Please paste your papers and links to the sites you looked at here.
For your presentations, be prepared to talk knowledgeably about the sites you looked at for 3-5 minutes. Be sure to be able to demonstrate some of the innovative reporting/presentation that you highlighted in your papers.
For those that need a refresher on the paper, here is the handout.
18 Comments
December 1, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Although there are some similarities between Cnn.com, a traditional news site, and Huffingtonpost.com, a smaller start-up news site, the differences between the two are far more obvious. Both sites have navigation bars directly under the name of the site, containing categories of news. However, only “entertainment” and “politics” are contained in both. In addition to those, Cnn.com contains world, U.S., crime, health, tech, travel, and living, while Huffingtonpost.com contains media, business, living, style, and green. Despite the differences in the navigation bars, having one is a strength to both sites, as it allows viewers of the site to easily access what they are looking for.
Visually, each site has a look separate from the other. Cnn.com has a clean, professional look to it and is easy to navigate around. The text is dense and there are few pictures that accompany the articles. There is a small list of recent stories for each category of news including U.S., crime, business, travel, tech, and living, among others on the front page. The space on Huffingtonpost.com, however, seems to be filled with just as many images as boxes of text. The front page is broken down into categories of news as well, and also includes a list of featured blog posts.
I believe each site could make small improvements to better their overall appearance and content. Cnn.com offers “story highlights” in addition to each article, which allows readers to get all the important information from the story at once, before they decide to read the entire article. Huffingtonpost.com could offer this feature as well, as to give a brief summary of the story to readers because at the moment, the only way to receive all the important information from the story is to read the entire article. It seems, though, that the denseness of the text on Cnn.com makes it difficult for a reader to find what he or she is looking for. While a professional look is ideal for Cnn.com, it seems that more pictures to accompany the stories would help to break up the endless boxes of text. Cnn.com could also use more colors aside from blue and red, which tends to make the text blend together. Huffingtonpost.com uses colors and font sizes that help the text flow together.
Cnn.com seems like a site that would be accessed more by professional, well-educated and business-type people who do not mind sorting through endless rifts of texts to find what they want. Huffingtonpost.com seems like it was designed while keeping the average person in mind, explaining it’s easy-to-read-and-navigate layout. The design is up-to-date and bright, which is undoubtedly an addition to its strengths. Younger audiences can access the site and understand fully each story; Cnn.com seems stiff and resistant to change.
Overall, both traditional news websites and new media websites can learn from each other. The consistency of traditional news sites has kept audiences of readers comfortable while still providing them with the news they crave. New media sites, however, contain color and brightness that will draw in new audiences. Traditional news sites can help draw in new audiences by making changes to their appearances, including color and more images to make the text easier on the eyes. New media websites can keep their audiences by keeping the appearance of their sites consistent.
December 2, 2008 at 2:50 am
Jessica Wendt
In the world of journalism there are many different outlets of news. Online electronical journalism has taken the world by storm through the Internet and it is even more accessible now than it was 2 years ago even. With so many news outlets available it is more difficult to choose which ones are worth reading and which ones are worth just skipping over and not giving them a second glance.
When looking at Cnn.com it is clear which stories are the headlines and the page is set up very neatly and properly. The links are so easy to find and use that the story is literally just one click away. Another thing that is really beneficial is that it says how many minutes ago it was uploaded and if it is from a different news outlet it says right next to it. It’s easier to see how new or old a news story is with the minute update right next to the link provided. Cnn.com displays lots of different stories and gives tabs for easy access, which is a super, slick feature made simple. One thing Cnn.com lacks however is a teen tab. Teens like hearing about the new music, and about celebrities and it would be a really cool feature for Cnn.com to add, who knows, it could get more news interest from teens and get them reading more. Another thing Cnn.com should revise is not posting the same story multiple times on other pages on the site. Overall, this site is really easy to use and just scroll through just to get the main jest of the news. It is something that when used daily can be flipped through quickly while educating sufficiently of the news happening literally around the world.
The Huffington Post online is messy, sloppy and hard to navigate through. When used daily this would suck up large amounts of time because the site doesn’t have everything listed neatly and properly. The content listed really isn’t valuable either. It seems to focus on other topics that aren’t really headline breaking. The content is mostly small things that don’t really matter. The Huffington Post needs to revamp its total page and start adding some valuable content. Also, their page is completely over run by photos. The page needs to be bare downed so that it is easier to sift through and that readers won’t have to spend large amounts of time sitting on one page. Also their breaking trends buzz feed is really obnoxious. “How to Beat Your Wife” I don’t feel is really a breaking trend and I was quite offended by it. I think that they need to set back and realize a lot that’s on their page is pretty risqué and probably not welcomes well by a larger pool of readers than they think.
The larger Internet sources can however still learn from the under dogs. They could learn that it is possible for funky, edgier articles to be displayed online on an actual news site. The under dog however has a lot to catch up on due to the conciseness and properness of the larger sites. In order for the under dog to ever catch up, they have to step up their entire site and start adding more beneficial information that the audience can actually use.
December 2, 2008 at 10:37 pm
I decided to compare msnbc.com and drudgereport.com. With online journalism becoming the most prevalent way to obtain knowledge of current events. It is the job of the news website to be appealing to its viewers. Unfortunately the initial design sometimes overpowers how good the content of the site actually is, but the stories that are included are very important as well. Both sites prove to be innovative and seem to have what the other site lacks.
Msnbc.com has a very inviting design and layout. It is very organized and has categories that divide into subcategories with the click of a mouse. It does an excellent job of using large color font for major headlines, bold smaller font for subheads, and having some sort of compelling picture in relation to the story. Viewers have the option to watch news broadcasts as well. Drudgereport.com would normally be a site that might be overlooked based solely on its appearance. The viewer must scroll down to see the title of the website Drudge Report. All of the headlines are equal in size in a bland typewriter font.
Although it was hard to notice at first glance, drudgereport.com has the same amount of categories as msnbc.com does, if not more. They have links of national and international mainstream media about politics, the economy, entertainment, and top current events. They even have a link in which you can get your local news. The headlines link to different news websites such as washingtontimes.com, cnn.com, dailyherald.com, and bloomberg.com just to name a few. They even have multiple search engines. It also links to columnists, specific publications, and categorizes stories written by the Associated Press. There are no limits. This gives a variety of news stories from different organizations all on one website, unlike msnbc.com does. Msnbc.com has stories mostly written specifically for NBC News by the organization itself and their collaborative partners. This limited content is a definite weakness of msnbc.com.
I remember learning in class how Matt Drudge became well known after being the first person to report about the Lewinsky scandal. He is controversial and admits he is a conservative according to theadvocates.org. MSNBC tends to have more of a liberal bias.
Drudge is a contributor of the change to the world of journalism, as we know it. Our society today is in high demand to get their news instantaneously. Msnbc.com may be well established and a respected news organization, but they will have to gear away from their traditional form of journalism and may even have to build a niche site that is less informal in its structure. MSNBC will have to come up with more ways for people to get their news in order to maintain popularity within the next few years. With a bit redesign to the Drudge webpage, their possibilities in the future are limitless. They will have to advertise and reach out to a larger audience.
There will always be people who rely predominately on msnbc.com if they are loyal to that organization. Users of drudgereport.com will appreciate the many places the links will take them. We must keep in mind that the world of journalism is changing and both websites have to keep up with the expectations of their audience.
December 2, 2008 at 11:01 pm
As we already know the internet attracts many different people looking for various types of information, at their fingertips. When their searches are directed to the news, undoubtedly, there will be all different kinds of sources to provide them. Traditional news websites and new media websites are examples of a few that provide the news people need, but to different kinds of readers and in different ways. When asked to explore traditional and new media websites, I chose CNN.com and The Huffington Post. Although they both deliver important news to readers, they convey the news in ways that are unalike.
The CNN organization has been providing news around the world for ages. It is known for distributing breaking news around the globe, stating the most important and relevant information to it’s audience; that is how it has built up a trustworthy reputation. Give me the cold, hard, news and fast. CNN.com proves to be just as a reliable source; organizing its website in a concise and legible manner. There is a search bar that leads a person to topics provided. Every bit of news is where it should be on the site and seems to be listed from top to bottom starting with the most important story. The website is designed professionally, attracting a well-educated, seemingly older demographic. The site uses a traditional display, making it seem like a newspaper was stuck to a computer screen but providing video and an endless amount of information. The site gives the reader all the information they could possibly be looking for and they can digest all of it in a matter of minutes. The articles are detailed and full of facts, but also come in shortened versions for someone who desires just the story highlights. On the website, the reader can also find links to small blog rolls, weather forecasts, I-report, markets and CNN TV.
The Huffington Post is a “new media” website, which focuses on providing the news but in a fresh, new way. It is not professional, or traditional but it is still a popular and trustworthy website to find the news. When I was reading the Huffington Post, it felt like it would be an appropriate site for someone who wants to read a good article, addressing relevant topics but with a new spin. A younger person who wants to explore different ideas besides the usual boring articles. The person also has to have more time to read this site. It is not as organized as CNN.com, and if it was, it would probably attract more readers. There doesn’t seem to be any order in which the articles are displayed on the site either; it is a picture and then and headline and then the article, all randomly thrown in. It’s article titles are catchy, but not something someone like my dad would take seriously…But its still good, its young, bold and different.
The Huffington Post also is very focused on blogs. Blogs seem to be the new popular journalism and they allow others to comment. CNN.com has a section for blogs, but they are not as important and prevalent as they are in the Huffington post, which is something CNN can add to the site. The Huffington Post should also find a way to organize its site better, they need to find a way to separate topics like CNN but still incorporate the blogs as a major part of the website. Both sources of news websites provide different people with news they way they want to read it. To sum it up, CNN.com needs to make their site more like a website than a newspaper page. They should incorporate more blogs and colors and articles that are a little more “fun” to attract a wider variety of readers. The Huffington Post needs to re-organize their site to look more professional and therefore be taken more seriously. Both do an excellent job at distributing the news but they need to realize that there are many different people on the internet and the sites need to satisfy both tastes to become better news moguls.
December 3, 2008 at 2:12 am
Viewing cnn.com and huffingtonpost.com one can see the clear distinctions between the two news sites easier than the similarities they share. Both share a Google search engine, however CNN has placed theirs at the top of the page along side the title. The Huffington Post places a smaller search engine below the navigation bar to the right of the page. These are not far apart yet; CNN makes it more accessible and clear. Both of the site’s titles are large and at the top with a navigation bar below. Within the navigation bar in the Huffington post has a topic called ‘Green’, which CNN does not offer. There are only three shared navigations between the two sites and they are: Politics, Entertainment, and Business. CNN being a broad traditional news site offers navigation for U.S. and World news, The Huffington Post however does not put those categories in their navigation, but does have Chicago in theirs.
Aside from the navigation the general site appearances differentiate as well. CNN divides their topics in boxes, whereas The Huffington Post has three columns down the page. The pictures and videos on the CNN website are small with text beside them, and the labeled boxes make finding information easy. The labels are in a different color font and larger than the beginning sentence of the story. The Huffington Post also uses labels, but they are the same size as the story font making differentiating more complicated. The three-column style of The Huffington Post is simple but overly crowded. There is a larger amount of pictures and not enough text. The stories or topics within these columns are also in a random order not ideal for easy access. Near the end of the page, The Huffington Post also strays from its three-column design with two large boxes titled Big News and Links to the right of the page with nothing on the left. All together, the CNN design is easier on the eye than The Huffington Post.
The Huffington Post has too many large pictures, whereas CNN may not have enough. The Huffington Post is too dense on the first page and could use dividing boxes to help with clutter. CNN however lacks topics like ‘Green’ or ‘Most Popularly read or watched’ which could help make their site more interesting. Moreover, the two sites are both known for being more liberal and provide generally similar information. Cnn.com could provide more or larger pictures and huffingtonpost.com could clean up their style. Finding a ‘’happy medium’’ between the two styles with what the two sites can learn from one another.
December 3, 2008 at 2:29 am
Uh no! I didn’t copy my last paragraph. Here it is:
When interacting between the two sites, it would seem CNN would be accessed more for business professionals or those looking for more broad news across the world. The Huffington Post seems as if it would be accessed by those looking for more media or entertainment as well as stories on Chicago based news. With the breakthrough of internet I think the smaller start-up sites could learn more on organization of information from traditional sites. The traditional sites could expand even more with pictures and media comparable to the small start-ups to give more to the deep text. Both internet sites give great information, one just might bring a different audience.
December 3, 2008 at 3:07 am
Upon opening The Washington Post’s website, I was presented with an ad with SAP. The site almost seems intimidating with its entirety of links, making the information seem endless. Despite being an ‘old media’ website, it reflects the influence of advertising as well as modern technology, and is a sufficient contender to a ‘new media’ website like theuptake.org. However, theuptake.org offers a few unique features that make it a truly current online news source.
Visually, both websites could be improved to be more appealing and eye-catching. The design of washingtonpost.com parallels its traditional feel but is cluttered with links. This busy layout allows viewers to taste the variety the sire offers, but seems to be taken to an extreme. I imagine it would be easy for some one to interact with the site by choosing a headline that sounds alluring, reading the article, and possibly giving his or her opinion in the comments section or a blog. A person might visit the site for information other than news, in which case its variety of content is helpful. The site includes sections on real estate, rentals, jobs, cars, shopping, going out, arts and living, as well as on the expected topics of news, sports, politics and opinions. Washingtonpost.com sometimes uses pictures or videos to support their articles while incorporating aspects of The Washington Post and Post Magazine into their layout. The site could learn from theuptake.org and cut down on the number of
Theuptake.org is also a news site, though it tends to the news as the information it chooses to make available. It has either a video or picture to supplement all of its stories, many of which are submitted by readers. The daily interaction of a reader with the site would play to its strengths in the person watching videos while being allowed easy access to a form of public discussion. The ability to submit stories, blog, know future news, and use Twitter to live tweet about current topics makes the site radically advanced. Despite similar content to that of washingtonpost.com, theuptake.org takes an interactive approach in choosing its elements. Theuptake.org realistically questions its viewers “Will Journalism be done by you or to you?” while boasting about their inimitable and interactive features. A video is playing on the home page, and videos are a prevalent news source throughout the site. The site is simplistic in its organization and includes information in several tabs and very few direct links. The content area in which theuptake.org differs from washingtonpost.com is future news. The section has an interactive world map with upcoming events pinpointed, further tailoring its attractiveness to the journalist in all of us.
Both theuptake.org and washingtonpost.com have a blog and discussion features, allowing them to keep with current trends in public online communication, and both are satisfactory news sources. The differences between the two sites, though, paint a more complicated picture. Washingtonpost.com could benefit from a design closer to that of theuptake.org and from adding more visual media. Theuptake.org could possibly entice more visitors by listing a few more headlines on their homepage. These two sites are an example of the importance of learning from organizations unlike your own. Theuptake.org was obviously influenced by old media sites like washingtonpost.com as shown in its mission of bringing the news to the world, though nowadays that mission is sometimes tainted by the influence of advertising and greed. Traditional news organizations are also learning from newer ones, as expressed in the common appearance of features like blogs. They can also learn from new media organizations that the public wants what it wants immediately and the site with information on what is happening this very second will be chosen over sites updating less frequently. Also, old media sites can learn that people want to be involved in their news, not just read it. Though washingtonpost.com and theuptake.org may make different decisions in layout, design, or interactivity, both recognize the need of the public to know and that is not going to change.
December 3, 2008 at 3:35 am
With journalism making its move onto the internet, there are different ways to access the news. Startup websites are news sites that started up online differ from traditional news. Traditional news websites are those started up by big name media that have had to adapt to the new technologies. Both styles of news sites are different from one another on how they give and post news. CNN.com and theuptake.org are two big news sites that have different approaches on their website to deliver the news.
Theuptake.org has too much going on in its webpage. There are a few videos on the page, and one is on auto start. Theuptake.org seemed to be more for political stories because that’s what all the stories on the home page were about. It looked more like a blog than a news website. The one thing I noticed on theuptake.org that I didn’t see on CNN.com was a list of tags of old stories and the number of stories about them right next to the tag. With tags like “California,” “Obama,” or “protest”, one can easily see how many stories about a topic they are interested in are on the page. One bad thing about the tag list is that the tags were not hyperlinked, meaning you can not click on them and then have them take you to the stories. I personally do not see a point in having the tag list if you can not click on them. It also had a chatbox for people to comment on as a story progressed. The “stories” section of the site had the 9 most recent stories in a grid format with a picture of the video. It looks unattractive because the picture is not resized proportionally. All the stories had a video, which is something cnn.com doesn’t have. At least you have the option to change the order of the video based on age or name. A cool feature had a tab of future stories. It was a list of events that people can go and cover for the website, along with a map for location. This was a good feature to allow its readers to know what to expect in the upcoming days.
The website for CNN was completely different. CNN.com was a very easy to navigate website. Stories and videos were in their own section on the home page, and the videos were not embedded. The list of stories was neatly in the center with most headlines similar in length. They had the major news story on the left with a picture and beginning of the story under it. This is update frequently, giving us a new breaking story. They also had all types of stories. Everything from Senate races & foreign affairs to music and sport stories were on the front. CNN.com probably had more stories updated in the past 24 hours than theuptake.org has since it started. These stores are organized based on when they were last updated. They were also organized based on their news genre such as politics or health. If one wanted to search for a story, a “powered by Google” toolbar allows somebody to search for one, theuptake.org doesn’t not have a search toolbar at all. The big thing for CNN.com was that it is really well organized.
What startup news websites offer to its viewers is more interaction. Traditional media is just about giving you the news in the most convenient way possible. Interaction by the people can help get the people to return to the website if it feels it can do more than just read or watch a video. Traditional news websites will remain as reliable sources for people to obtain news, however startup websites are growing and becoming and alternate place for people to turn to.
December 3, 2008 at 3:52 am
Convergence
For my “old media” and traditional publication website, I chose nytimes.com. The first feeling I get when I am at the website’s homepage is almost a feeling of being overwhelmed. There’s so much going on; list upon list of stories and ads are scattered about. At the top of the page you are given options to help organize your use of the site: homepage, my times, today’s paper, video, most popular, and times topics. I feel that although the site appears busy, these buttons help you to get the information you’re looking for with easy access. The New York Times site does not distract you with color. It is presented simply with a white background and black font. I think this is important because when going to this site I feel that you are looking for actual content of depth and information, not “fluff”.
