GretaCarroll

I was surprised by how positive a review some of my classmates gave The Cavalier.  I personally didn’t like it very much.  Mostly, I didn’t like the absence of pictures below the fold.  However, after reading Angela’s blog and the comments left on it, I think I was able to moderate my dislike a little bit.  Josie pointed out in a comment to Angela that The Cavalier’s page was more “user-friendly.”  On a second look at the webpage, I could really see what she meant.  While there were no more pictures, there were clearer divisions between sections.  It is very easy for a reader to see where the “Recent News” section is, where the “Sports” section is, etc.  In this way, if a reader wanted to read an article from a particular section, it would be a lot easier for them to find.  

Return home.  

 In all three of my classmate’s blogs that I have read so far, I seem to be the odd one out as far as opinions go on the Harvard Crimson’s layout.  Angela gave it a C, Josie was not overly impressed, and Derek while commenting that it was professional, didn’t really keep his attention.  While I would not claim that the layout was perfect, there are some small things they could do to improve it (such as making their masthead more prominent or adding a pdf of the print edition of their paper), I thought it was overall pretty well done.  They had a slideshow, videos, plenty of graphics, and lots of articles.  Perhaps part of one’s preference is entirely personal.  I mean, what looks good to me, may not look good to Angela.  And what looks good to me may not look good to her.  It would be so hard to be a layout editor, because no matter what you do, you can’t please everyone.    

Return home.

The Cavalier Daily’s masthead is big enough.  It is clear that it is the title of the paper and not just another headline.  However, I do not think that they make it clear enough that it is a college paper’s website or that it is the University of Virginia’s paper.  In fact, I searched over the entire homepage and cannot find anything that names the association.  Above the fold looks good, there are lots of pictures.  However, as one scrolls down, the website becomes less and less interesting.  There are clear divisions between the sections of stories, but there are NO graphics.  It’s just text, text, and more text.  Frankly, it doesn’t entice me to keep scrolling down or to click on any of the articles.  I do like that they have a little section where you can see today’s print version of the paper.  Harvard did not have that.  This way readers can chose which format they prefer. 

To bring in a third comparison though, take a look at The Flat Hat’s page.  The Flat Hat has a large masthead in a fun font.  It clearly says below the title of the paper that it is affiliated with William and Mary.  They have the weather in the upper right hand corner, like many print newspapers would.  It gives little blurbs of information about the longer article below the headlines, it intersperses pictures throughout the page to keep the reader interested.  It divides the articles into sections.  There is a newscast video for those who prefer watching/listening to the news.  You can chose to view the print paper in a pdf format.  There does seem to be fewer articles on their homepage, but I personally like it’s layout better than both The Cavalier’s and The Harvard Crimson's.

Return to the homepage.     

I think it’s a bit strange that The Harvard Crimson’s masthead is so small.  The title of the paper is not any bigger than some of their headlines.  When you open the webpage, the first thing that comes to your eye is not the name of the paper, which is not really a good thing.  I do think they make good use of graphics though.  They break up the different articles with a slideshow of pictures which goes along with the major articles.  They have thumbnails that go along with the blogs in the right hand side of the page.  They have a series of more pictures at the bottom of the page.  And they even have two videos on the bottom right hand side of the page.  Below the major headlines, they have little blurbs or outtakes of information from the article, which helps the reader know if they want to click on the link for more information.  They also have the page neatly set up into categories, such as “Top Stories,” “Opinion,” “Sports,” “Magazine,” “Arts,” “More News,” “Most Read.”  Over all, I would say they keep things visually interesting with pictures and headlines.  The only real fault is how small the masthead is. 

Return to the homepage. 

In light of the recent (November 7) groundbreaking for the Flight 93 memorial, I am investigating how the school district and other area officials will handle the loss of funding from property tax for the local school. 

• Welcome to Shanksville-Stonycreek School District—this is part of the local school’s official website.  This section of the website gives information on the school, the area, and the residents.
• Flight 93 National Memorial—This is the National Park Service’s official website for Flight 93.  It includes information on the groundbreaking ceremony, the memorial design, video clips from residents and others involved, and more. 
• People bound by a cause can achieve great things—This is an editorial about the Flight 93 memorial written by a local man which was published in the Tribune-Democrat (Johnstown's paper).  He expresses his pleasure over the beginning of the construction.
• “We made it’: Ground broken for Flight 93 memorial—This is an article from the Tribune-Democrat about the groundbreaking. 
• Ground broken for Flight 93—This is the Daily American’s (Somerset’s paper) article on the groundbreaking.  It includes a video of the ceremony.
• PILT FAQ—This is the Department of the Interior’s FAQ on Payment in Lieu of Taxes, which is a possible way the school may be able to make up for some of the lost funds from property tax.   

