For the online news source critique, first source that popped up in my head was USA Today. Since it’s my favorite newspaper, it was a no-brainer for me to critique it. USA Today strikes me differently than other newspapers because I appreciate the style of the writing and the fact that there is a section for everyone’s interest. Also, the articles always have interesting topics and always are appealing to me.
The website is designed in the same way that the paper is—everything is laid out in front of you. As soon as you get to the website, there are several stories that you can click on to read, videos, and pictures. Basically, the things that will immediately grab your attention. While, I understand their method of design, it is a little overwhelming to have so much jumping out at you. Even though it is constructed this way to gain your attention, it actually is distracting and makes it difficult to decide what to click on first. Because, there are videos, picture galleries and articles all existing in the same place, it is too much and makes it difficult to focus.
I noticed that the website included some of the features that we have discussed in class in the past couple of weeks. For example, the structure makes it a priority to integrate the opinions and voices of readers. On every article, there is space for readers to leave comments and “communities” where readers can join a group that focuses on a specific thing (for example, there are fantasy football, gossip and travel communities). Another feature from class is the fact that there are several blogs that USA Today sponsors and supports. This is significant because blogs are one of the biggest phenomenon online at the moment and to have this feature on the website will only increase their readership and popularity. Also, there are photo galleries and videos which are two mediums that represent a useful, current type of normality on websites today.
While, the content of the website is still informative and well-written, it’s the design I have a major issue with. I like the community ideas and blogs as well as the separating of section, like, travel, sports, money and entertainment. The content is some of the best out there—but how will people know if they cannot get through a messy, disorganized website?
Monday, March 30, 2009
New York Times critique
The New York Times is one of the biggest and most popular print publications that exists. Their website as well is a wealth of information and gets just as much, if not more, traffic than the newspaper itself. The New York Times has been around for a very long time, and remains one the most-read newspapers in the country. Albright even has copies of the NY Times everyday in various buildings all over campus. Although this is a great opportunity that should be taken advantage of, many people still prefer to read online.
I have been to the NY Times website before, and have found it a useful source of information. When arriving this time, and looking at it analytically, I realized it is actually very cluttered, and the amount of information coming at you is almost overwhelming. However, I did notice that the website does update itself automatically without refreshing the page. This is a great way to stay up and current on the news, whereas with the newspaper, it only comes out once a day, and the stories there are the only ones you will get from the paper that day. The website is also good because you can search for particular news items or articles up at the top, and it gives you the options of Articles or Multimedia, and can pick the time period within which you wish to search.
The home page has all the headlines and important news, but if you scroll down the page there are also things like videos, which a newspaper would obviously not have. A newspaper is divided into sections, but there is a very easy navigation of subjects along the side, on which you can click, depending on what type of news you want to read. It will first give you the top news of the section, and then smaller or less popular articles underneath this. The website has many things that a newspaper does not incorporate, and many more articles than you would find in just one issue, including old articles. However, a website may not necessarily have all the articles that were published in the paper that day, or ever. The New York Times does not want its own website to put the newspaper out of business. A newspaper is something you can pick up almost anywhere and bring with you, while online access is not always available or convenient.
Personally, I would prefer to go online than pick up a newspaper any day. The website may seem cluttered at first, but it is easy to navigate, search, and find what you are looking for. You can find things from weeks ago, and the headlines and breaking news are constantly being updated. There is also a wide variety, from videos to articles to images, and many categories from which to choose.
I have been to the NY Times website before, and have found it a useful source of information. When arriving this time, and looking at it analytically, I realized it is actually very cluttered, and the amount of information coming at you is almost overwhelming. However, I did notice that the website does update itself automatically without refreshing the page. This is a great way to stay up and current on the news, whereas with the newspaper, it only comes out once a day, and the stories there are the only ones you will get from the paper that day. The website is also good because you can search for particular news items or articles up at the top, and it gives you the options of Articles or Multimedia, and can pick the time period within which you wish to search.
The home page has all the headlines and important news, but if you scroll down the page there are also things like videos, which a newspaper would obviously not have. A newspaper is divided into sections, but there is a very easy navigation of subjects along the side, on which you can click, depending on what type of news you want to read. It will first give you the top news of the section, and then smaller or less popular articles underneath this. The website has many things that a newspaper does not incorporate, and many more articles than you would find in just one issue, including old articles. However, a website may not necessarily have all the articles that were published in the paper that day, or ever. The New York Times does not want its own website to put the newspaper out of business. A newspaper is something you can pick up almost anywhere and bring with you, while online access is not always available or convenient.
