The New York Times live blog of "The Rally To Restore Sanity And/Or Fear" told a detailed objective story about everything that was going on at the rally, from demographics and crowd information to everything that happened on stage. This blog also updated what was happening every few minutes.
The Guardian live blog was also informative and updated every few minutes, but it was done in a non objective way. It did paint a picture of what was happening, but it was more of comedy article than the New York Times version; facts sprinkled with sarcastic jokes and puns.
The Huffington Post live blog was a video blog of the rally. This blog was most concerned with opinions of the people in the crowd. It did show videos of speeches and things that were going on in the rally, but the main concern was the opinions of the people.
All of these blogs were effective to certain interests of people, and I think the New York Times did the best job conveying the story, but they made one big mistake. They posts on the blog were posted in the form of most recent one at the top, which is fine if you are reading it as it is happening, but it is very difficult to read a blog post event backwards. The Guardians format is the "correct" way I am referring to. Post event the live blog needs to be switched to this format. The Huffington Post gave you the option of reading it both ways.
Other than the format the New York Times conveyed the best story because they left the opinions to the reader. They just told what was happening, with not too much bias.
As far as effectiveness in reading the blog live or post event, I think it is equal. Reading the blog during the event can make you feel like you are part of it, but reading it after gives you a lot more information than a one page story on the event or even a five page Time magazine article. Magazines should think about publishing live blogs of events after the events happen.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment