Online vs. Traditional Versions of News Articles
Okay, so it is time for my first required blog assignment. I am supposed to find an article in a traditional newspaper (I grabbed a USA Today, a Centre Daily Times, and a New York Times from Penn State's paper bins), and compare it to an online "blog" version of the same article. I decided to start this post as I am searching, rather than write after I found it. I am also pretty hungover/drunk after an Everclear induced night, so this will be interesting.
I am first flipping through the Centre Daily, and find a pretty interesting article about how people in Haiti make "cookies" out of mud to eat to cure their hunger pains. Wow, I really had no idea that it was that bad there. I then begin to search online for the blog version of the article, and guess what. Every blog source I find just reposted, word for word, exactly the same article! This may be a little harder than I thought. It wouldn't make any sense to compare the same reprinted article, so I decide to keep on searching. Maybe an article that isn't written by the associated press? I give up on the CDT because if it isn't an article from the AP, it will probably be only local news and wouldn't get that much attention from blogs online.
I now pick up the times of New York, and notice that there is election coverage on the front page. Great! Although I am pretty uninterested in the campaigns, I know that there are many bloggers who are. After a little Googling (and sorting through "official" newspaper blogs) I find a couple blogs that wrote about the event.
The NYT article is about how John Edwards (who?) dropped out of the 2008 presidential race. Although he did not formally endorse either of the remaining Democratic candidates (Clinton and Obama) he encouraged them to "continue drawing attention to the primary themes of his campaign."
The blog that I chose to compare is The Democratic Daily. It states the opinion of author Pamela Leavy on the subject. She feels that although she wasn't a supporter of Edwards, it saddened her to see such a great candidate drop out of the race. It was also noted that this is the first time a woman or an African-American will be nominated for president by a major political party. Hey, I may be ignorant, but even I know that this is pretty heavy stuff.
The Comparison
New York Times
Credibility - I mean, it's the NEW YORK TIMES. There may be some shady inside misinformation or bent truths, but hey, you got to take it for what it is. I'm always going to assume that if it's written in one of the most famous newspapers in the country, the article has to have some sort of legitimate support before it goes to print.
Bias - Umm, I am sure that there is some attempt to sway readers to one side or another. But as a casual reader, I probably wouldn't be aware of it.
Motivation for writing - I'm not really sure how being a journalist works, but I assume that they get to write about subjects that they have interest in? The author, Elisabeth Bumiller may either be a democrat, or interested in the race for some reason. She might just be the only writer that has access to the political press conferences.
Audience - Everyone? The article is available to anyone who has online access to the NYT or can spare $1.25 for the print version. It will specifically target those who have a vested interest in the campaigns. Oh and anyone 65 and older that lives in the north eastern part of the country.
Content - The content means that there will be a two person race for the Democratic national bid for president. Also, there will be less competition for it. Although Edwards did not endorse another candidate, the attention will now be focused on Clinton and Obama.
The Democratic Daily
Credibility - The author includes videos, citations and sources, so she seems to know what she is talking about. Writing in a blog does not imply credibility, as there are many people who like to just ramble without having a clue. Plus, it is her own opinion, so the matter of credibility does not really even apply. As long as you know that what you are reading may or may not be 100% accurate, you could still gain some valuable insight.
Bias - Obviously. The author is apparently sympathetic for the Democratic party. She probably wouldn't be writing on this site or "wish the Edwards family well" if she wasn't. However, Leavy is pretty factual, and doesn't seem to be purposely persuading her audience in one way or another.
Motivation - Leavy is a Democratic sympathizer an may have wanted to express her heart-felt sentiment for the candidate. Or maybe she just wanted to get her name on a well-read blog. Either works.
Audience - The audience is anyone who visits the Democratic Daily site. It is probably those who are part of the Democratic party. It seems to be a pretty well-trafficked site, especially this year during the election.
Content - The content is mostly a republishing of other sources the author found online. There are quotes and article clippings in the posting. She also states her opinion here and there to express her own feelings on the event.
Well there it is. I personally would trust an in-my-hands newspaper in terms of bias and credibility over a blog any day. I would rather read a blog posting because I value people's opinions, and find them interesting. Both ways at least got me to take a second glance at the election, and that leads me to think that someday I might vote in one.
