There are many ways to display information to the public in today’s society. There is television, newspapers, radio, the internet and much more. Two forms of media that I will be exploring in this blog are newspapers and the internet. Many people would perceive the two to be very similar (and there are indeed similarities), but there are actually quite a few differences. A current event that has received significant media attention is the battle over
The first noticeable difference between the two media is that newspapers are obviously made of paper. I have not picked up a newspaper and read it in years. This assignment has reminded me of why that is. When searching for an article to write about I immediately became frustrated with how annoying it was to look through a huge mass of bulky, awkward papers. Not only that but I soon found that dirty, dark, ink creeping up on my fingertips. That has been a pet peeve of mine ever since I was a child. Even though I already love the function of the internet, I now have a new found appreciation for it in that it allows for easy, convenient deliverance of information. Now that the obvious differences are set aside, I can compare the actual articles at hand.
To help give you an idea of what the articles are about, they basically talk about the clash of ideas between the President and the Democrats regarding troop withdrawal and spending for the war. After reading the USA Today article, I noticed they presented a number of facts and quotes. The author of the article pretty much told us ‘how it was’. Regarding the online article, they also presented its audience with facts and quotes but as I was reading the article, I felt like I was a reading a blog too. The author raised questions and referenced inside jokes to loyal readers, such as, “Could be case for Law & Order......Okay, deal, we still stop making Law & Order jokes from now on whenever we mention.....possible presidential candidate Fred Thompson” (TIME.com). This kind of writing helps readers to connect with the author, as well as TIME.com. People will want to come back to the website more often.
There was also a lot of hyperlinking on the TIME article. Newspapers can’t reference to other sources like that. When it comes to images, USA Today actually had some whereas the TIME article had none. The newspaper had a color image on the front page (initially captured my attention) and a black and white photo by the actual article. Now, while we all know that the internet article could have just as easily had images by its side, it’s interesting to wonder why it did not. Perhaps there is no need for an image because articles online are not trying to attract the attention of others. When it comes to the internet, people generally decide what information they want to look up. As for a newspaper, newspaper companies want to capture other peoples’ attention so they can buy the paper. What better way to catch my eye than a flashy image?
Journalists have an abundance of tools at their disposal in which to display their information. One of the most popular tools in their ‘toolkit’ would be the world wide web as stated by Dan Gillmor. “The Web, as it grew up in the 1990s, was a powerful publishing system that journalists of all kinds used to great effect, and still do” (Gillmor 27). It is often a personal preference for people to decide which media they use to receive new information, but I would say a large majority of them use the internet. Its ease of use and accessibility to everyone is very appealing and it is very interesting to see the evolution of the internet coincide with the demanding needs of journalists all over the world.
References
Gillmor, Dan. (2004). We the media: Grassroots Journalism By the People, For the People. Retrieved March 29, 2007 from http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/wemedia/book/.
Yeomans, Matthew. (2007). Bush Challenges Democratic Credibility on
Jackson, David. (2007). USA Today: Bush, Dems trade barbs over bills. Retrieved March 29, 2007 from
No comments:
Post a Comment