The “new media” site I chose was huffingtonpost.com. This site also has a navigation bar at the top of the page to help organize their information. Something that clearly stands out to be about this site is that it has large amounts of pictures on the homepage. This can be incredibly appealing to some people, but I find that for all of those pictures to be on the home page at once, it’s a little distracting. Also, this site can stray away from news topics. It has sections on style, celebrity, living, green, and so on. I do not feel that if I were looking for news that I would want to stray away from that with other topics. It is important to appeal to everyone’s taste, but I feel that news site should focus on just that: news.
In a way, I feel that both sites are similar when it comes to looking at them visually. However, this is only layout-wise. I think that the approach nytimes.com has by being simple and clean is actually more effective than huffingtonpost.com’s random splashes of color and overload of pictures. People going to these sites want them to be visually appealing, but they want news and stories and have the desire to be informed.
Nytimes.com focuses on more important issues and headlines and while huffingtonpost.com covers some similar stories, I do not feel the topics covered hold as much significance. I feel that both sites could learn from each other though. While nytimes.com shows photographs that go along with their stories, the photos do not take over the actual content. I think that huffingtonpost.com could tone down the use of photographs on their homepage and save the pictures for the actual article.
Huffingtonpost.com seems like it is aiming towards a younger audience than nytimes.com; however, I don’t think that what they are doing is hitting the mark. I feel this site could take an edgier approach without the excess material currently featured on the page. If the stories they are covering are provocative and risqué, then I feel that the site should reflect that, but if The Huffington Post is aiming to be taken seriously, then there are a lot of things they could learn from The New York Times in terms of professionalism.
The New York Times could maybe show less on the main page. People don’t want to feel overwhelmed and although they offer plenty of information and a navigation bar, its easy to get lost. Sometimes the layout of the page can overpower the actual content being offered and I feel that it is important for the user to remain on track.
Online news sites are becoming the preferred way to access news. They are quick and easy and incredibly important to the field of journalism. I think that the important thing that sites need to be aware of is to keep it organized and know what content your audience is looking for.
December 3, 2008 at 5:06 am
http://www.nytimes.com/
http://drudgereport.com/
The Drudge Report and the New York Times website both cover news online, but they both take a drastically different approach to doing so. Both sites are laid out differently and take a different approach to the content the cover and how they do so.
The Times site is laid out more or less like a newspaper. The homepage looks like a New York Times front page, with a main headline at the top with a picture and a short summary of the story. Several other smaller headlines and blurbs are fit in underneath that similarly to the secondary front page stories in a newspaper. Each headline is linked to the full article that it represents. There are also ads crammed into boxes of space between the content. Halfway down the page there’s an “Inside NYTimes.com” section with links to stories from every section of the site (corresponding to the sections found in the print version of the paper). There’s also a navigation bar on the left side of the page that provides access to the main page for each section, as well as links to the New York Times classified ads.
The Times’ site is written by the Times’ staff, and often contains stories from the print version. It has original articles written for the site covering a wide range of topics, from news to politics to business to entertainment and everything in between. It also features video content. Most (if not all) of the site’s content was created exclusively for this site. I think the online version of the Times works really well as an online, interactive version of the paper itself, as well as featuring well-made, in-depth, and informative graphic organizers, such as their map of the 2008 election results.
The Drudge Report couldn’t be any more different. It has a very simplistic layout consisting almost entirely of links in black text on a white background, with a few pictures here and there. The site generates no original content of its own, but instead provides links to stories from all over the web. Every link is a short, attention-grabbing headline, with no accompanying text from the actual article. There are links to various news sites themselves (not just to specific articles), as well as links to up-to-date TV ratings and box office results. Content-wise, the Drudge Report has a much more conservative slant to it, and doesn’t cover as many lifestyles or arts-type topics than the Times site.
The Drudge Report is truly innovative in its formatting. By simply posting hundreds of links, it becomes a one-stop source for a wide variety of stories. It gives readers one site that provides them with stories from hundreds of different credible news sources. It really promotes the idea of a free exchange of information in a way that only the internet could provide.
The Drudge Report could arguably be improved by the addition of specifically written original stories of its own, as well as more multimedia options from the main site. The New York Times site could learn a few things from the Drudge Report, though, and be more open to the idea of the link economy instead of providing exclusively Times-produced content. That would really help it move into the internet age instead of relying on the traditional newspaper format like they still are.
In general, both types of sites could learn from one another. The traditional news organizations can learn to better embrace the unique opportunities that the web provides like the smaller upstarts that were born on the web do (such as relying heavily on a link economy and combining lots of sources). The smaller sites could also learn from the traditional news organizations in terms of specialized content (like the Times’ graphic organizers), and they could benefit from the credibility that comes with being associated with a big name in news.
December 3, 2008 at 5:26 am
I’m taking a look at the Chicago Tribune and Huffington Post websites respectively. The biggest strengths of both of these sites are their immediate headlines at the top of the page. However, the Huffington Post site has a much larger picture for its top story. The Tribune also has three other stories above the breaking news story but none of them are as groundbreaking as the top story. This may be a layout issue but the top story deserves to be on the top. The home page of the tribune offers a lot of content, almost too much. The website should be more uniformed and have the top story at the center of a non-scrolling page and have other top stories right next to it the way IGN features their top stories that way people can click through what’s most important. Surrounding this box of top stories should be weather, traffic times, and lesser but significant stories. The layout that’s here now is complex and its overwhelming ness could be easily toned down.
The first innovative feature I’ll talk about comes from the Tribune site. If you put your cursor over a category to the left of the page, that category will be broken down for you. For example, if I put my cursor over sports a sidebar will appear and break down sport for me into teams. Therefore, if I want to read about the Bears I’ll put my cursor over “Sports” and click on “Bears” n the sidebar. This is the most organized feature of the website.
Another innovative feature on the Tribune is the Breaking News page. Breaking news stories are listed in the time of when they occurred so the reader can follow it throughout the day. There’s also a weather status to the right of the page as well as quick local news. There’s also a link of readers to send in their news tips!
An innovative feature of Huffington is its “big news” category. When you click on a category at the top of the page such as “Chicago” or “Media” a sidebar will appear underneath featuring the most popular items of that particular category.
Visually, both sites are similar and offer the same amount of content. The Huffington offers a lot of editorials and they take up most of the main page. They could have been given their own section but that’s the way this one works. The Tribune is overwhelming at first but its highly organized menu on the left and breaking news page are big winners. If they designed the page with a non-scrolling look and kept the side menu it would be perfect.