I am first flipping through the Centre Daily, and find a pretty interesting article about how people in Haiti make "cookies" out of mud to eat to cure their hunger pains. Wow, I really had no idea that it was that bad there. I then begin to search online for the blog version of the article, and guess what. Every blog source I find just reposted, word for word, exactly the same article! This may be a little harder than I thought. It wouldn't make any sense to compare the same reprinted article, so I decide to keep on searching. Maybe an article that isn't written by the associated press? I give up on the CDT because if it isn't an article from the AP, it will probably be only local news and wouldn't get that much attention from blogs online.
I now pick up the times of New York, and notice that there is election coverage on the front page. Great! Although I am pretty uninterested in the campaigns, I know that there are many bloggers who are. After a little Googling (and sorting through "official" newspaper blogs) I find a couple blogs that wrote about the event.
The NYT article is about how John Edwards (who?) dropped out of the 2008 presidential race. Although he did not formally endorse either of the remaining Democratic candidates (Clinton and Obama) he encouraged them to "continue drawing attention to the primary themes of his campaign."
The blog that I chose to compare is The Democratic Daily. It states the opinion of author Pamela Leavy on the subject. She feels that although she wasn't a supporter of Edwards, it saddened her to see such a great candidate drop out of the race. It was also noted that this is the first time a woman or an African-American will be nominated for president by a major political party. Hey, I may be ignorant, but even I know that this is pretty heavy stuff.
The Comparison
New York Times
Credibility - I mean, it's the NEW YORK TIMES. There may be some shady inside misinformation or bent truths, but hey, you got to take it for what it is. I'm always going to assume that if it's written in one of the most famous newspapers in the country, the article has to have some sort of legitimate support before it goes to print.
Bias - Umm, I am sure that there is some attempt to sway readers to one side or another. But as a casual reader, I probably wouldn't be aware of it.
Motivation for writing - I'm not really sure how being a journalist works, but I assume that they get to write about subjects that they have interest in? The author, Elisabeth Bumiller may either be a democrat, or interested in the race for some reason. She might just be the only writer that has access to the political press conferences.
Audience - Everyone? The article is available to anyone who has online access to the NYT or can spare $1.25 for the print version. It will specifically target those who have a vested interest in the campaigns. Oh and anyone 65 and older that lives in the north eastern part of the country.
Content - The content means that there will be a two person race for the Democratic national bid for president. Also, there will be less competition for it. Although Edwards did not endorse another candidate, the attention will now be focused on Clinton and Obama.
The Democratic Daily
Credibility - The author includes videos, citations and sources, so she seems to know what she is talking about. Writing in a blog does not imply credibility, as there are many people who like to just ramble without having a clue. Plus, it is her own opinion, so the matter of credibility does not really even apply. As long as you know that what you are reading may or may not be 100% accurate, you could still gain some valuable insight.
Bias - Obviously. The author is apparently sympathetic for the Democratic party. She probably wouldn't be writing on this site or "wish the Edwards family well" if she wasn't. However, Leavy is pretty factual, and doesn't seem to be purposely persuading her audience in one way or another.
Motivation - Leavy is a Democratic sympathizer an may have wanted to express her heart-felt sentiment for the candidate. Or maybe she just wanted to get her name on a well-read blog. Either works.
Audience - The audience is anyone who visits the Democratic Daily site. It is probably those who are part of the Democratic party. It seems to be a pretty well-trafficked site, especially this year during the election.
Content - The content is mostly a republishing of other sources the author found online. There are quotes and article clippings in the posting. She also states her opinion here and there to express her own feelings on the event.
Well there it is. I personally would trust an in-my-hands newspaper in terms of bias and credibility over a blog any day. I would rather read a blog posting because I value people's opinions, and find them interesting. Both ways at least got me to take a second glance at the election, and that leads me to think that someday I might vote in one.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Online vs. Traditional Versions of News Articles.
TrackBack URL for this entry: https://blogs.psu.edu/mt4/mt-tb.cgi/2966
You leave me no choice. I just set up us the bomb.