworthy or just unnecessary gossip? It comes down to essential details versus pointless information. We do not need nor should we want to know every single detail of political candidates lives. Important facts should be making the news, not repeated, annoying controversy (i.e: Rev. Wright.) Voting records, platform details, and experiences should be making the news when it comes to reporting on politicians, not unnecessary details used as libel against each candidate.
Don't tell anyone I said this, but....
More often than not, the biased and horridly personal mudslinging from out "fair and balanced" news sources is nothing more than an unpleasant by-product of a trait of our journalism laws that is absolutely essential to a free press. To wit, journalistic access to every part of a political candidate's life. Let me say that again. Journalistic access to every part of a political candidate's life is absolutely essential for a free press. What's my reasoning, you ask? On second thought, you probably don't. You're an average American, and experience tells me that you'll probably accept every written word that comes your way. But I'll give you my reasons anyway.
Consider, as a purely practical issue, the problems inherent in trying to judicially regulate what journalists can and cannot print with regards to a candidate. Let that swirl around for a moment, and when the nearly apocalyptic visions of legal chaos and howling civil rights protesters have faded, continue reading.
More important that the how's of journalistic regulation though, are the why's. For what reasons is restricting journalism ever appropriate? I mean, if we start trying to tell journalists what they can and cannot print (or broadcast, blog about, whatever) about political candidates, where does it stop? If journalists are forbidden to talk about, say, Palin's pregnant daughter because it's deemed a personal issue, they would also have to be banned from discussing the issue of Palin's pregnancy, should it ever arise. And I think everyone can agree that pregnancy is certainly something that impacts the ability of someone to perform their duties in public office, and as such should certainly be open to the public forum. The issue with setting restrictions on journalists, however well intentioned those restrictions may be, is that they set a bad precedent for more violations of the 1st Amendment. If journalists can't print things regarding the candidate's "personal lives" then how long will it be until voters are being spoon-fed the politically beneficial bits and pieces of personal history from candidate's campaigns?
But setting aside civil right's doom and gloom, think about the information gleaned from this unrestricted reporting. Yes, I agree that no one cares about slight misapplications of judgement or brief associations that occurred ten or twenty years ago. However, when journalists dig into recent actions of candidates, both public and (inasmuch as any action of a politician can be) private, voters gain valuable insight into what a candidate's personality is and how they act in certain types of situations. And when someone is asking to be put into an office as critical as the presidency, that sort of surgical examination of character is vital to voter's ability to make the choice that is right for them.
So I was watching the debate and...
I don't have to tell anyone that the economy in it's current state is of an immediate concern to each and every one of us. So when the presidential candidates started strutting their stuff about what they are going to do to fix our tanking economy, we all sat forward in our seats and listened. But what did we hear? I know that the first thing I heard out of both candidate's mouths when the hot topic of economy was brought up was to point out that it was bad, and that the American people knew it was bad. Doesn't it make you feel special to know that they know that you know? OK, moving on. Both of the candidates listed off a fair amount of things that they intended to 'fix', a rather ambiguous term, I'm just saying.
Here is the list recited by Obama: The government needs to create road and building projects which will in turn create jobs, there needs to be decreased taxation on the middle class, health care needs to be reformed, energy needs to be addressed, the rescue package needs to be watched and regimented so that it is put to proper use, and all companies that receive rescue packages must follow a set of guidelines for the use of that money, and extraneous expenses brought about by lobbyists need to be put to a halt. Cool, if he maps out a definite way to make these things happen, right?
The list according to McCain: America needs to accomplish energy independence and not be sending so much money to foreign countries that don't like us that much in the first place. All taxes need to be kept low, government spending needs to be reigned in, and here's the part that scares a lot of people and businesses- McCain wants to order the secretary of the treasury to buy up all of the bad home loans and renegotiate those loan payments.
Maybe some of you reading this don't know why that's a bad thing, so I'll make an effort to explain, and that way we can also go back to the beginning- where the economic crisis started- so that we can make some conclusions about the root of the problem and maybe the things that need to be done.