I would imagine that people who interact with this site would know what they’re doing. Just like when I check out IGN I know exactly where to look to get the top stories, reviews, and other information. I would imagine that people use the side menu on the Tribune a lot and also keep an eye out on the breaking news page to stay up to date. I would imagine that viewers of the Huffington post would be veteran viewers. I don’t know where to look when I browse this site.
The Huffington could improve its top headlines. Instead of having three horizontal boxes on top, just use one and let people scroll through the stories in that single box/window. They also need to tone down the editorials on the main page. They can have as many as they want but they should be given their own space. There are also a lot of pictures to the right of the page that go all the way down. Those should be represented in their specific categories. Instead, just post one from each category and when a viewer click on one it can take them to that story and others from that category.
The tribune could improve its layout the way I mentioned earlier with the non-scrolling page. I know it’s difficult but having smaller ads would make everything pop out a lot more, just take a look at the apple website. There should also be a section of the website that lets users allow to post news from what’s going on in their neighborhood. I can’t seem to find anything like that on this site.
Both sites also list stories on the main page. If they keep it clean and simple, such as an easier navigation with categories, people will be able to navigate through the site themselves and pick what they want to read.
In terms of learning from each other, I don’t think the Tribune can learn much from the Huffington. I was expecting the Huffington to be more user friendly but it’s not. I think it’s more of a question of what can both of these websites learn from commercial websites such as apple and ign. Both of them need to focus on how people want things fast, not all at once.
December 3, 2008 at 5:32 am
In today’s journalism world, there are an abundance of sources in which one can receive current, accurate information. One can turn on the radio, watch the television, or simply sit back and read the paper. However, perhaps the fastest, easiest way to receive the current information about the world would be through online journalism. In fact, online journalism is an extremely fast growing field. The two journalistic websites of the latimes.com and theuptake.org are prime examples of the field’s movement towards the web.
When first arriving at both sites, there are clearly some strong points at each one given. Latimes.com is extremely colorful and has many exciting pictures of the events it mentions, while theuptake.org has a video that immediately begins to play and is almost all entirely white with a lot of writing. The latimes.com has large advertising space while theuptake.org simply has donation ads for its readers. Perhaps the main difference between the two sites would be the content they both hold: the latimes.com has information covering news, events, entertainment, business, sports, environment, etc. about California and the rest of the world, while theuptake.org merely has content portraying to government and politics. Obviously this then means that people interact with each site in different ways. If a person wants to know what is happening in all aspects of Los Angeles and the major topics in the rest of the world, they would check the latimes.com. On the other hand, if someone constantly wants to be up-dated on current political issues, mainly the topic of the ballots, they would most definitely interact daily with the site.
Since both sites are extremely different, they each have their own strengths and weaknesses, as well as room for improvement. The latimes.com does an exceptional job of covering all aspects of the news, while theuptake.org does a phenomenal job of targeting a particular audience who only want to know about limited information regarding aspects of the government; predominantly about the lost and recounted ballots in the past election. On the flip side, the latimes.com is often over-whelming with its abundance of information, and theuptake.org seems to be lacking in information. Both sites could make improvements. The latimes.com could make their website a little easier to navigate by providing links that would lead to a “living” or “entertainment” separate page instead of just simply having little links under the very general subjects; they should have their own link to their own general page. Also, the latimes.com could have more interactive features such as reader commenter forums and even have a fun feature, such as a “quote of the day”. Likewise, theuptake.org would be enhanced with a more of a variety of information on government and politics, much more color, and more links to greater information.
Though the sites do need their improvements, they certainly have their innovations. The latimes.com has a prime example of this with its feature of “The Envolope” under its arts/entertainment section that strictly talks about award shows, such as “The Grammy’s”. It also has an “Opinion” page which features, “the best in Southern California opinion journalism” and also a crossword puzzle link. Meanwhile, theuptake.org is innovative through its video that plays automatically, its dedication to the information regarding the counting and accuracy of the ballots in the recent election, and its revilement of usually rare information.
However different the two online news sources may be, they can each learn from each other. The traditional page of the latimes.com could most definitely benefit from the personal, intimate information theuptake.org provided and it could also even benefit from the donation feature that the smaller website established. It could also even use the automatic starting video in the middle of its website for displaying extremely important information. On the other hand, theuptake.org could learn to make their site more aesthetically pleasing like the more traditional sites, and even add more information. Both sites can learn from each other, however it is theuptake.org that would greatly benefit from some of the traditional features of latimes.com
December 3, 2008 at 6:04 am
If there is ever debate over two websites, and which website is better, it’s quite common to see that image plays a significant, if not the biggest, role. Sure, aesthetics can differ from person to person. One can like certain colors. One might be partial to a font, or the layout. You might find someone who doesn’t even like pictures. With all of that said, logging onto both the Drudge Report and MSNBC.com, I think it’s not far-reaching to say that most people would think MSNBC’s website is much more pleasing to the eye.
Yet, and this is according to both sites’ advertising agencies (MSNBC is in-house, run by Microsoft while Drudge Report’s is managed by Intermarkets), the Drudge Report still finishes with over 12 million unique visitors a month, and this is without corporate financing. MSNBC.com pulls in over 30 million unique visitors. Run by a single guy, Matt Drudge, the Drudge Report is able to perform at a third of what corporate MSNBC.com can do.
These statistics exemplifies the threat felt by major corporations by start-ups all because of the accessibility and efficiency from the Internet. What the Drudge Report does well (if not perfect) is let the visitor know of news. That’s it. They make the person aware and let the person do the investigating on their own. Yes, some stories still get a picture (1…picture), but not to the extent, as far as coverage goes, that the same story might get on MSNBC.com. This is because the Drudge Report does not focus on covering the story. It’s simply just to make the visitor aware of the news.
MSNBC.com, however lays out their news in a sophisticated manner that is stunning to look at. It’s modern and chic – for the young and informed. It can also be very customizable with the “My News” tab within the Explore section. The organization is well thought out and acts just like any traditional news outlet would. On the left side there is a navigation tool, with the standard topics: US News, World News, Politics, Sports, etc.