Personally, I would prefer to go online than pick up a newspaper any day. The website may seem cluttered at first, but it is easy to navigate, search, and find what you are looking for. You can find things from weeks ago, and the headlines and breaking news are constantly being updated. There is also a wide variety, from videos to articles to images, and many categories from which to choose.
American Landscape: For Amber Waves of Song
I had never been to an Albright Choral Concert before this past Saturday, and I was slightly wary of the American Landscape theme, but I found the whole thing very enjoyable. I recognized almost all of the songs, and the program even provided lyrics for “The Star Spangled Banner” and “America the Beautiful.” This was a good event that was featured on Albright’s campus in Memorial Chapel. The conductor, Mr. Binger, even said that this was one of the biggest crowds that an Albright Choral Concert has had. There was a great mix of students, as well as family and friends from off-campus. The music had a good range that incorporated American history, and songs that went from slow and angelic to lively and upbeat. After the concert, I spoke with Mark Smith, a resident of Wyomissing, and a non-Albright student who came to support one of the singers and to enjoy the show. I also spoke with Fawn Lindsey, a freshman at Albright, who told me that this was her first choral concert as well. I was then able to speak with Heather Martell, a junior at Albright, who is part of the Women’s Choir. Through my own eyes and ears, and those of others, I was able to get a multitude of views on the concert that will hopefully encourage people to attend more of them in the future.
The Philadelphia Inquirer critique on leaving comments on a news story
For my critique I analyzed The Philadelphia Inquirer’s website. Overall, the website was easy to navigate. There were headlines and tabs which helped me find the stories I was interested in. The story I read was ‘Philadelphia Archdiocese to close two schools’. I chose this article because I attended Philadelphia Catholic school from first to twelfth grade and was curious to see what comments people left. When reading the article I noticed it was simple for readers to find the post a comment icon. On the right side of the article there was a separate box that included reader feedback, post a comment as well as a save and share section. In order for one to leave a comment it was not as easy as I would have thought. If one wanted to leave a comment about an article they first had to register and if they were already registered they had to sign in. To the left of the register box there is a comment from The Philadelphia Inquirer explaining why they are now asking people to register. Their reasoning is to increase the quality of the user experience and dialogue, as well as reduce the number of unsuitable or offensive comments (www.philly.com). I think making people register will decrease the number of people who would leave comments on a story. Commenting on a news story is something that is unique to the web. Readers can not leave comments for articles in newspapers so they post them on the Internet. I think because commenting is a distinctive feature to online media it should be easier to access and leave a comment. Today, people are always in a hurry so if they want to leave a comment they want to do it quickly. Many people do not want to have to log in and/or register. Also, if the website is only allowing certain comments to be posted the comments may be biased and non objective. Everyone I think should be able to leave comments without having to have user name to have peoples voices heard.
http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20090330_Philadelphia_Archdiocese_to_close_two_schools.html#comments
http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20090330_Philadelphia_Archdiocese_to_close_two_schools.html#comments
Was She Funny?
Michelle Buteua is a women who makes her living telling jokes. She is a comedian that had the chance to make her star appearance on Comedy Central and be able to travel the United States telling jokes. Michelle's show took place on Thursday March 26 at 8p.m. in Jake's Place. The question to look at is was she really funny. Jocelyn Smiley had a opinion that will shock you and Andrew Hettinger had an opinion that you would expect when someone talks about a comedian. So listen and enjoy.
People Magazine Critique
In all honesty this assignment could not come at a better time as I was debating with my friend the other day about what the purpose of buying People Magazine really is. People Magazine is a national print publication that focuses on the entertainment industry and also offers a website. My friend insists on buying the magazine because she says it has more information then the website. I, however, disagree because as a frequent reader of people.com I don’t see much of a difference in the magazine and the website. The biggest difference is that the magazine offers one or two feature stories about non-celebrity related stories. As a frequent reader of people.com I am a big fan of the website. However, I think the fact that they offer almost all the news they feature in their magazine on a daily basis hurts magazine circulation.
