Here are some of the different features I incorporated in my blog:
Blogger video Bar--This gadget allows you to display videos from Youtube.
First, Click "customize" on the top right hand side of your screen. You may then choose to add a gadget. A video bar is among the many options available.
After selecting it, you may change the title. You can have the bar display the most viewed videos on Youtube, recently featured videos, or top rated videos by checking the appropriate box. However, if you want it to display your videos only, you can type your Youtube username into the text box that asks for a "channel." It may take about a day before your video(s) load onto the blog. Another alternative is to type in keywords, and Youtube will supply relevant videos.
Once you have selected your preferred options, click "save."
Clicking customize on the top right hand side of your screen, enables you to either place the video bar on the side column with the history of posts or underneath your blog posts.
Blogger slideshow--This is a nice feature because Blogger does all the work for you. The pictures will alternate on their own as someone visits the blog, or you can click on it to see a larger version.
Just like for the video bar, click "customize" on the top right hand side of your screen. You may then choose to add a gadget. Choose "slideshow" from the list of options.
First, give it an appropriate title. Then, select which source the pictures will be taken from (Picasa Web albums, Flickr, Photobucket, or other).
After you have done that, you may either choose to input keywords that will supply relevant stock photos or click user to display your own pictures.
Once you have selected your preferred options, click "save."
And that's basically where I get all of my political news. I skim through the headlines of the LA Times front page, as well as The New York Times. Then I check out the op-ed page on The New York Times.
But honestly, I spend most of my time on the Drudge Report. I click through almost every link and I check it a lot during the day.
It's simple and it tells me about lots of different stories from different sources. Politico is interesting because it has a lot of analysis, but sometimes it's information overload. I like Drudge's headlines and breaking news, especially since most news stations tend to follow Drudge's headlines around, rather than create their own news.
Online > All
And it's true. It is better than TV and newspaper news.
I hate 24-hour news coverage because they repeat everything over and over again. Screaming heads are also extremely annoying. You also have to wait around for certain shows or the particular news segment you want to come on, and I don't have always have time for that. I'd rather skim an article online.
Newspapers are also "old" by the time they reach me. They're last night's news, not the stuff that's happening right now, therefore updating online newspapers are the best.
As a college student, I lead a incomprehensibly chaotic lifestyle. My week-to-week schedules are erratic, so in order for me to keep up with current events, I need a news source that can fit MY life, which means I can read it anytime, anywhere, and any way I want it. Since starting college at USC, I've noticed my dependency on the internet has reached all-time highs for several legitimate (and not-so-legitimate reasons). Here are some of them: Why the Internet: - It is available to me 24/7 - More information and resources - Almost whatever I find on TV and print can also be found on the internet - Convenient in several ways: -I don't have to follow a strict schedule to get news like I would for TV -I don't need to get the paper in the morning (or fear that someone else took my paper) - The computer has search tools that allows me to pinpoint exactly what I want - The internet is portable, intangible, and allows more connections (links)
With the presidential elections coming up on November 4th, there is one site that I always click on first -- CNN.com
CNN, a big-time news network on TV has transitioned well into the internet medium. It might not be the site I turn to for the most in-depth news coverage, however, for breaking news, updates, and election coverage, CNN is first on my list.
Right when the page finishes uploading, a center ticker-like box appears that displays "Live Election Coverage" with a small screen capture (photo), a bold headline, and a link that allows readers to click on "Watch Now: Live on CNN.com." This display is the first attraction. With the words "Live" and "Watch Now," they make a reader feel the urgency and exclusivity of CNN news that other sites don't provide. (see image above)
This separate page, unique to CNN's other tabs (World, U.S., Entertainment, Health, etc.), has a different structure, format, and color that really enhances the experience while on the page. There seems to be more exclusive features such as interactivity with readers, and hypothetical outcomes of the elections.