From MSNBC, I really like the “shortcuts” section near the middle of the page on the left side. It was easy to access trivial things such as horoscopes and crossword puzzles. Just like a newspaper, you’ll know where to find them. I also found it very intuitive to allow the visitor to pick how many stories they wanted to be shown for each category (US News, etc). The personal weather forecast at the top-right was very convenient.
The Drudge Report doesn’t do a lot of things well, but it’s almost designed to act that way. No pictures means less clutter. Having mostly black text means that top stories with red text are easily visible. He also makes the customizable features, what they DO have for them, extremely easy. It’s a one trick pony – efficient news.
What they have to learn from each other is difficult to answer. MSNBC.com has to retain it’s massive corporation and therefore cannot do things that might put it’s image in jeopardy that a site like the Drudge Report can. This is the niche that the Drudge Report succeeds in – people that want an alternative to the mainstream media’s way of interacting with the public. If the Drudge Report wants to get bigger, it has to also recognize what got it there but not disown the people who come specifically to the Drudge Report for the way it is today. The only thing I can think of that MSNBC might take from the Drudge is an idea, rather than specifics in layout design. The idea that people like things simple is one that will stand true until the end of time.
December 3, 2008 at 8:32 am
Alaina Africano
Dan Sinker
Intro to Journalism
December 3, 2008
With the convergence of all media aspects, journalism has become an unpredictable, exciting break-through evolution. The Internet has been an innovation to change many different facets of society, and news media being one of them. Even with all the new techniques and tools, journalists must not forget to do what the occupation entails: reporting the facts.
CNN.com is one of the most popular news websites today. CNN has lots of money, so keeping up with new technologies is a vital role for them to deliver the news effectively. At the bottom of the CNN home page they have the latest journalism tools, such as blogs, podcasts, radio links and great consumer tools like mobile alerts. CNN is a very credible source and it usually the first to post or announce groundbreaking news. CNN is also worldly recognized and commercialized, which can also be attributed to their abundance of funds. CNN.com has on their homepage a list of the latest headlines simply just layed out, which I believe visual simplicity is a great technique. Another truly innovative technique that I personally took advantage of was the election center on cnn.com/politics. This feature was to keep track of the elections from the primaries up until the announcement of the president. Most news websites had something of this nature, but CNN did a great job explaining the election and informing people.
Improvements could be made to CNN.com to make it less intimidating and commercialized. People in today’s society are always thinking about convenience and how to make their lives easier. I think a fresh idea such as customizing your CNN homepage would be great. If people had the option of being able to see what they want to see, then it would appeal to a larger population. Another way to improve the website would be to visually have a distinction with the categories. Like when you click on the entertainment part of the website it should be themed differently then the politics page. I know CNN has lots of videos on their page, but a nice big photo gallery of great photojournalism would be great improvement to their website, as well.
CNN is a great website for people to interact with. (except if you’re a republican) CNN is my personal homepage on my computer. The website has credible, informative content. The idea of customizing a home page would lead to greater, more frequent interaction.
The Huffington Post is fresh news site that is also featuring new inventive ideas. I really like the fact that there is a section on the Huffington Post that is allocated for local news in Chicago. This website is also very picture oriented, which I like for browsing through stories. The Post also has a live feed on the top of the homepage that is updated frequently. The Huffington post keeps their visual continuity and still is able to switch it up by changing colors of different topic pages. The Huffington Post has many of the same ideas as CNN, for example on the homepage having the latest story enlarged and the other recent headlines next to it.
Improvements can be made to the Huffington Post just like CNN. The post has many advertisements on their site, which is accredited to obviously making more money, something CNN has plenty of. Because of the many pictures on the site, I feel that with all the advertisements it can be a little busy. I also think by being a modern online journalism website people are more skeptical to get their information there; therefore, leading to less interaction.
With new journalism most of it is heavily blog based, the Huffington Post contains many valid stories but are just from other sources. On the Huffington Post there is a list of a slew of different news sites to visit, and where they get some of their information from too. CNN has there own reporters and first hand going to report there stories most of the time. But CNN like the Huffington Post lists other local news sites that they have gotten information from. CNN has certain affiliates though, so they are limited as to certain websites they can advertise. Blog based journalism holds subjectivity most of the time. So it is important for new media outlets to hold up the traditional objective perspective on reporting stories.
I believe each type of new and old journalism brings something important to the table. With the convergence of both media types I think consulting of the population is in order. If we find out what readers, listeners and viewers want it will lead to a new journalism that has been more popular and effective than ever.
cnn.com
huffingtonpost.com
December 3, 2008 at 8:36 am
Every news source is going to have some similarities and some differences. Start-up media websites, like “the big picture,” are generally simpler than the bigger more traditional publishing broadcasts, like cnn.com. Personally I find both sites equally informative, and they can both learn from one another.
Cnn.com, the more traditional website, is chock full of news, but it can also be hard for new users to navigate. The home page generally has one photograph relevant to one of the many stories projected on that page, and next to the photo the reader will find a long lists of headlines to shift through. This can be convenient if you are looking for a specific article, but for people in a hurry it is not the easiest site to visit.. On the other hand Boston Post’s “the big picture” site has many photos and stories on a page. However, a reader might feel overwhelmed, as I did on my first visit to the page. The page was filled with half of article after article. Each article was companied by a group of photographs. The photos are good for telling the story, but I feel that when a reader sees photo after photo they begin to become overwhelmed and subconsciously block out some images.
Cnn.com has become a big-name source of news, so it has become something people look at daily. The site is good for a daily view, because it showcases all the big news events of the day on the home page. Anyone could visit the page and get a jest of what is going on in the world around them. However, “the big picture” is not necessarily updated daily. It is a good site to visit for photos and special feature stories, but not day to day news story.
The more noticeable difference between the too, however, was the visual differences. The traditional site was well planed out and developed. It has a clean cut layout, it can be divided up into sections for world, politics. U.S. or entertainment. On each page it has many of that day’s headlines set up in link form that will lead the reader to the story. On the start-up site however, the headlines are followed by a few paragraphs of the article and a huge photo. The current page has a grand total of fourteen articles dating back to November 7th.
