For my live event, I covered Boston University Softball. It was a great win for BU and a good experience.
It was a great experience, fun to inject my voice and try describing plays in a short and concise way (whereas when I’m on the air calling a game I have more freedom). It was good as it forced me to choose my words carefully.
The New York Times is a fantastic journalistic institution, and I’m not creating any waves by stating that uncontroversial opinion. Observing them was somewhat redundant for me luckily, since I already consumed their content anyway. Here are the main things I observed following them online:
- Same style as the print publication. The NYT is one of the rare publications that has had so much print success that their format, font etc. are well known. They use this to the fullest advantage online.
- Interactivity. They have realized that one of the key components of the online experience is the feedback that the user can experience.
- Images: The Times is absolutely more image heavy online than in print. This makes sense considering the difficulties of printing images, but they frequently publish full albums to go with an article, or go with the slideshows.
- Linkage: The Times always has links ready to go for you about related articles. This serves you, the reader, with more content to enjoy that is relatable to boot, but also ups the all important click count on their various website pages.
- Twitter presence: The Times tries to limit how much they cram your timeline (they do produce a lot of content) by dividing their twitter accounts into sections similar to the sections in your paper. That way, you follow what you want.
The Times continues to be the pinnacle of American journalism, and that extends to their online content as well.
In scouring the New York Time’s coverage or potential use of snapchat, I didn’t exactly think that NYT would utilize something casual like snapchat for news coverage. That was confirmed after viewing the site, however, they did have a couple of hard news pieces (like this one) that dissected exactly what it is that snapchat is trying to do, as they expand from a simple messenger to one of the most popular forms of social media. This wasn’t exactly new information, as I have seen (and used) it first hand in the past few years.
However, it was interesting to read, from an (or arguably THE) established news source about how a new form of media is trying to get their slice of the “news coverage” pie, specifically in this instance as related to election coverage.
I personally use snapchat for the most part the way it was first used: sending messages/pictures to specific individuals (“friends”). I sometimes post stories for all to see if something eventful/humorous is happening in my life, but it is more or less a mini-text message with a disappearing picture. In my opinion, it is better for shorter, more casual messages when compared to text messaging.
I don’t see Snapchat as a good source for news, nor do I think it can become one. However, this does not mean it won’t be successful for news, it arguably already is. To me you just cannot crowdsource several videos of something and call it news coverage. Snapchat in current form just doesn’t allow for much elaboration or detail or substance to anything. This, though, is the way that media is being consumed now. Everything is short, flashier, and crowdsourced. This is why I think it won’t be a good source of news but it will be a successful one.
For my video project I decided to create a video blog about my experience traveling to and broadcasting a BU Collegeinsiders.com postseason tournament game in the Bronx. I ended up splicing game call into the video, because I thought Vlog about the experience of calling a game should at least somehow incorporate the game.
It proved a difficult task. The main issue was that we arrived so late, and there was no time to film a couple B-roll clips of warm up or anything like that as we essentially sat down and started broadcasting the moment we got there. This is why I incorporated the game calls. I felt like someone viewing the video needed to feel that intense aspect of the game to understand how rewarded I felt despite wasting a day away in New York traffic.
If I had to do it over again I would have first of all not had some vertical and some horizontal phone videos. I thought doing it on the phone would be a better idea than it probably was, but given all the other equipment we were carrying it may have been for the best. Unfortunately, on some of the clips it compressed the video a bit, but I don’t think it is detrimental. Hope you enjoy!
The New York Times was understandably very interested in the coverage of the Spotlight movie, and I found several reviews and multiple pieces about the Oscar it received. The Times interviewed several members of the Globe’s staff, and they seemed to share the newspaper’s opinion that it was a huge boost to not only the Globe (who, they noted, have had issues with their readership and distribution) but to the journalism industry as a whole, as an industry would likely receive after being portrayed as heroes in a hollywood film.
The Times noted that after the movie received Academy recognition, that as of Monday the most viewed article on the Globe’s website was one of the original articles published in 2002, and utilized great quotes from the Globe staff throughout. The Times focused on how it impacted the Globe, but also offered a broader scope, knowing their audience probably aren’t the same as the Globe (most people don’t read two papers) which I enjoyed.
I found a story about a Ted Cruz speech on NYT website that I felt would have been stronger if it would have had a video element. Not sure if it had something to do with getting rights to the video of the speech or anything like that, but hearing the words the way the man said them would have aided the cause of this article.
An article with video that I found not only included a video in addition to the article, but was the subject of the article itself. A young teacher was scolding first grade students extremely harshly which of course caused mass controversy at the time. What I like so much about the video is how authentic it is, how well it captures the situation. Without this video, there would have been no story, and as this specific news piece was of the follow up variety, it obviously required the video.
The teacher targeted one student who wasn’t able to answer how she responded to a question, and sent her to the corner.
Article and Video here:
The Times, as you would assume, has run several articles on the subject of the new Supreme Court Justice, ranging from hard news stories to opinion columns, but there was one in particular that caught my eye.
Rather than looking back, or informing the reader about what has happened, this piece instead looks forward at the implications, which in this case are the likelihood of the most liberal Supreme Court in a long while.
I’m a sucker for interesting, informative graphics and this one has a couple. Visualizing the concept of how liberal a court is seems like it would be impossible, yet with their unit of measurement (“Martin Quinn score”) they are able to demonstrate it aptly.
The piece also includes plenty of historical context, making it easier to realize just how unprecedented this instance is. Without that context it wouldn’t really pop out, but having that knowledge makes it stick that the court could soon be entering its’ most liberal period in 50 years.
Checking out the New York Times online, it popped out to me how they actually go the opposite approach of typical online outlets. That is to say, they took the exact same publishing format they use in print (same font, page layout, etc) and just applied it to online, making it as similar as possible.
This goes against most online outlets, who go for a more lively, less bland style that tends to “pop” more. This happens for good reason: when you pick up a newspaper you are holding one object, when you view a webpage you could be accessing literally any of the world wide web. So, most sites try and catch your eye and keep you there.
NYT goes the opposite approach, because, in essence, they can. They have such credibility that it is likely that anyone who would qualify as “well read” would immediately notice their iconic font and presentation style that has become so well known. By adopting that same approach online, they establish instant credibility with their audience, who already know how respected the paper is.
This is an approach that likely would not work with many other outlets. First off, most online outlets didn’t spawn from preexisting print publications. Also, few within their field are as respected as NYT is within journalism. This gives the Times the ability to utilize their marketability to their advantage.