Student Zone

Ben Goldberger
English 151
Media Journal 2

The header for the online version of the New York Times, April 17, 2006 is sandwiched between to ads for AirTran, a low-budget airline. The side bar offers links to the different sections of the paper. The headlines cover a suicide bombing in Tel Aviv, the White House chief of staff calling for changes in Bush’s staff, the conviction of Gov. George Ryan and the Times-Picayune newspaper’s celebration of two Pulitzer prizes accompanied with photo. Immediately to the right of the headlines are links to 2 art section articles and an ad for an mp3 player. There are also links to editorials as well as a brief look at the stock market. Further down is a large ad for Lexus, about the size of the main photo for the Pulitzer. Scrolling down the page, I find links to different sections and articles and each case an accompanying ad. There are practically no links or photos on this page without an ad to the left or right.

Of the three online newspapers I looked at, the NYT is the one I read the most. Looking at it with different eyes, however, I noticed the ads that I normally ignore. It seemed that there was a great deal of space devoted to advertising which made me, and perhaps other readers, wonder what justification the NYT might have for displaying so many ads. Compared to the other online sources, I found several more ads on the NYT homepage. The constantly changing ads were also a distraction and seemed to further decrease my attention span, or at least my desire to stay put on the homepage. Despite the advertising, the layout seemed to work as my eyes wandered across the page. It was organized well, I feel, and the text font was easy to read. They chose only a few main stories to showcase which made my surfing decisions easier. I prefer a neat organization for online news source homepages.

The header for the online version of the Washington Post is accompanied by an ad for print subscriptions. Immediately below the header is a prominent horizontal bar providing links to other sections. The headlines are the same as the NYT’s with the exception of the Ryan trial which was left out. There are additional headlines below these first three dealing with Moussaoui’s Boyhood, Rumsfeld insistence that the Iraq war is going well and the cross examination of the Enron ex-CEO, Skilling. The accompanying photo is of the finish of the men’s Boston marathon. There are several ads on this page, all placed on the right.

The header for the Washington Post was clean and uncluttered, unlike the NYT. I prefer this to the typical visual assault of many heavily trafficked homepages. The horizontal section-jump bar was easy to read and stood out from the page which makes me think the Washington Post is more concerned with getting its readers into the paper’s sections and into the writing. I was surprised that the Post chose to leave out Ryan trial coverage. If any paper would take an interest (after Chicago papers, I suppose), it seems the Washington Post would. Also, the placement of all ads on the right-hand side of the page gives it a no-nonsense look and feel that I like. Its much easier to avoid the ads than on NYT page. The layout and font are also reader friendly, in my opinion.

The header for the online version of the Chicago Tribune is accompanied by a small ad for used cars and the local temperature. The left sidebar provides links to different sections, beginning with the classifieds. The Ryan verdict is prominent, top-center, including photo, flanked by a link to the career builder section, a large ad for GM cars and separate link to the auto section. Other headlines that were featured in the Washington Post and NYT are much smaller here and interspersed by local headlines. The largest headline after the Ryan verdict reports on a donation by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. There are no other ads on this page.

The Tribune had the fewest picture ads of the three pages I looked at, so I give it points for that, but the layout was cluttered and confusing. The section-jump was easy to find and read, but the placement of the classified section links near the top of the page suggests a heavy reliance on advertising. Also, the closeness of a car ad and a link to the auto section confused me. I couldn’t tell at first glance that the link to news writing on cars was not part of the ad for GM. Unlike the NYT and Post, there was only one prominent headline story, the Ryan trial. The rest of the article links for local and national news seemed to be interspersed at random. Despite the Tribune’s effort to come off as a national paper, with its gothic font and sense of self-importance I get from the editorial section and news coverage, the online homepage gives it a decidedly local, amateur image.

If I had it my way, I’d pick and choose from each of these homepages. I like the NYT for its font, and layout, but I’d ditch the ads, which were the most prominent and distracting of the three. I’d take the Tribune’s low reliance on pictorial ads over the other two. Finally, I prefer the overall low-key feel of the Washington Post. Its header is simple and uncluttered and that theme is maintained to the bottom of the page.

My biggest concern with the trend toward online news sources is that people who use these sources are immediately exposed to ads, unlike in the print form. Print front pages are usually advertising-free. The prevailing view is that online readers will read less and surf more but I wonder how much advertising effects a reader’s eagerness to leave a page. It certainly encourages me get to a less cluttered, invasive page. Online news sources seem to understand this, but because they rely on advertising revenue to survive, it seems to make sense for them to cram more and more advertising into heavily pages.

Concerns aside, I do appreciate online news sources, especially those that are neatly organized and sparsely laid out.

Kristen Krolicki
One of America’s biggest debates is the issue with illegal immigrants living on American land. I found much interest in reading three different articles by different reporters in the Chicago Sun Times about the illegal immigrant acts and what American Senators have planned for them.

March 31, 2006 - Reporter Suzanne Gamboa
Illegal immigrants safe for at least three years

In the lead sentence, Gamboa asks a question, that in Washington, should they stay or should they go, those 11 million illegal immigrants living in the United States. In the nut of the article, Gamboa doesn’t answer the question, but allows the reader to be aware of different options the government has planned. The debate is over whether immigrants have 3 or 6 years to stay. Three people are interviewed, those being Senate Majority Leader Bill First, House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert and quotes brought in by President Bush. Each has a plan to stricken border control and eventually come to a conclusion of the final say at the end of November. The article contains no comments from immigrants or what patrons feel about the situation.

In our class book, News Reporting and Writing, I learned to try and avoid leads that ask the reader a question. In this particular article, I thought it worked well because it automatically got me thinking about those 11 million immigrants and what the United States has planned for laws dealing with them. The quotes from politicians were useful but I believe it would have been beneficial to have quotes brought in from patrons on what their feelings are about passing laws to make immigrants stay or leave.

April 2, 2006 - Reporter Hope Yen
First: Time for vote on immigration

The lead begins with an aggressive statement by Senate Majority Leader Bill First indicating that there must be an urgent action needed despite divisions over whether proposed legislation would amount to amnesty. There was no: where, when or why, following the W’s in journalism. The second paragraph is a quote stated by First, informing people that over 3 million illegal people walk across the border every year, of whom we know nothing about and this must be addressed immediately. The nut follows into describing what the courts have done to strengthen the borders and what to do with the immigrants already living in America. A quote brought in from Sen. Dick Durbin states that for the immigrants who are already living in America will be permitted to stay, as long as they are working hard, paying taxes and have no criminal record.

Again, there is no suggestions or quotes brought in from patrons like the previous article by Gamboa. We’re only hearing what senators have to say about immigration laws. With over 11 million immigrants taking American people’s jobs, there must be an opinion from a citizen. The article was informative on the actions taking place, but the only think that kept me intrigued was a photograph of the protesters against proposed immigration legislation. There wasn’t much feeling in the article, an was poorly written.
April 3, 2006 - Reporter Mary Laney
Majority backs tough stance on immigration

The lead paragraph focuses on providing facts that Chicago schools are under funded, Social Security systems are going broke, and taxes are being raised. Too much time is being spent on what to do with illegal immigrants. Bills in Chicago and America have been passed on immigration, yet we are still in an uproar. This article concentrated strictly on how high school kids and a local Chicago business owner are effected by this. In the nut of the article, its stated how a majority of high school grads don’t go to college right away, and don’t mind competing with immigrants for jobs, as long as they are legal. The store owner feels that immigrants have every right to work for him, as long as they are legal. The emotional connection is tied in at the end of the article describing how our ancestors are all immigrants but they came in through Ellis Island the right way, with legal documentation of their citizenship.

I thought this article was more emotional and easier to relate to. The two previous articles were very factual and beneficial for Chicagoan’s knowledge on immigration. This article described how local patrons felt and what their views on allowing immigrants to stay in the United States.

I thought that all three articles lacked the who, what, where, why, when, how a good lead needs in journalism. They either jumped into a question, a statement, or unrelated information. They either contained too may quotes buy only senators, and in the last article’s case, only patrons. I wouldn’t consider these pieces to be great forms of journalism. If anything, they could be examples of what not to do in journalism.

Brandon Kruse
News Reporting
Media Journal 2
442006

The trial of Zac Moussaoui has been in the news for a while and I’ve read coverage of it in a couple different news sources over the last few months. I've come to depend on foreign correspondence with this trial and just looking at the news for today will show the difference between foreign and domestic correspondence in the focus of media coverage.
The BBC coverage is fairly detached and they usually approach the trial from a different angle than CNN and CBS. The article from April 3, 2006 comes under the headline “Mixed Emotions at Moussaoui trial”. The piece is written in inverted pyramid style that also divides the reactions into their order of popularity. Eight people are interviewed including six 9/11 victim family-members.
Their reactions of course are biased but the reporting introducing the emotions felt by each of the interviewees are supported in the story by facts surrounding the case.
Showing every side of the debate, they include quotes from Moussaoui himself, Bill Frist, senate majority leader, as well as the family members. Even those who are disappointed with the verdict get a few words. There are those who fear Moussaoui becoming a martyr; these issues are addressed through the family interviews.
By reporting the story with the words of the victims, the reporter does a good job of expressing the sentiments that surround the debate of the Moussaoui trial without expressing an opinion or bias. The question of what real justice is to be found in this trial comes about through the words of the victims and not the reporter.