What the elections page offers:
- A list of "Top Stories" on the right with each headline ranging from six to eight words - A bold picture in the middle -- almost always of a face of the presidential or vice presidential candidates - "Obama in 'The Situation Room' -- allows citizens to submit a question to Obama for Wolf Blitzer's TV show - "Top Politic Videos" -- a short bullet-point list of five top videos -Appealing graphics that show the electoral vote count Obama and McCain currently have - Election Tracker: reveals the latest poll results, where money is spent and where the candidates are - Podcasts and iReports allow viewers to integrate their opinions with the site
If I wanted more thorough coverage, I would read the LA Times or watch election features on TV (CNN talk show, Meet The Press, The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer, etc.), but for a quick overview on what is happening with each candidate, I turn to CNN because it is always up-to-date and easy to navigate for readers.
Provides an interactive map with up to the minute predictions
Has an elections 101 link that breaks it down for beginners to politics
Has in interactive forum
CNN Home Page
To start with, CNN is known as the king of online news and televised news. A station that runs news at all times of the day has one of the best news websites to speak of, to no ones real surprise. So when it comes to political news, this is the first place that I look at, and they do not disappoint. The homepage embeds a link to an election center outlet where they cover all sides of this very important election.
Election Center
The center is the hub for all the politics any person can handle. The website has the most interactive map on the web that I have found today, as it shows different shades of red and blue depending on McCain or Obama's leads are in the various state. In addition, the thing I love about CNN.com is the Election 101 page that profiles everything you can think of at a smaller level from those who know little about politics like me.
Interactive Forums
The website also runs interactive forums for its visitors that range in topics from the economy to Iraq and everything in between. Its a great way for visitors to communicate with others who are passionate abut politics, and can lead to some great debates for those on the opposite side of some issues.
Which Candidate is Using it better?
To my immediate knowledge, I don't think that either candidate has used the online age better then the other. I do feel though that the online world suits Obama better since he is the younger edgier candidate. As a result, I feel like he has won the online battle, a significant reason why he is winning the overall battle for the race for the presidency.
The list of great things about this website goes on and on. The site even archives its coverage of the various elections and primaries, so that in case you have been living under a rock over the past few years, you will have a chance to catch up on everything. Overall, the site has everythingyou need, and will be the page that I have opened up on election night.
There may be shortages of everything else, but if there's one thing of which there's plenty, it's information. Turn on the television, turn on the computer, turn on the radio and one is immediately inundated with news of the elections.
Unfortunately...with all of these news choices, how does one know what information to trust?
In addition, if all the news sources are in agreement...how does one know if that message is really the truth?
With little extra time to spend perusing numerous news outlets, I find myself searching whatever is most accessible. Sometimes it's the New York Times outside my apartment, sometimes it's CNN on the television in the kitchen, sometimes it's the Los Angeles Times website while doing homework, and sometimes it's just Youtube.
But in almost all of these cases I am getting an analysis of original material I did not have time to see firsthand. For example, I never saw Katie Couric's interview with Governor Sarah Palin, but I did see snips of it on CNN. I did see clips of it on Youtube. And I did see a parody of it on Saturday Night Live.
It seems as though this should be sufficient to get the general idea of what the interview was about. And, in some cases that's correct. However, I am finding more and more with this election that getting an analysis of a debate or an interview is not enough. Because try as they might to be unbiased, journalists know how important this election is and they can not help but let their own opinions color their content.
If I am unable to see original interviews and debates, I assume that many people are in the same situation...and I find that frightening. It has gotten to the point where the news media has transcended from the realm of telling what happened, to telling us what we should think about what happened...leave that to the real experts.
Nowhere is there a better example of this than with Palin. Don't get me wrong, I don't like Palin. I will say here and now that I voted for Senator Obama. But it is an absolute embarrassment to me how the news media has represented Palin. They have attacked everything from her accent to her spending habits...trying to find every negative aspect of the republican vice presidential candidate, while Senator Joe Biden remains relatively unexamined. Granted, Biden is an old hand in the Senate, but since when does being around a long time exclude you from having skeletons in your closet?
For me it is a strange dilemma. I appreciate, however bitterly, that much of the media is slanted towards Obama. It helps a candidate I support. But the blatant departure from well-balanced news is unacceptable.
This shift is highlighted by such steps as the endorsement of Obama by the Los Angeles Times and other newspapers. By definition, journalists do not pick sides. When did people forget this?