It was interesting comparing the different views my classmates had on links.  Jeanine voiced that links make her feel a bit overwhelmed sometimes.  They result in a never-ending cycle of information seeking.  In contrast, Angela stresses in her comment on Derek’s blog that she loves links and that, “it's fun traversing the web through links…”  On my own blog, I found it hard to even narrow down all the functions that links fulfill.  So, I think it’s safe to say, that links are extremely powerful.  They can either really please a reader or annoy them.  As Dr. Jerz pointed out in class, sometimes you will be excited about a link and then you click on it and find it to be completely useless.  There is nothing more disappointing then being promised something and then not getting it.  So links speak loudly.  You don’t want to use too many or too few, or to link to a place which isn’t actually helpful.  As in most cases, you have to search for some kind of middle ground and be careful what you link to.     

Return home.

In reading both Angela’s and Kaitlin’s blogs on the multimedia news feature, I began to see more of the positive qualities of it.  Angela made it clearer to me how the interactive nature or the feature would interest viewers, while Kaitlin made it clear how unbiased and informative it was.  Both of their blogs steered me to consider the real function of this feature.  It seems like it would make a great informative tool to use in a classroom.  It teaches where the garage goes and what happens to the recyclables.  It seems like there is a lot more information and a lot less news.  They did have a good idea about getting that information across.  With the words, pictures, lists, interaction, and video clips, it would work well for almost any learning style (although, we all agree the videos need a little work).  But this makes me wonder how much of this feature is news and how much of it is just informative…

Return home.

Derek on his blog opined that it might not be such a good idea for newspapers to so clearly allow their position on politics and social issues to be known.  He explained that this encouraged divisions between readership (democrats read one paper, republicans another) and that it also foster bias in news articles.  While I think Derek makes some really great points, I also see advantages to newspapers being very open and clear about their standing on current controversial issues.  When they are forthright and clear about where they as a paper stand, it is easier for readers to read articles with a critical eye.  The example I used in my comment to Derek was that if I know a paper is against the death penalty and I read an article in that paper about the death penalty, I will know to read that article carefully, searching for any biases.  I would ask myself: did they interview all sides? Were they fair?  I think not only knowing the papers position allows the reader to examine the articles through a clearer lens, it also would encourage the reporters to be more unbiased.  If the readership knows where the paper stands on an issue and is viewing the articles with more suspicion, the reporter will be forced to be doubly cautious on reporting it and being fair to all sides.    

Return to the homepage.

Both Angela and Jenn in their blogs helped me to further consider the role of multimedia in the news.  Angela in her discussion of a slideshow on Megan Fox pointed out that a newspaper would never have the space to print all 18 pictures that the internet was able to.  I think this is a really important point.  There is only so much room in a newspaper.  Journalists must sort through all the articles and prioritize what will make it in and what won’t.  They have to ask themselves what picture will fit in the space and will be the most eye-catching?  On-line news does not have to worry about these concerns.  They have unlimited space.  If they have 18 pictures and want to use them all, they can do it.  If they have video clips, they can use them. 

Jenn also interestingly pointed out how powerful this limitless space and interactivity can be.  With so much space, they can use links to draw the reader from webpage to webpage in an endless cycle.  I know I’ve intended to read just one article before and ended up reading about five or six because of links.  This allows the reader to get more of what they want, but it is also much better at trapping our attentions. 

Return to the homepage.

From Robert  J. Haiman’s Best Practices for Newspaper Journalists:

“And once a reporter thinks he is on a hot trail…it seems virtually impossible, no matter how many facts you have to present, to get him off it” (57).

As usual, I am going to relate a news writing principle to the more general principles of academic paper writing.  It would seem that sometimes journalists get a little ahead of themselves, before they have done the research.  I think this happens frequently with students (yes, even including me sometimes) when they write research papers.  They have some preconceived idea in their head and they research around this idea.  If there are two articles that agree with them and 30 that disagree, they will ignore the majority and just focus on the minority that supports their opinion.  This is easier to do and it challenges your beliefs less.  This is part of the reason why I like doing research before I have too solidly entrenched myself in my thesis.  The real skill is being open-minded and paying attention to everything that is out there.  Once you’ve taken a look at everything out there and carefully thought about it, now you can consider what angle you want to take.  But even when you have picked your angle, you can’t ignore the opposition.  You need to address it.  In a research paper you need to explain why they are wrong and your side is right.  It’s the same type of thing in a newspaper article (minus the explaining why you’re right).  You need to interview the opposition and the side you feel is “right”.  When a reporter begins writing an article from a “’preconceived thesis’” (57), nothing good is going to come from it.  Just as in academic papers this type of blind conviction frequently leads us away from the really good, complex paper, this type of reporting results in articles on “non-news” and articles with skewed “frames” (58).  Do your research and don’t avoid any side.

Return to the class homepage.