The differences isn’t necessarily bad, however. I feel the start-up websites have the need to be more flashy and upbeat to keep readers coming back. This is a lesson that more traditional news sites should consider, maybe if they had more of a visual appeal they could attract a larger, and younger, audience. Start-up news media websites, at least in the big picture’s case they were able to go into greater depth with their stories. If larger news websites went into more depth with their articles I feel we could have more well written and intriguing stories. Smaller news media websites can also learn from bigger sites. “The big picture” could have use a smaller side panel of headlines so that the reader wouldn’t have to scroll through pages, Additionally “the big picture” could learn to be more consistent with the amount of stories it posts a day/week.
While I liked both sites, I personally liked the smaller “new media” sites because of their fresh new take on the field of journalism.
December 3, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Bishara A Dorre
Introduction to Journalism
Dan Sinker
December 3rd 2008
Journalism has gradually changed throughout the years in various ways. One of these big changes is who people receive the news and where they get it from. In today’s society the commercial internet has taken over modern day journalism. There are some news organizations that have been around for a while, and they are considered traditional news sites. There are also numerous startup news organizations on line. There are many differences and similarities between the two different online sites.
A more traditional news organization is CNN.com. CNN has been providing news for a very long time. CNN has a very traditional website, but it is very easy to understand and navigate. The latest news from across the globe is at the click of a mouse. The web page is very organized and well arranged. They also have a great menu bar that is very simple and includes various topics you can get to right away. They seem to cover all aspects of news from entertainment to worldly. There is even a “living” tab. The information they provide on CNN.com is endless. All of the stories are well organized as well, because they are listed from most recent to least recent. The stories are very informative and detailed, but easy to understand. Some stories even go as far as having videos are recordings with them. The overall site is very professional and business oriented. Since CNN.com is such a traditional site it is for everyone. It is easy for everyone to understand and there are stories for a wide range of people’s interests. CNN.com also has blogs, iReports, weather updates, and mobile updates. This makes them even more accessible and helpful, because they have more than just a bunch of stories. On top of informative, CNN has variety. There are not really any strong weaknesses that stand out on CNN.com.
An example of a startup news site would be the Huffington Post. This online news organization is fairly new, and does not present their news in a traditional way like CNN.com would. Their website is very bland, tasteless, and not visually appealing. They cover a lot of information and news but not all over the globe. They are very limited with their stories and their content. Their website is very unprofessional, because it lacks organization and clarity. There is not a clear listing of stories in a series order, and there is no organization to the stories posted. It is hard to understand and not appealing to look at. It looks jumbled together and carelessly positioned. The new news organizations like the Huffington Post focus on staying away from the traditional stories as a site like CNN would do. They try to be more upbeat, hip, and modern, but as they become more modern they lack quality. A really great strength that the Huffington Post has over CNN is the use of colors, pictures and different font sizes. It adds variety to their web page. They also have and extensive amount of blogs. The Huffington Post has a good sense of direction but a poor presentation of it right now.
The Huffington Post a new startup news organization can learn from CNN, and take their good organization skills as well incorporate more detailed information with better headlines in their stories like CNN does in a professional way. CNN, a traditional news organization can also learn from the Huffington Post. CNN can add more color, font changes, and more compelling articles for a younger crowd to their page. If we link the old with the new great things could happen for both news organizations, and both will broaden their audiences.
December 3, 2008 at 2:51 pm
http://www.chicagotribune.com/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
Luana Perez
Dan Sinker
Introduction to Journalism
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
The Chicago Tribune’s website and The Huffington Post’s website contain both similarities and differences between each other. The Chicago Tribune’s website derives from its original newspaper form. In comparison to The Huffington Post which is not in the traditional newspaper form but instead an “internet newspaper”.
A major strength of The Chicago Tribune’s website is the organization of the page. The page is very organized which allows for readers to find what they need. The Huffington Post is also organized but when scrolling down the first page its can be overwhelming with the hundreds of photos they post. The Chicago Tribune’s pages are much shorter. Articles that are linked on the homepage are only those which are very relevant and will grab the attention of readers. In comparison to The Huffington Post which has a very long page containing links to a ton of different articles. Strengths of The Huffington Post are the ability to watch videos. The website contains many different videos which viewers can choose from.
An innovation of The Chicago Tribune’s website is the ability to program news alerts on your cell phone. Another innovative concept is the ability to email the journalist who wrote a piece. Underneath articles written by Chicago Tribune journalists are their email addressees. This allows for communication between readers and journalists. The site also has a photo store on their website. There people can purchase photographs taken by Chicago Tribune photographers.
An innovative thing on the Huffington Post is the ability to link articles to various networking sites. On The Chicago Tribune one only has the option to print or email; while The Huffington Post allows for one to post it on a site like Facebook. The Huffington Post has joined with Twitter which allows for them to receive immediate news and also allows for interaction with readers. The site also placed an emphasis on commenting on articles. Readers have the ability to comment on articles and to comment to each others comments.
The Chicago Tribune could improve their website by emphasizing interaction with readers more and adding more features to their website. They could join a site like Twitter. The Chicago Tribune could be apart of Twitter already but they don’t make an emphasis like The Huffington Post does. Another improvement could to have a visible link to make Chicago Tribune a home page. The Huffington Post’s link is at the top of the page for viewers to see.
The Huffington Post could improve their website by cutting off some of the links and pictures their place on their pages. There is a lot of information on the home page. Another idea could be to have immediate alerts sent to your telephone. They have alerts which can be sent you to by e-mail but not by text message to your cell phone. Another thing they could do could be to put links to the blog on just a tab and not the side of the page on the front page. The front page has a lot to scroll through and scrolling the blog biographies and short excerpts can seem like too much.
The way people interact on The Chicago Tribune website is with the ability to receive updates on their cell phone, be able to email articles, be able to print articles and be able to comment on articles. On some articles the reader has the ability to email the journalist and interact with them in a different way than a comment would. The Huffington Post’s website allows their readers to print articles, email articles, link them on various networking sites such as Facebook, and be able to comment on articles.
The Chicago Tribune’s website layout differs greatly from The Huffington Post’s. The Chicago Tribune has their name written on the top left side of the page. Their name is labeled twice with the name written on top of another. The top one is written in the traditional font which is used on the newspaper; and the bottom one is written in a lower case regular font. Below the headline is the search bar with horizontal tabs for classifieds such as cars, apartments, etc. The tabs for news on sports, weather and other topics are organized in a vertical manner. To the side of the news tabs and below the search bar are three pictures which link to three different picture albums. The picture albums pertain to recent and relevant news. Than there is a bar which provides news on weather and below that is a tab containing breaking news stories. Below these bars is the top story which has a few sentences from the article and a picture. To read the rest of the article to reader must click on the article’s link. Underneath the top story are various links to different news stories. And placed around the page are pictures and links of different advertisements. The main colors which are used on the website are blue, white and gray.