Journalists are given a tremendous power to write the first draft of history. They are given tremendous power to influence the thoughts and actions of people across the world. For whatever reason and to whatever ends, good or bad, journalists today are abusing that power. Just because Fox News is biased, and always has been, doesn't mean that other news organizations have to imitate that bias from the other side.
Journalists need to put aside their agendas and tell us everything they can about every candidate, because this might be the most important election we ever vote in and none of us want to be fooled into thinking someone's opinion is fact.
News about the Election is everywhere. But many people are crunched for time and don't have the luxury of sitting around all day watching different channels on television, reading several newspapers, and browsing tons of websites to get a well-rounded view of what's going on in the Election. These people need to narrow their focus. Different media have different agendas.
No choice in the matter
Television can be extremely persuasive. When video comes up on the screen, the viewers have no choice in what to watch. I watched Obama speak in Ohio onFOXNewsthis morning even though I might not have clicked on this video from a website.
Watching Election coverage on television can also be persuasive because news stations have certain correspondents give their opinions about things. This force-feeds the audience ideas instead of allowing them to navigate their own path.
Getting the facts straight
As exciting as it may be to hear an inspirational speech from a presidential candidate, voters need to gather all the facts about the candidates' beliefs and goals. I already read the Los Angeles Times online regularly to get my news. A website makes it easier to find information about the Election, especially if there is a specific issue a viewer wants to know more about. Here are some ways that LATimes.com's Campaign 08 section gives lots of information:
Report from LA Times' Washington Bureau
Voter Guide to Races & Issues
Electoral Vote Map
Deadlines for voters
Polling places
Politics A-Z
Election articles from LA Times all in one place
This is what the main page for Campaign 08 looks like.
Fireworks or facts?
Television may give viewers the drama and entertainment they crave. But when it comes down to making a decision, voters need to choose based on the the real facts about the candidates, not their theatrics. Online news lets voters find this important information instead of just trusting what television throws at them.
I think it would be hard for any voter to not be interested in this year's election. Between the milestones of an African-American on the Democratic ticket and a woman on the Republican ticket, it seems the whole world is watching.
Personally, I am watching through CNN and my hometown newspaper's website, Oregonlive.com.
CNN
Like many of the others who have posted before me, I think CNN delivers quality content, especially when it comes to the presidential debates. I watched the debates on CNN, and even after 90 minutes of debate, I still wanted to watch CNN's analysis for the next 2 or 3 hours.
One of my favorite parts of the post-debate show is where they gauge a test audience's reaction to what the candidates are saying. Some of the reactions where not what I expected, and the difference between men and women was interesting to see.
Other things CNN offered after the debates:
Analysis from political experts (sometimes clearly biased)
Electoral maps
Interactive screens with reactions from viewers
Interviews with the test audience for their opinions and thoughts
Oregonlive.com
As a native Oregonian, I like to keep up with what's going on at home. I'm also a registered Oregon voter, so it helps when I have to fill out my ballot. Sure, I care about what happens with the propositions in California, but there's nothing I can really do about them. So I focus on what I can vote on.
Oregonlive.com is set up more like a blog than a news website. In the politics section, it lists the first 2 or 3 grafs of a story, with the most recent story first. You can click on the headline to keep reading, or just skim the beginning of each story.
A site like this really benefits from online news writing methods. Oregonlive.com uses:
Big, bold headlines
Short sentences
The most important information at the top (for those who don't continue to read)
Pictures throughout to break up story after story
Links on the side to other election news
The site can get a little bogged down from everything going on, especially in the sidebars. But when I want to know more about a ballot measure, or a candidate running for attorney general, Oregonlive.com is my automatic source.
Influence
Portland is a pretty liberal city, so naturally the news media often skews in that direction. They generally do a good job of being unbiased, but personal politics are bound to come through. For CNN, I think they do a decent job of balancing conservative and liberal views.
However, I think news sources play a significant role in persuading voters. As balanced as a source may be, the very stories they choose to cover can influence what a voter hears or reads. Sarah Palin has had much more coverage in the media than Joe Biden, and thus voters likely know more about her. Whether or not this sways them to like or dislike a candidate can vary, but in the end it likely plays a role.
Rather recently it came to my attention that I may be becoming obsessed with CNN.com. It's my homepage on both my laptop and my home computer, and any time I use another computer that has not smartly set the site as the homepage, it is still the first website I go to.