As soon as you click on the homepage for people.com all of the major entertainment stories from the day pop up with little blurbs underneath telling what each story is about. These stories are constantly updated throughout the day and the blurb helps visitors choose which stories they want to read. I think the blurbs offered lead to more “info snaking” because people can pick and choose what they want out of an article instead of reading it in its entirety. I think offering these stories online really takes away from the readership of the print publication because there is not much difference between the content on the website and the content in the print publication. In fact, people.com offers a large portion of the front-page article of the print publication every week. In that four to five paragraph “teaser” people.com offers, most people can understand the main points to the story and would have no reason to go out and buy the magazine. I think the fact that people.com offers so many of the stories found throughout its print publication as the stories happen and offer a “teaser” to their cover story hurts more than helps their print circulation.
Another thing that hurts People’s print circulation is the amount of photos offered on people.com in comparison to the print publication. Everyday people.com offers a photo gallery of celebrity sightings consisting on anywhere from 10 to 20 photos. In the weekly print publication only a handful of the photos that appear in all the galleries from the week are featured with the same explanation that is offered on the website. People.com also keeps an archive of all the daily photo galleries so that visitors can go back to look at any of the posted photos. I think the lack of variety and surprise in the photos offered in the print publication really takes away from the circulation of the print publication. If anyone can access people.com and see all the stories and photos than there is no reason to go out and buy the print publication because they have already read the stories and seen the pictures since they were on people.com earlier in the week.
One of the things that sets people.com apart from the print publication is that it is able to post videos. People.com now offers its own entertainment recap show every Monday and also offers the five funniest daytime television clips highlight video. This is more information that is found on the website than is offered in the magazine. I think that people are more likely to use a news outlet that offers more for their time than they are to use a news outlet that doesn’t offer as much. I think the ability to put more content on their website draws more people to read people.com than the print publication because people are getting more for their time and don’t have to pay anything to get it.
The one thing that really sticks out about people.com is that they are able to create a story centered around quotes used by celebrities in other print publications. Currently a feature story on people.com is an article on quotes supermodel Gisele Bundchen made in an upcoming issue of Vanity Fair magazine. Vanity Fair released several quotes Bundchen made in an upcoming article and people.com created a feature story centering around those quotes. While it seems like releasing the quotes is a strategy to get more readers for their print publication, I don’t see how that works. The people.com story framed Bundchen’s quotes very well, and while I’m sure she made more than the quotes used in the people.com story, there were enough quotes released to realize the direction of the story in the upcoming issue of Vanity Fair. While I think this method does get some people to buy a magazine, I also think it gives readers enough of the story that they feel they don’t have to read the actual article.
While I think people.com is a great thing because I get all the information I want as soon as it happens for free, I think it really takes away from the magazine circulation, although not to the point yet where the company has decided to go completely online. If the website keeps offering more, fresh information than the magazine we may one day see People Magazine as a completely web based publication.
As soon as you click on the homepage for people.com all of the major entertainment stories from the day pop up with little blurbs underneath telling what each story is about. These stories are constantly updated throughout the day and the blurb helps visitors choose which stories they want to read. I think the blurbs offered lead to more “info snaking” because people can pick and choose what they want out of an article instead of reading it in its entirety. I think offering these stories online really takes away from the readership of the print publication because there is not much difference between the content on the website and the content in the print publication. In fact, people.com offers a large portion of the front-page article of the print publication every week. In that four to five paragraph “teaser” people.com offers, most people can understand the main points to the story and would have no reason to go out and buy the magazine. I think the fact that people.com offers so many of the stories found throughout its print publication as the stories happen and offer a “teaser” to their cover story hurts more than helps their print circulation.
Another thing that hurts People’s print circulation is the amount of photos offered on people.com in comparison to the print publication. Everyday people.com offers a photo gallery of celebrity sightings consisting on anywhere from 10 to 20 photos. In the weekly print publication only a handful of the photos that appear in all the galleries from the week are featured with the same explanation that is offered on the website. People.com also keeps an archive of all the daily photo galleries so that visitors can go back to look at any of the posted photos. I think the lack of variety and surprise in the photos offered in the print publication really takes away from the circulation of the print publication. If anyone can access people.com and see all the stories and photos than there is no reason to go out and buy the print publication because they have already read the stories and seen the pictures since they were on people.com earlier in the week.
One of the things that sets people.com apart from the print publication is that it is able to post videos. People.com now offers its own entertainment recap show every Monday and also offers the five funniest daytime television clips highlight video. This is more information that is found on the website than is offered in the magazine. I think that people are more likely to use a news outlet that offers more for their time than they are to use a news outlet that doesn’t offer as much. I think the ability to put more content on their website draws more people to read people.com than the print publication because people are getting more for their time and don’t have to pay anything to get it.