OK, so when you deposit money into a bank, they take a portion of that money and sell it back to the public as a loan. They sell these loans to people with good credit so that they can reasonably guess that these people will pay them back, with a little interest. So far so good. Then a new concept was created when banks decided that they could sell the loans- so the money that was promised to them, they could sell that contract to somebody else, and when that company got that money that was the loan, they would also pay the bank back. This creates liquidity. Well when America started getting foreign investors to do business here, the influx of cash to the banks made them more bold. The banks decided they wanted to appeal to the less fortunate demographic, so they start lending out to people with lower credit scores, but because they are riskier, the banks can ask for more money up front. They also sell these loans to companies, but at a discount, unstable as they are. And with these less reliable loans, they got to adjust their interest rates on people. At first, people are excited that they can finally get loans, and everyone wants to buy a house. Home prices go up because of the demand, and people think that because of the way things are going, it will be easy to pay off their mortgages. But home builders got excited to the point where they built more homes then there were home buyers. Home values go down because supply suddenly exceeds demand. Meanwhile, the banks have lent to subprime, or extremely risky loans. And they increase their interest rates on these people who were a high risk to begin with, so most of these people default. Well, these people were on mortgages, so the bank thinks that they can just take their house and not lose any money. But home values have dropped. And the subprime loans that they gave out, they also sold to businesses. But there's no real money for the businesses to ever gain. And here we are.
This effect spread across the globe as American businesses went into debt with the foreign powers that they chill with. So now this is not just our issue. But how would anyone begin addressing this complicated mess? The problem with McCain's proposal is that at first, the national debt will shoot straight to hell, drowning in unpaid loans, while the treasury negotiates rates that people can actually pay off. Where will the money come from in the meantime? No answer can be a good answer for the economy in the short term.
Obama is right to say that some taxes must be raised, and it was a good move propose to only increase taxes on the wealthy. But how does he intend to fiercely oversee the use of the bailout money without ruffling some feathers with whatever policy he imposes? And McCain wins the title for most decisive position on what action to take. But will the treasury be flexible enough to hold it's own while attempts are made at a loan policy that will please all? I don't pretend to have the answers to these questions, but I hope a few of you have a better understanding of the situation from this point forward so that you can make more informed decisions.
Sources:
the second presidential debate of 2008
http://media.www.thebottomlineonline.org/media/storage/paper1077/news/2008/10/01/News/Economic.Crisis.101-3458676.shtml
http://biznik.com/articles/financial-crisis-101-the-way-it-works
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
A Journalist's Right
Last week Sandy Davidson, the professor for Communications Law at the School of Journalism, spoke to MU students about politics in the media. She lectured about a variety of events relating to this that ranged from the media’s silence on John F. Kennedy’s affairs to current coverage of the economic crisis.
At one point in the lecture, Davidson asked the students whether or not they believe that journalists are digging too deep into the personal affairs of politicians or if journalists should be digging deeper still. The question split the crowd roughly in half. This brings to attention a concern about whether journalists are becoming libelous in their quest for information.
Libel can be defined as the written publication of an untruth that is malicious and intends to harm a public figure’s reputation. This is different from slander, which is the oral defamation of an untruth.
I do realize that good arguments can be made that defend the privacy of political figures against prying journalists. While I can agree that at times reporters seem to be delving too deep into the personal matters of public figures, I don’t think this is avoidable nor should it be. Politicians and other public personalities more often than not choose their position in society. They must realize that going into politics invites their whole lives to public interest.
The general public naturally is curious about the activities of the people they have elected into office, and they have a right to be. Politicians willingly elect to be in the limelight. In doing so, they lose their right to complete privacy.
When journalists pry into the lives of political officials, they are performing a public service by providing the people with information that would otherwise be unavailable. This can also serve as a check on public officials because their indiscretions can become a public matter in the hands of a journalist. As long as journalists are not spreading lies, acting this way cannot be considered libel.
At one point in the lecture, Davidson asked the students whether or not they believe that journalists are digging too deep into the personal affairs of politicians or if journalists should be digging deeper still. The question split the crowd roughly in half. This brings to attention a concern about whether journalists are becoming libelous in their quest for information.
Libel can be defined as the written publication of an untruth that is malicious and intends to harm a public figure’s reputation. This is different from slander, which is the oral defamation of an untruth.