While my love for CNN is not new, its comprehensive coverage of all things Election '08 is what truly told me it was amazing.
Looking Good
One of the first things that someone notices when they visit a website is the layout. Though CNN has its own politics-centered website, I prefer to visit the main site. One of the great things CNN does is alter the layout if it is an important day in the race. For example, during the national conventions the main page was formatted slightly differently, with a larger picture, bigger title, and only political stories featured in it's "Latest Stories" bulleted list.
On regular days the main CNN page tones the politics down a bit, but still features an "Election '08" side bar below its "Latest Stories" list. Unlike its other link-list, this side bar of only links features only stories relating to the election. And just in case you didn't realize that "Election '08" was all about the United States, the banner has some tasteful red and blue stars on it to remind you.
CNN.com-Impossible to Escape
I recently subscribed to CNN.com's text messaging service, and it has kept me in the loop more than anything else. Breaking political news is sent right to cell phone, though unfortunately it does it regardless of what time it is.
Vote CNN.com and you're guaranteed to win
There is no doubt in my mind that the Internet, and more specifically CNN.com, is the best way to get election-based news. Take a look at the things offered on CNN.com's Election '08 page, and you'll quickly see why a vote for CNN.com is a winning vote.
Special Pages CNN.com Offers:
Debates
Elections 101
Issues
Conventions
Primaries
Forum to discuss issues
The website also features:
an election day countdown
electoral vote estimates
a political ticker blog
and a special "CNNPolitics Video" section.
This November 4th, don't worry about choosing between Obama and McCain. As long as you choose CNN.com to get all of your election news, you'll be a winner no matter what the outcome!
The vast capabilities of the internet as well as other technologies have forced politicians to change the way they campaign. Politicians now have to expect that they are being watched 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Is it fair to expect a person to be perfect in just about every setting?... Of course not, but when you're campaigning to hold one of the most important jobs in the country that's now part of the requirement.
No one understands that requirement better now than former US Senator George Allen. The former senator was up for re-election in 2006 when he made a campaign stop in Breaks, Virginia in August of that year. During his speech there he repeatedly used the racial slur Macaca to refer to an Indian-American in the crowd who was working for his opponent Jim Web by filming the event. Hours after the incident video of the speech was all over the internet, and the senator (who was previously a heavy favorite to win re-election) was soon out of a job.
Where I get my election coverage
As someone who has spent my entire life growing up in Washington, DC it probably comes as no surprise that I choose to go to WashingtonPost.com to read up on what's happening in the election. Not only is Washington, DC our nations capital, and thus the city's paper is expected to have extensive political coverage just as Los Angeles has the hollywood beat down pat, but the Post is also my hometown paper so personally I feel the most satisfaction getting my news from there. Finally, to add to my bias of the Post, my father also writes for the paper... so I've got to stick up for his company.
However, while I go to the Washington Post web site to read up on political stories, I never read the print edition for political coverage (only sports). This is probably because my interest in politics only goes so far, and while I can easily skim over the headlines online to see if there are any vitally important stories I need to read, the same can not be said for glancing at the newspaper.
When television is the way to go
While at school, due to a hectic workload, I generally am forced to keep up with politics over the internet. However, if I were to have my way, I would prefer to get all my political news from local and national television broadcasts. The great part about political coverage on television is the analysis that comes with the major headlines. I view politics almost as I do sports, and I am always watching ESPN for their analysis on various topics relating to sports, so it makes sense that I want to hear in-depth analysis about the game of politics.
I believe the best stations at providing in-depth analysis on politics as well as having compelling features and interesting and unique angles approaching each topic are NBC, MSNBC, and CNN. I believe these stations try and gear their coverage toward a more educated audience, which is a tactic I greatly appreciate. There is also one station I refuse to watch any political coverage from, FOX. I believe Fox news is biased toward the right, and the last thing I want in political analysis is any sort of bias. Luckily, television offers enough channels so that I never have to rely on FOX to be in the know when it comes to politics.