The one thing that really sticks out about people.com is that they are able to create a story centered around quotes used by celebrities in other print publications. Currently a feature story on people.com is an article on quotes supermodel Gisele Bundchen made in an upcoming issue of Vanity Fair magazine. Vanity Fair released several quotes Bundchen made in an upcoming article and people.com created a feature story centering around those quotes. While it seems like releasing the quotes is a strategy to get more readers for their print publication, I don’t see how that works. The people.com story framed Bundchen’s quotes very well, and while I’m sure she made more than the quotes used in the people.com story, there were enough quotes released to realize the direction of the story in the upcoming issue of Vanity Fair. While I think this method does get some people to buy a magazine, I also think it gives readers enough of the story that they feel they don’t have to read the actual article.
While I think people.com is a great thing because I get all the information I want as soon as it happens for free, I think it really takes away from the magazine circulation, although not to the point yet where the company has decided to go completely online. If the website keeps offering more, fresh information than the magazine we may one day see People Magazine as a completely web based publication.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
USA Today Critique
USA Today is an online news source that comes to my mind that also is a major national print publication. USA Today is sent to many homes across the United States, and also with technology today can be read online too. To be completely honest, I believe that online reading is so much easier than print, but it also has negative aspects of it as well.
While looking through the homepage of USAToday.com they seem to categorize the news by most popular and the top news. A positive part of online reading compared to print news is that many online media reading sources use “info. Snacking.” They use the title that links you to the article, therefore the reader does not have to read everything, but pick and choose what interests them. USA Today also uses a variety of multimedia to help cover all of the interesting articles. They use videos and different links that will give more information to cover that article. When reading the USA Today print at home, this seems to be a problem. Print media can only be viewed from what the newspaper has chosen to be in the . Clicking to other links is obviously not going to be able to happen in a print media.
Personally, I believe that watching videos and being able to link to other material is very resourceful and helpful. Sometimes hearing something is easier to understand than reading something. For an example, the video showing the Fargo flood is more meaningful to watch because you actually can see what these people are going through. Sometimes writers can have a hard time describing something, such as a disaster in words; therefore by having online media, they can do both.
I also believe that online sourcing is easier and more convenient. USA Today uses RSS, which allows an email to be sent of the latest news updates. This is very beneficial because the reader does not have to visit the website every time and can get the news right to their own email. This can not happen whenever your reading the newspaper.
Don’t get me wrong I do believe sometimes online media can be overwhelming, sometimes a video will not work, or words will not display on the computer screen. Other times they have so much in archives and in their present news, that you can find yourself getting lost in the site. While reading a newspaper this would not happen and it’s pretty hard to get overwhelmed from an everyday newspaper. Overall, with technology today I believe the obvious statement is that it is easier and more efficient to read online media sources to get more information from more than one perspective. The different multimedia that is used on the USA Today site already makes it better than its newsprint.
While looking through the homepage of USAToday.com they seem to categorize the news by most popular and the top news. A positive part of online reading compared to print news is that many online media reading sources use “info. Snacking.” They use the title that links you to the article, therefore the reader does not have to read everything, but pick and choose what interests them. USA Today also uses a variety of multimedia to help cover all of the interesting articles. They use videos and different links that will give more information to cover that article. When reading the USA Today print at home, this seems to be a problem. Print media can only be viewed from what the newspaper has chosen to be in the . Clicking to other links is obviously not going to be able to happen in a print media.
Personally, I believe that watching videos and being able to link to other material is very resourceful and helpful. Sometimes hearing something is easier to understand than reading something. For an example, the video showing the Fargo flood is more meaningful to watch because you actually can see what these people are going through. Sometimes writers can have a hard time describing something, such as a disaster in words; therefore by having online media, they can do both.
I also believe that online sourcing is easier and more convenient. USA Today uses RSS, which allows an email to be sent of the latest news updates. This is very beneficial because the reader does not have to visit the website every time and can get the news right to their own email. This can not happen whenever your reading the newspaper.
Don’t get me wrong I do believe sometimes online media can be overwhelming, sometimes a video will not work, or words will not display on the computer screen. Other times they have so much in archives and in their present news, that you can find yourself getting lost in the site. While reading a newspaper this would not happen and it’s pretty hard to get overwhelmed from an everyday newspaper. Overall, with technology today I believe the obvious statement is that it is easier and more efficient to read online media sources to get more information from more than one perspective. The different multimedia that is used on the USA Today site already makes it better than its newsprint.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)