CNN
As I said before the coverage of the trial by American journalists is quite different. The article entitled “Jury: Moussaoui is eligible for death” is large on the death penalty aspect of the trial.
The first graphs tell of the verdict reached by jurors and the process of sentencing as well as the reactions of Moussaoui as he heard it. He is described as showing no reaction until the jurors left, when he screamed, “You'll never get my blood. God curse you all” The other reaction described by the reporter is of 9/11 victim family member Lisa Dolan pumping her fist when she heard the news.
The story outlines the last of the trial’s allegations and Mousssaoui’s own testimony that he was to fly a plane into the white house on the Sept 11 attacks. The graph breaks occur with these bi-lines Moussaoui 'in the middle of it' and 'Headache' for al Qaeda where sections of the trying argument are quoted with an air of general fact around them. I did not enjoy the fact that the trying arguments were so played up, a quote from the prosecutor David Raskin’s closing argument is quoted as, "He was in the middle of it, just like he told you from the witness stand." The only defense given to Moussaoui in this article is a small graph near the end of a string of arguments by the prosecution saying the defense asked the jury to discount Moussaoui’s testimony because he was a loner. The article shows a considerable amount of bias by presenting facts so focused on the prosecution’s arguments. In my own opinion the piece calls for blood until the final paragraph when the reporter alleges that Moussaoui is a grifter that probably had less to do with Al Quaeda because he is such a pain in the ass to everyone he comes into contact with… and I don’t think that’s such great reporting.

CBS

The headline of CBS’s April 3 article echoes CNN’s,

“Moussaoui Eligible For Execution”. It does not end there. CBS is less biased but takes a more radical stance. There are several quotes by CBS news correspondents that are fairly inappropriate, Jim Stewart is quoted as saying “It was a total victory for the government.” It may have been…
The article is informative but really lacks any kind of structure. It roams from the verdict itself to the impact and the second set of deliberations where the impact upon the victims will be covered to determine the severity of punishment for Moussaoui.
The article proposes the defense scheme and again uses CBS correspondent Jim Stewart’s opinion that, “He may be portrayed as someone who wants to die and gain fame in al Qaeda.” He is quoted as saying this with no supporting fact or dialogue with the defense attorney, it comes out of nowhere.
They also interviewed victim family members who gave more graphic quotes such as Abraham Scott who said, "I describe him like a dog with rabies, one that cannot be cured. The only cure is to put him or her to death." They go on with this, “He told CBS' Alison Harmelin that the death of Moussaoui might bring the families of 9/11 victims some comfort. But Scott said he blamed the government equally "for not acting on certain indicators that could have prevented 9/11 happening."
The article boils down to show the jurors unanimous decision. The decision is given with a lot of detail and it is good informative. CBS can’t claim to be as detached as the BBC but they have more information than CNN.

An emotionally and politically charged trial where an overwhelming bias exists is hard to cover with journalistic integrity. I think that the most important way to report this story lies in the focus of the lead. The BBC story told readers the details of the trial and the scope of it’s impact with the victim’s specifically in the lead. CNN and CBS captured the jarring headline placing Moussaoui as close to the word death as possible but their structures were ill fitting to the bias of reporting.