This year's presidential race is historic in more than one way. Not only are the candidate themselves pushing the envelope of the typical presidential nominees, but the way in which they have been covered is breaking precedent as well. The Internet has taken the reigns as king of political coverage, and as November 4th quickly approaches, Internet news mediums are solidifying their place as the best outlets for voters.
Internet Talks Politics
So why do politics go hand-in-hand? It's simple really.
The Internet offers a limitless amount of room for information.
Readers can find news sites that lean for/against their personal stance.
Information at will with an option to take it or leave it.
Link journalism - find out what others have to say.
Internet offers instant news straight from the campaign trail.
The best features about online political news is that it's not limited by time or word count, and that the news readers decide to read is based on the reader's personal interest in a given subject. Readers that need more information about one topic versus another are given that freedom on the Web where they are forced to read whatever is printed that day in the Los Angeles Times, or other publications.
More so still, link journalism - as seen with the Washington Post's Political Browser - is doing more for politics reporting than what once was even fathomable. Link journalism is allowing publications to outsource and give their readers more information than the confines of a paper will allow. This idea of putting readers on other Web sites has truly made the Internet news consumer one step ahead of the game since this particular newspaper has put their reader first, and their click count second.
Print and Broadcast Journalism
Print journalism has always been an invaluable source for election and campaign coverage leading to the day and age of online news outlets. Print journalism has been quickly replaced with the immediacy of online news. Another hit for print comes from the fact that papers are revering to their old days and endorsing candidates - which is a big turn off for many news consumers. At least news on popular news blogs, such as the Drudge Report, readers know what they're getting into and expect political bias to shine through. In print journalism, however, many of the papers serve the masses and the masses - for the most part - expect unbiased news.
While broadcast is more straight shooter than print, the time crunch really limits what viewers get to see in terms of political coverage. Broadcast journalism can only devote a fraction to issue that may deserves entire half-hour or hour coverage. With broadcast journalism, time and space matters, and unfortunately, sometimes politics get the ultimate squeeze.
My Personal Preference
CNN does an amazing job of keeping the news to the point in an in-and-out kind of style. Through CNN.comand it's bulleted grafs that summarize the story, I'm able to weave in-and-out of a piece without the fluff - something every news source should aspire to do.
CNN's Web site offers a comprehensive politics section filled with informative content such as the latest headlines, recent poll estimates and politics video. Not only does the site provide thorough campaign coverage, but it gets points in the categories of design and format as well. It's pleasing to the eye with large pictures and lots of color. In addition, the different sections are organized in a way that does not clutter the page and enables readers to easily navigate through the site. Overall, cnn.com takes advantage of the Web, creating a multimedia experience for users interested in the 2008 presidential election.
This site is almost overwhelming as you scroll down farther and farther, and a seemingly endless number of tabs show up. However, it offers creative tools that involve readers in ways that most other sites do not. For instance, an interactive tool allows users to rearrange the different political sections so that the ones you care about most will move to the top of the screen. Moreover, it has a debates section that does way more than just display the video. It also maps out when each candidate speaks and provides key words and phrases that users can select from to see where they were mentioned during the debate. In addition, the site encourages user participation with numerous surveys and polls.
While The New York Times Web site does not have fun, interactive Web features like the other sites, it certainly makes up for it when it comes to the quality of coverage. Although many newspapers have been experiencing staff cutbacks, they often still have more reporters than TV or online journalism companies. This much is clear when looking at the number of stories showcased on nytimes.com compared with msnbc.com and cnn.com. If you like to read about politics, The New York Times site's in-depth coverage provides enough reading material to last for the whole day. In addition, the site does offer some helpful elements such as audio selections and a multimedia search.
What about TV and print journalism?
Political coverage on TV is not usually very detailed, but it serves its purpose for viewers just looking to get a quick update on the election. It helps that TV allows you to see and hear from the candidates themselves. However, TV news can be especially inconvenient for college students who are not always home to watch the evening newscasts. Print newspapers present a similar dilemma. People can get much of the same content available in newspapers on the Web at their leisure. It is unlikely that many people would go out of their way to find and pay for a newspaper instead of going online where a multimedia experience is at your fingertips.
I try to get a little bit of election news from everywhere – online, print and broadcast – because every medium offers something that the other doesn't.
