The Two Towns of Jasper; Deep Print V.S. Intense Television

With such an intense tragedy such as the one in Jasper, it is hard to convey feelings in any way simply because there are so many of them. Fear, anger, resentment, guilt, sadness, etc.
The written accounts covering the death of James Byrd, i believe, show more depth to the story simply because the second article related the story to the whole town in interviews with neighbors, a teen he was teaching piano to, and his family. There were also comments about Byrd's close friend who was supposed to take him home from the party he attended on the night of the incident. As far as these things go, the print version gave a good review of the community's reaction. Some things that the print version lacked was an intense description of what actually happened to Byrd whereas the television version was very descriptive and actually followed the road that it happened on. This is only because of the difference in media though, obviously you couldn't take numerous pictures of the road for a newspaper and expect them all to be published. Theres just something more intense about a sheriff walking down the road of a scene of a crime and trying to re-live what happened. It's not easy to convey those kind of feelings in print.
Although the television version had it's strengths, it also lacked in the personal relationships that Byrd held with his community (for example, the girl he was teaching piano to and his close neighbor and friend). These relationships are good to display because it's one thing to cover the emotions of a grief stricken family but to also cover community members who are just as upset, wether they personally knew the subject or not, brings more to the story.
I would say that the print version had good depth but the television version was more intense and although both of these are great strengths, i would personally pick the television version over the articles simply because of personal preference and interest in seeing emotion on peoples faces and how they convey themselves and their emotions.

Hot air carries journalism to new height

In review of Malkin's website Hotair.com, i found three things; opinion, new perspective, and suggestions.

I really like the main part of the site that has the headlines. i like that they picked out what they thought people would be interested in and advertised them in a way that people could choose what they wanted to read within the site. these suggestions right of the bat present people with a choice in what they want to view and it's nice to be able to do that. everyone has the freedom to read whatever they want but newspapers usually throw the subjects right in your face on the front page, this site doesn't do that so if you feel that all the headlines sound like they're "garbage" then you can skip them and get to whatever it is that you are interested in. It's a delightful option.

The layout of the sight presents a new perspective. It's cutting edge and presents information in a way that would appeal to ages 18 to 40. That wide range is very beneficial to the success of the website. I like that there are 3 blog writers that write from different perspectives and that you can tell which ones are doing a great job in the way they present their "top picks" according to number of comments, etc. Allah Pundit and Ed Morrisey do a great job in blogging about issues. (examples: "fox news drops another load of dirty laundry on palin" quote= I assume this is a sign that Maverick’s headed back to the center, because if he thinks the base is sore at him now, wait until his cronies’ attempts to scapegoat their idol start percolating.) That example made me happy. It's creative writing meets politics.

Of course there is opinion. Blog pretty much equals opinion..but the difference with this site is that it doesn't throw the opinion in your face and force you to believe it. It's presented as being accompanied by information designed to back up the opinion which makes it better than a weightless statement like "i hate palin" or something similar to that.

Overall, the headlines are strong and unique, the graphics and set up of the site are done well and appeal to the reader, and the modern views and look of the site makes it marketable to a large range of people. it's the perfect example of a young entrepreneur doing business in a journalistic way.

The NY Times - Quality at it's best.

A little late but worth the wait.

A review on the NY times showed me that they do everything well, whether it be their short, informational articles or their more in depth, multimedia articles. All are organized well and cater to the readers needs.

My first article was about the TV anchor in Arkansas that died of "Beating Wounds" and although meaty, it was a bit short but i think that is mainly because not much is known of the case yet. There was a good flow of info and was obviously organized in inverted pyramid style which provided the reader with what was most interesting first off. the quotes from the victim's parent's display emotion which keeps the article from being too cold or generic which contributes to the story telling of the piece. Overall, it was well written and gave you the info quickly.

The second article i took a look at was "For some in the Military, Danger is Seen Off Duty" by Sarah M. Richards which was about armed forces individuals dying in motorcycle crashes when they're off duty. This article also had good organization yet seemed more informative than personal in comparison to the previous article. I believe that this is only because it's on a broader subject matter than an individuals occurrence. there was a good and vast flow of beneficial info from how many have died, to which armed force they were in, to what program is being developed to prevent the deaths. There were many different informative facets to this article which made it seem credible and interesting to read even if the subject wasn't related to anything in the readers life. there were also good examples of real people that currently fall into the "at risk" category and good forms of storytelling throughout.

The last article i looked at was a multimedia PowerPoint called "A Retirement Chasing Butterflies" (see photo above) which was about an retired gentleman who has devoted 14 summers to chasing and classifying different species of butterflies. One element that stuck with me was the fact that it was a personal story of one man's life after retirement from a company and desire to do something completely different than the job he left behind. The photos in the PowerPoint gave a face to the story being told and served as an emotional appeal. I honestly feel that pictures make you think more deeply about the subjects that the article is about because a photo proves to your mind that there is a "real" person going through this. the only thing i would say was a weakness was that there wasn't that much info about the subject and i would have liked to have seen more pictures. Perhaps that's just because I'm a visual person but there are lots of others like myself.

overall, the website was organized well and i think it was very easy to navigate without being annoyingly like an advertisement site. MUCH better than the huffington post, but i wouldn't expect any less.

SI on Campus A.K.A. super crazy college sports E-party!

