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.
No comments:
Post a Comment