Good Newspaper, Bad Website

When I first read the newswriting syllabus last fall and saw I'd be tested on current events, I knew immediately where I would get my news. The Web. The thought of a newspaper subscription didn't even occur to me. I also lived in a large apartment complex, so I faced the possibility that I may never see the paper I paid for. But then I faced a choice: where to get my news.

Too many options

Just about every newspaper, television station, and national news source now has a website. Luckily, the instructor proceeded to tell me exactly where my news should come from. The Los Angeles Times. Relieved at the thought of knowing where to go, I decided to check out their site.  It made me wish a subscription was a more reasonable option.

Distracting, disorderly and disrupted

The LA Times website is cluttered and overwhelming. Headlines of featured stories are squished together, causing the text to run over several lines. Photos, advertisements and links to other stories interrupt nearly every article. Sentences are long, and many stories feature large blocks of text that can deter even the most avid news junkies.

A refreshing change

This year, I'm choosing a new source for news. CNN.com. They practically hit me in the face with breaking news in a large red box at the top of my screen. Popular stories and hot topics are just a click away. World, national and political news stories are featured on the home page next to human interest and pure entertainment stories.  Their headlines only take up one line, and contain intriguing words and quotes. 

Examples include:

• "Palin a 'cocky wacko,' ex-senator says"
• "Babies treated, then sent back to hell"
• "Skinny model: 'nobody ever fed me'"

You can't help but click on those stories.

Personal preference

In the end, whether you like or dislike a given website comes down to personal choice. I prefer clean websites that can suppress my easily distracted eye. So after spending two semesters sifting through the overwhelmingly busy LA Times website, all I can say is: no wonder I hated those news quizzes. 

Short and Simple

The more online journalism articles I read, the more I realize that I am that typical online news reader. I scan headlines, skim news stories and hate cluttered sites. 

My favorite news sites have to be:

• NYTimes.com
• BBC News
• DrudgeReport.com

The Poynter Online "Writing for the Web" article says, "readers want sites that are informative and easy to navigate."

1. NYTimes.com

 NYTimes.com shows that newspaper website can look like a newspaper (as in, have a lot of text), but look clean. The site uses short introductions on its front page to help a reader scan a story and click on it. 

This does take up a lot of space, but the page looks much better than others which are loaded with links (such as the Los Angeles Times).

2. BBC News

The BBC website is a great example of how news sites can break up a lot of text by using pictures, which sometimes draw in a reader more than the headline.

The BBC website also uses "layers," with links on the right side of the page which give links to related or past stories. It even links users to stories from other websites for those who want to go even more in-depth.

3. The Drudge Report

The Drudge Report has the best headlines in the world. The headlines are punchy (and sometimes provocative), helping draw readers into the stories. The site also uses the color red and often bolds headlines to highlight important stories. 

And though the Druge Report might seem a little text-heavy, because the site is only made up of headlines. 

Besides, users like me only scan the headlines anyways. 

It's Like Writing for TV

Before this class began, I didn’t really know how to write for the web. I thought, since newspapers did this, that you could write the story similarly to how you would do it for a print medium. Therefore, I was surprised to learn writing for the web is a lot more like writing for TV.

1. Both emphasize being short and simple.

When writing for TV, you only have one chance to get information to your audience, so you have to make it as clear as possible. It's the same thing for web writing. According to Annenberg’s “Online Journalism Review,” readers don’t want to you to waste their time. Therefore, they probably won't want to go back and have to reread something. Plus, many skim the articles to get basic gist. Therefore, if you aren't short and simple, no one's going to read the story.

2. Both are interactive.

TV uses video, graphics, and sound bites to draw viewers in. A story where you see the anchor reading the story the entire time is boring. Many people probably flip the channel when this happens. I know I do, so it is important you keep the audience attention.

You have to do the same with the web. To be interactive, you should use:

• Subheds
• Graphics
• Video
• Pictures
• Bolded words
• Pronouns

Why do I care?

Online stories that are formatted like TV stories are much more digestable. Readers can quickly scan the page and get the basic gist of the article. It makes reading the news so much more fun when I can get it done quickly and without much effort.

It’s also easier on the eyes and the psyche if online stories are formatted differently than print media. When I see a large block of text, I’m less inclined to read it carefully and to finish it. If that same content were broken up into sections with bullets and pictures, I would probably remember it better and actually read the entire story.

References:
"Writing for the Web" - Poynter


"How to Write for the Web " - Online Journalism Review
("General Tips" section)