Marcello Grigolo
2 April 2006
News Reporting and Writing
Media Journal

I decided to follow the developments in Iran regarding their nuclear enrichment program and their diplomatic relations with the U.S. and the world, by focusing on three stories that appeared in the Christian Science Monitor (CSM).
The first story, “Iran Forges Ahead on Nukes,” by Scott Peterson, dated March 2, 2006 is about Iran’s ongoing talks with Russia to move uranium enrichment onto Russian soil and U.N. plans for sanctions against Tehran.
This is a very informative article written in the inverted pyramid style. The main story is contained in the first five paragraphs—these are all short, tight and concise. The rest of the story unfolds with details and points of view from all sides of the issue (e.g. U.N. diplomat, two Tehran Professors, IAEA official, &c.). This is a hard news story written objectively and without partisanship. After reading this story, I feel that I have come away with a greater understanding of this complex issue.
The second piece, “Why Iran Oil Cutoff Could Be Suicidal,” by David R. Francis, dated March 27, 2006 is about the ongoing standoff between Europe, the U.S. and Iran. The article focuses on the recent threats by Tehran to cut oil exports if U.N. sanctions go into effect.
This story is also in the inverted pyramid style. The main points are contained in the first three paragraphs. However, the remaining paragraphs hold a lot of information that helps give the story a broader scope. For instance, an Iranian professor speculates on ways Iran might try to block oil exports from other Arab countries and what effect it would have on gas prices in the U.S…The story is tight, concise and objective—another solid hard news story.
The final piece, “Delays Turn to Stalemate Over Iran’s Nuclear Ambitions,” by Howard LaFranchi, dated March 28, 2006 is about Russia and China’s refusal to consider any U.N. Security Council statement regarding Iran that uses language that opens the door to future sanctions. There is a second angle to the story—U.S. reaction to the stalemate.
This is the most narrowly focused of the three stories, written in inverted pyramid style. The story contains a lot of detailed speculation from sources about just how far along Iran is in their nuclear enrichment program. There is also a good analysis of U.S. diplomacy towards Iran. This piece is another hard news story, objective and balanced.
Overall, these stories, taken together, provide the reader with a well-rounded view of this hot issue. These are strictly news articles with no editorializing. One thing you notice when reading the CSM is how similar the stories are in style, as if they were written by the same author. I like this consistency. I compare the CSM to the Associated Press in that both provide consistent quality writing—they have the economy of the news article down to a science—in a wholly non-partisan way. The content is well informed, richly detailed and has broad appeal. Based on these three stories alone, I believe the CSM is a serious, trustworthy hard news source with a lot of credibility.

3/26/06
Abcnews.go.com

For this media journal, I chose to look into some online news sources because I haven’t really explored this medium yet. The first one I chose was ABC News. Before you can read anything you’re eyes are drawn in by the top story slide show of pictures. Today’s top stories include
· Iraqis: 18 Dead in U.S.-Iraqi Mosque Clash
· Race Car Driver Paul Dana Dies in Crash
· Dancer Says Duke Lacrosse Players Raped Her
· Missing Link? Skull of Human Ancestor Found
· Immigration March Draws 500,000 in L.A.
· Leno Wins Suit Against Woman He Mocked
Every story on the page is summed up in headlines, in order to get anymore info you must click on the links provided. This makes for a very concise homepage, but at the same time you could get lost in the links. For me, there’s so much info. On one page that I don’t know where to start. Also, when you go into one of their videa clips from broadcast, you sit through a commercial broadcast as well. This seems a very cheap way to make money with the site . . . it makes me think that they are too focused on the money aspect of news rather than the news itself.
One thing I really liked about this site was that you have a lot of control over your viewing and learning of the news. They have all sorts of categories they sort their stories into such as national, international, entertainment, money . . . just like a newspaper would. I like this better than sitting through a broadcast and having to wait for the stories I really want to hear. Although the book said it wasn’t really a good idea, I like how this site puts many of its TV broadcast stories directly on the site. The book calls this shovelware, and they said it drives people away from media news sources. I don’t agree, I sat and watched the broadcasts of several of the stories. This site does a good job displaying news both with text and media. Also, they make good use of writing with bullets and writing in chunks to save the reader time.
As for the actual reporting and news value of this site, I think there are some positives as well as negatives. With the top headlining story, they start off describing the deaths of 18 people as a “clash”. Now, to me, that word doesn’t really describe the seriousness of what’s going on. It’s a very fluffy sentence that tries to make light of the situation. There was no other info. Given on these deaths throughout the 4 page article! There were a few quotes stating that no one seems to have any information about this event . . . when reporting on a story, how do you write a 4 page article without any info about what you are covering? I think the lead of this story is very misleading, because while a recent event is used to pull you in, the actual story has nothing to do with it. I think that this story is all over the place and poorly written. After reading the whole story, I had to reread it to remember what the beginning was about.
Some of the other top stories, though, did have better reporting and more concrete stories to tell. The one about the skull discovered gave the who, what, when, where, and the why (importance) of the story very well. It followed the inverted pyramid, got right to the point, and I didn’t get lost in the meaning of this story. While the news significance of some of the stories was, I think, very low due to the lack of good reporting, some of the stories did have relatively high news value and were very objective. If I had to give an overall rating to this news site from 1-10, I’d give it a 6.5.

3/38/06
bbc.co.uk/

This website offers a much broader scope than abc website did. You can search news stories and information by country, as well as by category (sports, radio, tv, etc.) Also, if you can’t find what you’re looking for, they have a bar to enter key words and search the entire site for related material. There is a list of other services offer by the site including:
Audio/video news
Daily e-mail
Mobile/pdas
Desktop alerts
Desktop ticker
Rss feeds
Compared to the first site I viewed, the bbc news site is more pleasing to the eye. You’re not about to have a seizure due to constant flashing top story pics. The color scheme is very calming (shades of blue) and nothing really sticks out to shadow other aspects of the news site. On the downside, by generalizing the home page a viewer must find their way into the news stories rather than having them presented to them. For some internet users, this might mean that they would chose a different site with instant info. I on the other hand, like the way this sit is set up.
Once you chose a category to look into, a more familiar layout is used. The page linked to news in the Americas covers stories including:
1) Ex-defence chief Weinberger dies
2) US court takes up Guantanamo case
3) White House chief-of-staff quits
4) Immigration devide (Foreign workers in California politics)
5) Fatigue Factor (chief-of-staff quits)
6) Status Anxiety
There is less media (pics and vids) available through the bbc site than the abc, but I felt that abc went a little over board. Bbc’s site focuses more on the actual stories rather than catching your eye. I think they did a good job presenting their news stories on line.
The news value of the stories presented on this site is quite justified. There was definitely much reporting behind the stories I read. Every statement made in these reports was backed up by quotes from legitimate sources. The writing did not seem slanted one way or another to me, it was very objective. I believe the reporters for bbc are very well versed in the practices of journalism and did a great job keeping themselves out of their stories. I also believe that the journalists made great use of the inverted pyramid. All the information is presented right up front in the first three paragraphs.
Although I really enjoyed browsing through this site, the one thing I was disappointed about was that every top story related directly to politics. Yes, politics are very important, but some of the side stories I thought should have been given higher priority on the site. There was an article about investigation into theft and miss-distribution of relief supplies by Red Cross members during the Katrina crisis. Personally, I thought that should have topped the fatigue factor article.
This site is aimed at a national level, attempting to cover the entire globe it seems. What a mighty task! Overall I think that the objectivity of the reporting and vast story topics really gives this site a lot of credibility. With my ratings, it would receive a 9.5.

3/30/06
www.cnn.com/

For my final media journal entry, I chose to lake a look at the CNN website. Like BBC, CNN home page is colorscaped very nicely. Most everything is blue, interesting coincidence. CNN website also has many categories in which to browse their news including world, U.S., weather, business, sports, politics, tech, entertainment, etc. If you’re looking for a story or subject to read about that isn’t highlighted in the categories, you can just as easily search for keywords using the search bar at the top or the bottom of the CNN home page.
The right margin of the homepage is devoted to advertisements . . . that’s a major turn off from my perspective. It makes me think that CNN runs their website for $$$ as opposed to the potential readers. They have one picture from the top stories listed and a small clip from the article it pertains to below it. In searching through they categories, I found that all the pages are set up this way. A little more variety would be appreciated. There were plentiful advertisement links throughout the entire site, they seemed to overpower the news stories relevance on the page. The ads are huge in comparison to the listing of the news stories.
There was not that much going on media wise on the CNN site, I would have liked to see more pictures. They do offer some vids about top stories, but other than that I think they did not make a very good use the online medium. I also found some spelling and grammatical errors . . . that means its pretty bad coming from me. I don’t think that there was enough editing going into the stories presented on this site.
In regards to the news value of the stories put on this site . . . I think that the subject matter was relevant, but the reporting was lacking, as was the writing of the stories themselves. When reading the story of the surviving member from the mine accident, I think that the headline and lead was done well, but the story tapered off from then on. The reporter seemed to run out of steam and the story ends with
“"He's not normal, and he'll tell you that," the physician said.
Bailes said the damage to McCloy's brain may be reversible. “
There’s really no ending, it just stopped. The story covering the effects of prayer on patients in hospitals was lacking reporting as well. It gave the specifics of the study, but had no quotes from any of the participants, (prayer people or patients) and it also gave no religious response to the study. The reporter covering and writing a story about violence in high schools did not seem to have considered getting the perspective of students or of administration.
Overall I felt this site was one-sided, presenting only a conservatives point of view. Besides that, it seems more of the site was devoted to advertising as opposed to news telling. My rating for CNN’s site would be a 5.
After browsing through a few different online news sources I have begun to see that every news team tells somewhat of a different story depending on the values and beliefs they try to embody. Out of the three sites I viewed, I liked the BBC site the best. I felt it had the least constrained news articles and the stories were presented objectively. I feel that online news sources open up a whole new door to presenting the public with news. I like the control of being able to choose the stories I read and learn rather than sitting in front of the TV waiting for the right story to come on. Advertisements on news sites, in my opinion, are a bad idea. They really turn me off from searching through any site. There has to be other ways to make a news website semi-profitable other than ads. Maybe they could do it public television style and ask for donations? I don’t know how plausible that is but I just hate those ads!!