The Huffington Post labels their name on the top center of the page in capitol green letters. Below their name is written in a smaller font in grey is “the internet newspaper: news blogs video community”. Underneath the title are horizontally organized tabs for things like lifestyle, business, politics, etc. Below the tabs is a bar which provides news stories provided by AP. Next to this tab is a Google search bar. Beneath these is the top story written in very large capitol red letters. The top story contains a picture and a link to the full article. Below the top story are links to other top stories and other stories. To the left of the page are short biographies on blog posters and below this are link to blog posts. The site is filled with pictures and videos. Placed around the page are advertisements that link out to their store. The colors which are used on the site are white, green, blue and red.
The Chicago Tribune content contains written articles which can be accompanied by photographs, videos, and/or any other graphics like charts. The Huffington Post also posts written articles but because they are a video community they post a lot of videos
Traditional news organizations need to start adding more of the new technology which is arising. Many traditional sites have already joined things like Twitter, but as these things continue traditional sites need to keep joining them to keep up. Smaller organizations can learn from traditional news organization how to style things. The classical style which traditional news organizations use is appealing to those who read traditional news sites. If smaller organizations were to style their sites in traditional ways but include their innovative ideas maybe they could grab the readers of traditional sites.
December 3, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Luana Perez
Dan Sinker
Introduction to Journalism
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
The Chicago Tribune’s website and The Huffington Post’s website contain both similarities and differences between each other. The Chicago Tribune’s website derives from its original newspaper form. In comparison to The Huffington Post which is not in the traditional newspaper form but instead an “internet newspaper”.
A major strength of The Chicago Tribune’s website is the organization of the page. The page is very organized which allows for readers to find what they need. The Huffington Post is also organized but when scrolling down the first page its can be overwhelming with the hundreds of photos they post. The Chicago Tribune’s pages are much shorter. Articles that are linked on the homepage are only those which are very relevant and will grab the attention of readers. In comparison to The Huffington Post which has a very long page containing links to a ton of different articles. Strengths of The Huffington Post are the ability to watch videos. The website contains many different videos which viewers can choose from.
An innovation of The Chicago Tribune’s website is the ability to program news alerts on your cell phone. Another innovative concept is the ability to email the journalist who wrote a piece. Underneath articles written by Chicago Tribune journalists are their email addressees. This allows for communication between readers and journalists. The site also has a photo store on their website. There people can purchase photographs taken by Chicago Tribune photographers.
An innovative thing on the Huffington Post is the ability to link articles to various networking sites. On The Chicago Tribune one only has the option to print or email; while The Huffington Post allows for one to post it on a site like Facebook. The Huffington Post has joined with Twitter which allows for them to receive immediate news and also allows for interaction with readers. The site also placed an emphasis on commenting on articles. Readers have the ability to comment on articles and to comment to each others comments.
The Chicago Tribune could improve their website by emphasizing interaction with readers more and adding more features to their website. They could join a site like Twitter. The Chicago Tribune could be apart of Twitter already but they don’t make an emphasis like The Huffington Post does. Another improvement could to have a visible link to make Chicago Tribune a home page. The Huffington Post’s link is at the top of the page for viewers to see.
The Huffington Post could improve their website by cutting off some of the links and pictures their place on their pages. There is a lot of information on the home page. Another idea could be to have immediate alerts sent to your telephone. They have alerts which can be sent you to by e-mail but not by text message to your cell phone. Another thing they could do could be to put links to the blog on just a tab and not the side of the page on the front page. The front page has a lot to scroll through and scrolling the blog biographies and short excerpts can seem like too much.
The way people interact on The Chicago Tribune website is with the ability to receive updates on their cell phone, be able to email articles, be able to print articles and be able to comment on articles. On some articles the reader has the ability to email the journalist and interact with them in a different way than a comment would. The Huffington Post’s website allows their readers to print articles, email articles, link them on various networking sites such as Facebook, and be able to comment on articles.
The Chicago Tribune’s website layout differs greatly from The Huffington Post’s. The Chicago Tribune has their name written on the top left side of the page. Their name is labeled twice with the name written on top of another. The top one is written in the traditional font which is used on the newspaper; and the bottom one is written in a lower case regular font. Below the headline is the search bar with horizontal tabs for classifieds such as cars, apartments, etc. The tabs for news on sports, weather and other topics are organized in a vertical manner. To the side of the news tabs and below the search bar are three pictures which link to three different picture albums. The picture albums pertain to recent and relevant news. Than there is a bar which provides news on weather and below that is a tab containing breaking news stories. Below these bars is the top story which has a few sentences from the article and a picture. To read the rest of the article to reader must click on the article’s link. Underneath the top story are various links to different news stories. And placed around the page are pictures and links of different advertisements. The main colors which are used on the website are blue, white and gray.
The Huffington Post labels their name on the top center of the page in capitol green letters. Below their name is written in a smaller font in grey is “the internet newspaper: news blogs video community”. Underneath the title are horizontally organized tabs for things like lifestyle, business, politics, etc. Below the tabs is a bar which provides news stories provided by AP. Next to this tab is a Google search bar. Beneath these is the top story written in very large capitol red letters. The top story contains a picture and a link to the full article. Below the top story are links to other top stories and other stories. To the left of the page are short biographies on blog posters and below this are link to blog posts. The site is filled with pictures and videos. Placed around the page are advertisements that link out to their store. The colors which are used on the site are white, green, blue and red.
The Chicago Tribune content contains written articles which can be accompanied by photographs, videos, and/or any other graphics like charts. The Huffington Post also posts written articles but because they are a video community they post a lot of videos
Traditional news organizations need to start adding more of the new technology which is arising. Many traditional sites have already joined things like Twitter, but as these things continue traditional sites need to keep joining them to keep up. Smaller organizations can learn from traditional news organization how to style things. The classical style which traditional news organizations use is appealing to those who read traditional news sites. If smaller organizations were to style their sites in traditional ways but include their innovative ideas maybe they could grab the readers of traditional sites.