Clearly, online media offers the most. Whether it's the online version of a print news source like nytimes.com, a blog site like Gawker or a link journalism example like the Drudge Report, I can read text, click through photos, watch videos and more. Nytimes.com is one of my favorites because they have whole sections dedicated to tracking the campaign. These sites are frequently updated, easily accessed, informative and ubiquitous. I can even check them on my iPhone in the middle of class to see how the candidates are doing.
However, broadcast media offer something that neither online media or print media offer. I like to turn on CNN and listen to some election coverage while I'm eating breakfast, lunch or dinner – something I can't do with any other medium. I can't really read the newspaper or surf the Web when I have a spoon or fork in my hand. The downside to TV news is that a single newscast isn't particularly thorough, and if you leave the TV on for a while in hopes of getting some new piece of information, you'll notice that it's painfully redundant. The anchors, experts and analysts repeat the same things over and over again.
Likewise, print media offers something extra too: I can curl up on the couch at Starbucks with a cup of coffee and the paper. There's no experience like it. My favorites are the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times. But the paper is often not up-to-date, and it doesn't offer a lot of the fun, flashy elements the other two media do.
THE CANDIDATES AND HOW THEY USED MEDIA
Clearly, all of these media work to Barack Obama's advantage most effectively. First of all, most newspapers (however objective they may claim to be) already favor Obama over John McCain because of the way he speaks. Many in the "literary class" sympathize with his manner of talking. In addition, his logical manner of arguing appeals to the intellectuals who run most newspapers, unlike the ethos-based argumentation of his opponent.
More importantly, however, is that Obama actively used the Internet to raise money for his campaign, which he then poured into advertisements on the Internet and on broadcast.
The following advertisement, for example, appeared on my television last night:
Ironically, I had just finished complaining to my friend about how Obama campaign advertisements rarely air in Southern California (to which my friend had replied, "That's 'cause he already knows we're going to vote for him."). Apparently, what Obama preached a few days ago to his supporters in a mass email urging them not to get too confident and abandon fervor coincided with what he was practicing.
McCain, on the other hand, admitted from the beginning that he was not computer-savvy. He has not taken advantage of the Internet the way Obama has, and therefore could not raise as much money for further advertisements.
In fact, the Internet has worked against him. Stephen Colbert's green screen challenge resulted in thousands of Youtube videos making fun of McCain, like the following one from Pulp Fiction:
I mainly get my political news online from the LA Times. It has an entire section devoted to Campaign '08, which makes it a one-stop-shop. I don't like having to flip through multiple links or pages to find the articles with the latest political news.
Finding news online also gives me a more complete picture. The TV news broadcasts I watch only give me three or four pieces of information. They just don't have enough time to put everything in a 30 minute/1 hour newscast.
Furthermore, I can go back and find an article about one of candidates many, many days later. I can't do that with TV because the broadcasts aren't put up on the web. Newspapers usually get thrown away after people are done reading them. Therefore, the Internet is a lot more convenient because it lets me access a story again.
The Internet Provides More Newspapers and TV only give people a selection of political news. Each only has a certain amount of room/time. Therefore, the stories reported are often the ones the editors or producers think are important.
For this reason, the Internet is the best place to find political news. The Campaign '08 section in the LA Times online has a lot more than what a newspaper can provide. Because of the endless space online, the newspaper can put many more articles on the web. This has allowed the paper to create an entire section dedicated to Campaign '08.
TV stations can also employ this tactic. They often don't have time to put every political story on air because of time issues. Therefore, they can put more articles on their website. For example, KNBC usually only has around 2-3 political stories in their 30 minute newscast. So people who want more information can go to the website.
Bottom line: the Internet lets you publish as many articles as possible. So if I want everything on the political candidates and where they stand on certain issues, the Internet is the best place to look for news.
The format of online news, especially content produced by newspapers and television stations, is continuing to evolve in some unexpected ways. The most recent development is the creation of link journalism, which is when a reporter posts a link within his/her article that leads to another article on the same topic. The purpose of link journalism is to complement and add more context to original reporting.
Going Against the Grain
Link journalism defies conventional wisdom when it comes news organizations posting material on the
web. Logic suggests that news web sites would want to keep viewers attached to their sites because longer-time-spent-viewing could mean more advertising revenue. However, search engines such as Yahoo and Google have proven that sending people away through links actually keeps those people coming back.