So....I just finished looking at Sports Illustrated on Campus and I came to one conclusion. They created a CD rom that was the exact crazy, sexist, sports oriented male paradise and inserted it in the CD drive and POOF! SI on campus was born.
Besides being completley not interested in sports, I have tried to hold that opinion aside and look at SI from an unbiased point of view. I found that it was put together well and it had plenty of interesting topics about every male sports genre'. It has a "something for everyone" approach that seems to be geared to young males in college or sports die hards. They offer evaluations of teams, comments about their coaches or schools, and even ticket sales for the next big college game. Their approach is also very "shock and awe" with pictures of intense fans and action going on everywhere on the site. They also appeal to the young man's mind with the stereotypical cheerleading pictures because..hey? what guy doesn't like a dumb hot chick? They even have an article featuring Miss October who is a junior Public Relations major at Gainsville who suddenly found herself on the front cover of playboy and felt that it would be a great time to take a "haitus" from her college education to live the Playboy mansion life. Lets just say that it's interesting that this is a CNN affiliate. Kind of makes me giggle...so much for being conservitive.
I would say it was an accurate news source because you do have many columnists on the site that have very well informed articles that they've obviously worked hard to publish their pieces. I believe that they are devoted to their passions and the guys that take the photos of the ditsy cheerleaders are probably pretty devoted too although they completely demean the women they're reporting about...but i bet they don't make as much money as the guys that actually work hard to produce a good, juicy column. Also, the whole exchange between the demeaning of women and women being demeaned doesn't happen unless one of the two parties allows it to (the women! come on girls, you can still be gorgeous and super smart too!)
Overall, I liked SI because they were smart about what appeals to young men. I'm sure the website was created as way to reach the demographic they were having the most trouble reaching and i'm sure it worked. Girls, sports, and tickets to games...sounds like a internet paradise except for the young mens inability to E-Drink at the same time. I'm sure theres ways around that though...like doing it in the real world while you take in the glories of SI on campus.
My Vote; smart website. :)

A review on the "Huff-a-ton" post....

On Saturday afternoon after work, I spent a majority of my afternoon picking apart the Huffington Post in search of the good, the bad, and the evil.The Huffington Post created by Arianna Huffington seemed for the most part well done. The political articles such as "U.S. Weekly Palin Cover Causes Scandal? Maybe not...Update" and "Republican National Convention Ratings: John McCain speech ties with Barak Obama's" were presented well for the most part yet had some distractions surrounding the articles themselves. I found that the Huffington Post was chock full of information yet so much so that one might loose sight of which stories are genuinely important and which ones are serving as "fillers", which also depends on whether the subject is in the eye of the beholder of course.
The follow-up article concerning Palin seemed valuable to me yet may have been glanced over by others my age who, even if they are into the current presidential race, may have overlooked it. The article spoke of Palin's pregnant daughter and openly questions Palin's parenting. It was nonetheless interesting to hear of the influence that the front cover had on the general publics' decision to subscribe or unsubscribe to U.S. Weekly due to this controversial cover. One form of fuel that this article had was the fact that U.S. Weekly seems to be a publication geared towards a demographic between the ages of 20 to 35. Because of the increased interest and attention generated by the front cover of U.S. Weekly, it shows that any publicity is good publicity....which we all know is a creed to live by if your name is Britney Spears. Another interesting idea is that U.S. Weekly was simply reporting on an issue that was already out in the open and in turn, the Huffington Post was reporting on U.S. Weekly's reporting thus creating a grim circle of coverage that keeps stating and restating the same thing. One reader under the screen name of "Yudit" commented on the evil circle of coverage; "I am at a loss with all this talk of the surge....isn't that like patting yourself on the back for closing the barn door after the horse got away?"
Yudit has a point yet this reporting and re-reporting is commonplace for media. It is the fuel for the media's fire and in the end, the writer will reap the benefits for pumping up and reporting on an issue from a different angle than one that has already been done. If that angle is interesting enough, you will beat out all the other magazines and papers on the stand or on the "net" and the consumer will choose yours. This article by the Huffington Post does a very good job of re-reporting and huffing up the story once more.
The second article I took a look at was about the Republican National Convention. This article was presented much better that the Palin one in the way that it had more meat to it. I understand that the Palin article was just a follow-up but it was lacking the gritty details that needed to be included with a follow-up article. The second article about the Republican National Convention had better details and not as many distractions surrounding the article on the web page. The Huffington Post addressed this article in a very unbiased manner and it was presented well.
The last article on the Huffington Post that I took a look at was "Justin, Miley, and Charlize Among Stars at Fashion Rocks" located in the entertainment section. The article spoke of a special that will be on television called "Fashion Rocks" and it serves as a type of fundraiser to fight cancer. I support the good cause yet it is well understood that for some unknown reason, celebrities hold the power to many young peoples lives so in order for the Huffington Post to reach the younger audience they are lacking, they've created the entertainment and style sections of their website. It is obvious that a 45 to 50 year old would not be interested in this kind of news so it was smart for the Huffington Post to create this sections to reel the younger crowd in to boost ratings. As disgusted as I was to see these untalented celebrities in the pictures accompanying the article, i reserved my judgements of them due to the fact that this is for a good cause and the coverage that the Huffington Post provided for this event will hopefully help in the fundraiser. Despite the fact that these celebrities are using their falsely awarded fame to raise money for a good cause, i still feel this is a negative form of publicity due to the fact that the Huffington Post is attempting to gain younger viewers in this manner.
Overall, I would say that the Huffington Post is smart. They have used certain techniques to gain popularity, they cover issues from different angles, and they huff up scandals while still providing credible news. The Huffington Post provides insight to the general public about political issues and fills in, where appropriate, with tabloid like info which is to be expected. In comparison to MSNBC.com, I would say that the Huffington Post still has much to learn about being credible and mature about issues. If a consumer wants mindless tabloid garbage, there is always a whole world of nonsense just within the checkout line at the grocery store.