Choices for Front Page Stories

With so much happening this week regarding politics, the economy and civil rights to name a few, each network or website is faced with the important decision of what to cover. Sure, every topic can be covered to some extent, but at the end of the day, the stories each site chooses to put on the front page have to appeal to its readers. Looking over the front page stories of the New York Times, CNN and the Huffington Post, the demographic of the site's readers quickly becomes apparent.

The Times has chosen to run a number of front page stories on the forclosure crisis as well as the proposed stimulus package, reflecting that its readers are generally concerned with the status of the economy. But the main article on the Times front page, which didn't recieve any mention on the front pages of the other two sites was an article on how the issue California gay marriage is going to court tomorrow, Thursday March 5th. A large shot of opposers to prop 8 holding candles dominates nearly half the screen, a clear sign that the websites readers care a great deal about the issue.

CNN has chosen a wider array of stories, some of which have more shock value and are less newsworthy to a general audience. Some of the stories include a man being attacked by a chimp, another being hit by a train, and a third attacking a court room judge. The remaining list is generally of the same shock value appeal that CNN strives to achieve to get more hits. Today, its main story is on how Terrel Owens has been released from the Cowboys, not the most news worthy in the grand scheme of things, yet the most popular story on the site by a large margin. CNN does post many of the newsworthy stories featured on the front page of the times. You just have to search for them further into the site.

The Huffington Post today is placing an emphasis on whats happening in congress and in the economy, more specifically CEO compensation and Asian stocks rising. The headlines are all written in ways that assume the reader has previous knowledge of the subject, indicating that the Huffington Post's readers are well read on stories covered throughout the blog. Among the congressional posts are blogs about Carl Rove's testifying before congress and GOP chairman Michael Steele talking about his "12 step program" recomendation for the party and his apologies to Rush Limbaugh. While the titles may hint at the need for previous knowledge on the subject, the majority of the articles catch you up to speed fairly quickly within the first few graphs.

Where Beat Reporting Could Help

I recently read a pretty one sided story on Fox News' website titled '9/11 Families Outraged by Obama Call to Suspend Guantanamo War Crime Trials.' When i first read some of the networks stories it didn't seem like they'd done a whole lot of balanced reporting. They tend to stay one sided despite their slogan "Fair and Balanced." Maybe Fox News is a bad example to point out where beat reporting could have worked to further a story but in this particular article about shutting down Guantanamo Bay and moving some terrorists to prisons in the U.S. while expediting others, I can't help but wonder if Fox reporters even took the time to investigate the other side. They do mention humanitarian groups that approve Obamas decision as "a move in the right direction" but aside from that its a very one sided article. The article preceding it is titled "You decide: Do you want terrorist in your back yard."

I think Fox could make a much better argument if they included other sides of the argument in their articles. Also, spending time with left wing groups as well as right wing groups might fill them in on the bigger picture. If they really do have correspondents out their on both sides of the spectrum asking the right questions, then they've clearly made a decision not to use all of them.

Pay for News Media?

The overwhelming switch from print media to online media has taken some of us by surprise. But for others, mainly those who use it regularly, it has come as no surprise at all. Getting the news online is easy and convenient and with the exception of a few sites, it won't cost you a dime.

Its not just the users that are experiencing greater efficiency in news media. Its also the news media companies that are drawn to the new online medium. Despite inevitable layoffs in the short term picture, it is essential for all the major media companies to make the switch.

While newspapers have historically been a main outlet for advertisers, their business model differs greatly from that of a news website. As David Carr wrote for the New York Times in October of 2005, "If a Web site achieves a growing audience, it simply beefs up servers and serves up more ads. If a free print product catches on, its publisher has to deal with beefy union delivery drivers and serving up more expensively milled dead trees." (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/24/business/24carr.html?ei=5088&en=9e06049dbd12a91d&ex=1287806400&adxnnl=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1130155683-O/Tu/SEnR1kvOnSdsrhRJw)

And its not just hard print news that is suffering. Sites such as Craigslist.org have nearly replaced the classified section of newspapers, allowing users to hone their online search rather than browsing through numerous tangible pages.

The main question is should we have to pay for what we read online? Many would argue that we already do in some form with the prevalence of advertising sometimes reaching the point of near annoyance. We often can't watch a news feed without first watching a 30 second commercial.

TV and radio have made copious amounts of money without charging their consumers anything. Why can't it work for online media.

Accuracy Over Timeliness

In recent months, with the move to online journalism becoming more and more prevalent, the discussion of accuracy and ethics has become increasingly important.

It is now easier than ever for someone to voice their opinion to the public via blogging. Reader feedback is no longer restricted to the traditional letter to the editor. Comment boxes allow quick and easy responses to be sent to the author. The internet has acted as a catalyst for the exchange of ideas.

But with all this new chatter, one has to wonder how much we read online is true. Even the mainstream news sites like CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/) or the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/) can make the mistake of not reporting the correct information. The speed at which news can now be reported is putting pressure on everyone to get the story out as quickly as possible, sometimes resulting in mistakes being made.

As readers, what kind of expectations should we have of the online content we read. Should we hold online journalism under the same scrutiny we give to print? I think that while many of us have learned that it is common to find some sort form of bad reporting in online journalism today, we should all expect online editors to get it pass up the desire to be the first news source to get the story out and lean more towards being the first to get the right story out.