The Initiators
The Drudge Report set the standard for web sites becoming profitable and influential simply by linking to other news articles, and now mainstream news organizations have followed suite. The Washington Post recently created the Political Browser, a political web site that links to rival sites discussing hot-button political issues. Just last week NBC began adding links to local newspapers and radio stations on the web sites of their local affiliates. The company hopes the sites will tap into their respective communities much deeper and act as a kind of city guide.
The Ultimate Connection
Scott Karp, the editor, publisher, and creator of Publishing 2.0, believes the web is about "connections between content, people, and ideas". Karp insists that newspapers need to fit into this connection by being the filter that doles out the important news on its front page, and links to stories pertaining to the news if the stories can't be found within the paper. I agree with Karp completely and would even further his argument by saying news organizations have an obligation to do just that, and who knows, that obligation could turn out to be a successful business practice as well.
A Linktastic Future
As link journalism becomes more prevalent in the coming months it will be fascinating to hear the reactions of both those visiting the sites that employ link journalism and those responsible for putting up and managing the sites. While some editors may still cling to their belief that it is never good to send your audience elsewhere, it is safe to say a change was needed, and that the possibility of this interconnectedness between various news organizations offers a bevy of opportunities for future online reporting. Who knows, maybe it will even result in less of an emphasis on breaking news and more of a concentration on providing a quality story that others will want to link to. What a concept....
With every type of journalistic organization veering towards the digital age, the outcome is decidedly a synergy of several multimedia aspects.
The process has been slow for print publications such as The New York Times or The Los Angeles Times – and a lot more difficult than the process to adapt to online media is for broadcast news- but at least a process, or change, is taking place.
Print has transitioned from a tangible piece of paper to an online news source and from there, it has also transitioned from being just a text-only publication online to incorporating video, photos and various interactive media.
Viewing a news site these days translates to a multi-sensual experience involving sight AND sound, which are effective elements that will draw readers’ attention and make sure they keep coming back. Stories are more memorable; viewers are left with several impressions of a story.
However, in lieu of the idea of an all-encompassing online news site, news aggregation is only a piece of the puzzle to winning back readers for newspapers. “Link journalism” is another puzzle piece.
What is “link journalism?”
“Link journalism” is essentially the “link-age” to sites of other publications or related articles written by others, even if that means directing one of its loyal readers to a competitor’s site (see The Drudge Report image above).
According to several of the articles (and coincidentally, the links to other sites the articles provided), linking to other reporting or sources adds to the credibility of the original.
Despite it taking potential advertising revenue away, studies have shown that readers who are given additional links still remain loyal to the original site.
Furthermore, with the advent of blogging, which is not seen as very formal or highly-trustworthy reporting, linking assists and improves credibility to the blog.
A blogger would write his/her thoughts, but through links to legitimate publications and articles to supplement them, readers can understand that the blogging is not unfounded.
If seen from a psychological standpoint, it is similar to sportsmanship (a stretch, yes…).
Providing links to competitors’ websites translates to confidence, which suggests, “despite viewing other sites, the reader will think the original is still the best.”
That is to say, only allowing readers to stay within the site emanates fear that maybe readers won’t come back if exposed to other sites.
Why is linking so important?
- All news is easily accessible and free on the internet now. Readers are going to get the news some place or another anyway, so why not aid the process? (They will like you more!)
-Monopolies of particular news organizations do not exist anymore
-Easy search & ability to filter news through “Ctrl + F” button or search engines (see Yahoo!News image above)
- Web is all about connections – links to more matter on the subject, background information, or definitions are important.
What Cynthia thinks:
I see this process as counter-intuitive, but in the end very effective and necessary.
The only concern I have is that this “indirect team work” will result in identical websites. For example, if there are only five online sites in the world, and each of those five links to the other four, what will make a reader choose Site#1, and not #2, #3, #4, or #5, since, essentially, the reader will be getting the same information one way or another?
Perhaps emphasis will be placed on the original reporting to win readers, or number of links or formatting of links... Who knows, we’ll just have to wait and see.