I do realize that good arguments can be made that defend the privacy of political figures against prying journalists. While I can agree that at times reporters seem to be delving too deep into the personal matters of public figures, I don’t think this is avoidable nor should it be. Politicians and other public personalities more often than not choose their position in society. They must realize that going into politics invites their whole lives to public interest.
The general public naturally is curious about the activities of the people they have elected into office, and they have a right to be. Politicians willingly elect to be in the limelight. In doing so, they lose their right to complete privacy.
When journalists pry into the lives of political officials, they are performing a public service by providing the people with information that would otherwise be unavailable. This can also serve as a check on public officials because their indiscretions can become a public matter in the hands of a journalist. As long as journalists are not spreading lies, acting this way cannot be considered libel.
Journalists getting personal
Sandy davidson is a woman with a great deal of experience when it comes to politics and journalism. She attended the Democratic National Convention with some students during the first few weeks of school. While she was there she had access to a number of places where the common person could not go. Nowadays journalists such as professor Davidson have access to a lot of places and information than they did in the past. Journalists, such as the ones covering the Democratic National Convention have much more free reign then they did only a few years ago. The politicians are under constant surveillance and scrutiny. Their personal lives are now broadcast to millions of people, whether they want in to be or not.
This free reign by the journalists has gone unchecked ever since the supreme court decided that politicians willingly volunteer their private information when they become politicians. It is my personal belief that journalists often go too far when the are trying to dig up dirt on politicians. I agree that some aspects of a politicians personal life may get in the way of him/her doing their job. These aspects of their personal lives should be reported on and scandal should be held in check. Journalists often create false accusations and try ruin a politicians reputation. They then turn around and say that they did not mean to, or did not understand what they were doing. This kind of reporting and slandering must be stopped.
That said, journalists as a whole do a very good job of deciding what is important to report on and what is not. It is generally a good thing that journalists tare allowed into the lives of the people that are running for government positions. This allowed the press to keep corruption in check and be the "watch dogs" of society. Politicians are held accountable for their actions a lot more now than they were just a little while ago. This is a good thing, as activities such as dealings between the mob and politicians are minimized . The press needs to have access to politicians personal lives. If the make a mistake that ruins someone's career or life, however, they need to be held accountable.
Keeping the Facts Straight with Modern Media
In an age dominated by technology, our society is now surrounded by a constant feed of news and breaking updates. Sections of our television channels are devoted to giving us the news from every angle and time possible. Especially with the oncoming election, these stations are more popular than ever. Sandy Davidson came and spoke on these issues regarding politics and the media and made several interesting points. Yet, at times I was left kind of confused by some some of her odd tangents.
One of the biggest questions poised was how to deal with the oncoming economic problem in America. Should the media be upfront with the problem, or be slightly more reserved to make the public feel for at rest with the crisis. This issue could come down to journalistic integrity in order to make the issue seem less of a problem. Journalists could be forced to hold back from including a proper amount of factual information in their reports. With this already a problem in today's media, an increase of it could seriously damage the reputation of the journalism community.
Sandy Davidson also dove into the world of politicians lives and how the journalistic world interacts with them. I find the way we conduct ourselves now is much more proper and legitimate than the way we did several decades ago. Money could block almost any story about a politician that could be considered harmful to his career. Now the lives of almost every national politician are held under a constant microscope. If you make a single slip, national television will have it on in no time. Even if it is a subtle hint towards something, a panel on CNN will be trying to decipher the meaning by the evening. This instant broadcast ability has brought upon a new age of delivering the news in America and throughout the world.
As we learn to write and deliver the news in this new era, it will be essential to develop ways of still being fair and balanced. (NOT like Fox News) It is still alright to hold an opinion, but we must have the facts to make sure the story delivers on it's point truthfully. We hold the power of the future in our hands, GO TEAM!!!!
Monday, October 6, 2008
Davidson Encourages Education and Expression
The power of individual voices could not be stressed enough in Sandy Davidson's discussion of politics and the current election. She expressed that in order to make a difference; people must both educate and mobilize themselves. She believes that taking an active role is the most powerful thing that Americans can do, and she is correct.
Large amounts of people have disconnected themselves from the government while harboring the belief that neither their opinions, nor their votes, truly matter. Many people are too apathetic to speak out or take the time to vote, because they don't believe that their vote can make a difference. They claim they don't "trust the government", or that no legislation on the national level effects them directly. These misconceptions are in part due to the fact that Americans today don't make is a priority to pay attention to what is going on, or educating themselves. Rather, they accept the status quo and go on with their daily lives.
