I knew that news websites are constantly updating their home pages to show the most recent news, but usually there are still a few stories that are the same from the morning paper.
However, when I went on www.washingtonpost.com just now, none of the stories are the same! It is just shocking to realize that what you read just this morning is now outdated.
I've been thinking about the extent to which new media controls our lives. What would happen if it suddenly shut down? What would we do if we no longer could chat instantly with people around the world or if journalists could no longer post breaking news stories on their paper's web site just as they happened?
It is scary that we are so dependent on this single source.
Also, I noticed that a lot of the articles in today's Post were titled differently online than in print. For example, "New Path to Restore Identities of Missing" is on the front page, but online the article is titled "Database Combines Details of Remains, Disappearances in Hopes of Making Matches." Also, "Utopia at a Discount" is on the front page, but "Buying a Bit of Celebration, Fla., Is Getting Easier" is online.
We've discussed how the internet is supposed to be "faster," but then why do the online article titles seen so awkward to me.
Let me know which titles you like better and why you think they were changed.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I noticed that too. I went onto the Washingtonpost.com and wanted to read something but it was different. The interent is updating itself so fast people dont even realize it. I also agree and feel we are way to dependent on the internet and media. And if it were to ever shut down, I honestly think people wouldnt survive. I know it sounds bad, but when we want to find out even the smallest bit of information, people just check the web or any media source. We are way to dependent on it.
ReplyDeleteI'm guessing that the reason why the print edtion is so different than the web is because they are just two different forms of media and they probably have different writers for their stories or something.
ReplyDeleteI actually visited The Washington Post.Com (the actual building) on a field trip and they don't necessarily do everything with the print editon in mind. Yes, they do work collaboratively with the newspaper, but maybe not as closely as we may think.
After reading the web headlines more often this past week and comparing them to the print edtion, I, for some reason, can't really pick which one I prefer. Both seem to catch my attention and I usually continue reading the lede for both issues.
During the Sotomayor confirmation hearings last week, there were multiple times that I logged on to washingtonpost.com and clicked the top two news stories. These links brought me to the same page! I was confused that they would have two separate entries on the front page that would link to the same article.
ReplyDeleteTo agree with what has already been said, I think that the Internet is certainly a quickly-changing medium. That's part of why it's so powerful and necessary in today's world.
It does create some confusion though, like with Michelle's differently-named, but still the same articles she references here.
And Jenny, I definitely agree that we are entirely dependent on the Internet and media. For that reason, I don't think that journalism will ever die. Just maybe newspapers :)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOnline articles serve an audience that wants their news quick and straight-forward, not people who have the time to leisurely read through the morning paper. The titles of print addition compel one to read on while the online titles essentially summarize the story for time-strapped news consumers.
ReplyDeleteIf our access to online news suddenly shut down we certainly would have greater trouble recieving the most recent news. However, the radio and television will always be there for news consumers who wish to knoww what is happening right this very moment. This is the beauty of so many types of news outlets.