Sandy Davidson told a story that depicted an specific occurrence of the polar opposite. She was nearly stopped from attending a political convention by a swarm of protesters who, in direct defense of their right to assemble and protest, have taken it upon themselves to make an opinion known. They don't want their neighbors and friends or brothers and sisters fighting for some unnamed cause. I too, would like to know what's really going on in Iraq. They aren't telling us anything! But these protesters have the right idea. They've kept themselves as aware as possible of the happenings in the war and realized that, in their minds, this simply wasn't going to fly. The troops, in their minds, should be back home. They showed no hesitation in making this opinion known.
This was the perfect example of American idealism that isn't taken advantage of by the public. We can have anything we want if we just ask hard enough, apparently. So why not go for it? The idea of democracy is that the people decide what is best for them. All it takes, however, is a few thousand disappointed folks who aren't happy with the way things are. Rather than taking action against this, however, they pout and stomp their feet and complain that they're powerless. Why not stomp your feet so that the dexters in charge can hear you, people?
If the "public" simply took a little time to keep track of what is going on, and learning the basic workings of their governmental system, they might have a little more faith in themselves as voters, as well as in the United States government as a whole.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Iraq pullout: When sexual innuendo attacks!
Okay, first things first, I don't remember a single thing that we talked about at that meeting on Tuesday.
But no need to send me packing to Campus View just yet, because I did watch the debates.
So far both campaigns have managed to avoid a coherent position on middle eastern policies at all. The Obama camp supports "strategic withdrawl" or whatever it is they are calling it these days and McCain favors keeping boots on the ground for 100 years if necessary.
I am typically pretty liberal, but even I know that pulling out of Iraq is quite possibly the stupidest thing we could do short of invading another country.
We've heard all about "war under false pretenses" and "where's osama?" and all the other noise, but even us ideological types have to look at the ground every once in a while and accept that we did in fact step in not one, but two piles of dogsh*t.
Iraq is a mess. It has been a mess, and probably will be continue to be a mess well into the next several decades. Public opinion at the moment is against staying, and most of our politicans, being the professional opportunists they are, want to bring our boys and girls back home.
Not to call everyone who thinks this war is far from necessary and a drain on national resources stupid, but we are pretty much stuck.
Here's the deal:
Mesopotamia has been a flashpoint for religious conflict for the last 700 years, and the tinkering of the British didn't really help to ease the enmity. 70 years of oligarchy never really helped to ease the long standing conflicts between the Sunni and Shi'ite sects of Islam that both call Iraq home.
The leadership of Saddam Hussien and the Ba'ath party oppressed the Shi'a majority, slaughtered the Kurds, and generally made the delicate situation much much worse.
Enter the Americans:
After Hussien was toppelled, victory was declared, and many cigars were passed around, the first real grumblings of civil war turned up in the form of insurgents and religious extremists. Demagouges like Muqtada al-Sadr began to stur up furvor and comanding their own army of dissatisfied, AK47 toting, scary looking guys who prefered to dress in black.
From the summer of 2004 to the spring of 2007, the conflict boiled over into all out civil war with the United States Army in the crossfire. The violence attracted all manner of radical and militant islamists from around the Arab world and helped to keep the infant government from gaining anything close to full control of the country. Public opinion in the United States had swung wildly back toward the left and the new democratic congress demanded action in Iraq to stop the violence. The popular line had been "strategic withdrawl," but the Bush administration decided to try Gen. David Patraeus' troop surge.
Within months, the capital city of Bahgdad had returned to a relatively peaceful state and the national prospects of Iraq were looking up because of a new wave of American troops.
Today, the United States military presence continues to be the most important factor in Iraqi politics. Without troops providing security, moving humanitarian aid, protecting contractors and government employees, and training Iraqi security forces to stand on their own two feet, the war would have long been lost to anarchy.
Although I may be a fan of Obama, his policy of withdrawl will not be just what the doctor ordered for Iraq or the Middle East. The country remains deeply conflicted even with a relatively high security level. He's kept his policies overtly open ended and left on the qualifiers about military leadership coming first. Its a smart move. As a president he'd have a much greater obligation to finish the job in Iraq than pull a full 360 of military strategy.
Democracies take time, especially ones that have to cope with various ethnic groups screaming for independence and a large amount of oil wealth to be exported. The Iraqi government is running on a flimsy constitution, still suffers from major corruption and still must contend with local religious leaders for sovereignty in the hearts of many Iraqis. Americans must be ready to commit a large amount of time and money to help rebuild the country and ensure its transition to a stable democracy. We've had troops on the ground in Germany and Japan since World War II, and continue to keep a large dispatch of American military personnel around the world. Iraq looks pretty bad now, but a continued presence will drive violence down and give the United States a good foothold in the center of the Islamic world.
Then we can finish up in Afghanistan.
But no need to send me packing to Campus View just yet, because I did watch the debates.
So far both campaigns have managed to avoid a coherent position on middle eastern policies at all. The Obama camp supports "strategic withdrawl" or whatever it is they are calling it these days and McCain favors keeping boots on the ground for 100 years if necessary.
I am typically pretty liberal, but even I know that pulling out of Iraq is quite possibly the stupidest thing we could do short of invading another country.
We've heard all about "war under false pretenses" and "where's osama?" and all the other noise, but even us ideological types have to look at the ground every once in a while and accept that we did in fact step in not one, but two piles of dogsh*t.
Iraq is a mess. It has been a mess, and probably will be continue to be a mess well into the next several decades. Public opinion at the moment is against staying, and most of our politicans, being the professional opportunists they are, want to bring our boys and girls back home.
Not to call everyone who thinks this war is far from necessary and a drain on national resources stupid, but we are pretty much stuck.
Here's the deal:
Mesopotamia has been a flashpoint for religious conflict for the last 700 years, and the tinkering of the British didn't really help to ease the enmity. 70 years of oligarchy never really helped to ease the long standing conflicts between the Sunni and Shi'ite sects of Islam that both call Iraq home.
The leadership of Saddam Hussien and the Ba'ath party oppressed the Shi'a majority, slaughtered the Kurds, and generally made the delicate situation much much worse.
Enter the Americans:
After Hussien was toppelled, victory was declared, and many cigars were passed around, the first real grumblings of civil war turned up in the form of insurgents and religious extremists. Demagouges like Muqtada al-Sadr began to stur up furvor and comanding their own army of dissatisfied, AK47 toting, scary looking guys who prefered to dress in black.
From the summer of 2004 to the spring of 2007, the conflict boiled over into all out civil war with the United States Army in the crossfire. The violence attracted all manner of radical and militant islamists from around the Arab world and helped to keep the infant government from gaining anything close to full control of the country. Public opinion in the United States had swung wildly back toward the left and the new democratic congress demanded action in Iraq to stop the violence. The popular line had been "strategic withdrawl," but the Bush administration decided to try Gen. David Patraeus' troop surge.
Within months, the capital city of Bahgdad had returned to a relatively peaceful state and the national prospects of Iraq were looking up because of a new wave of American troops.
Today, the United States military presence continues to be the most important factor in Iraqi politics. Without troops providing security, moving humanitarian aid, protecting contractors and government employees, and training Iraqi security forces to stand on their own two feet, the war would have long been lost to anarchy.
Although I may be a fan of Obama, his policy of withdrawl will not be just what the doctor ordered for Iraq or the Middle East. The country remains deeply conflicted even with a relatively high security level. He's kept his policies overtly open ended and left on the qualifiers about military leadership coming first. Its a smart move. As a president he'd have a much greater obligation to finish the job in Iraq than pull a full 360 of military strategy.
Democracies take time, especially ones that have to cope with various ethnic groups screaming for independence and a large amount of oil wealth to be exported. The Iraqi government is running on a flimsy constitution, still suffers from major corruption and still must contend with local religious leaders for sovereignty in the hearts of many Iraqis. Americans must be ready to commit a large amount of time and money to help rebuild the country and ensure its transition to a stable democracy. We've had troops on the ground in Germany and Japan since World War II, and continue to keep a large dispatch of American military personnel around the world. Iraq looks pretty bad now, but a continued presence will drive violence down and give the United States a good foothold in the center of the Islamic world.
Then we can finish up in Afghanistan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)