Mickey Kaus' site to a regular visitor would seem always up to date and on topic with politics. Kaus writes in a very concise manner and intelligently. If any political scandal erupts, his loyal followers will probably follow up on his blog to see if he has written anything, or if he has scooped up any past evidence to support his argument. If the reader did not pay attention to politics--and because Kaus assumes that you already do, it seems-- then some topics (like his latest posts about the healthcare plan)that he covers may leave you hanging and confused. Kaus simply adds on commentary, quotes, and criticisms based on the most recent political debate or scandal.
So if there is new reader to the site, they may feel as though the posts or topics are a little over their heads. He does not write a posts like a legacy story although he often links quotes to their sources- but he does not give background information. If you were wanting to find and read Kaus' site, you would probably be reading the page because you were informed on the topic and wanted to hear his opinion or of questions that he raises. There are no reader comments allowed but he has said that he welcomes and questions for clarification and the pointing out of errors. I cannot tell the size of his audience but I am sure that he has some sort of long following as he is sometimes on Bill Maher.
If you were to somehow stumble on his page and you were familiar with the topic or issue that he was discussing then you just might stay. His stance on issues almost confuse me. I cannot tell what party he sides with because he criticizes absolutely everyone. He also stays very balanced as a blogger, which to me is a rare find among blogs. He attributes properly and he also goes more into depth than newspapers but he is also more to the point than loopy political tv shows. He is usually correct and is fiercly blunt which is probably something that attracts and maintains attention.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Assignment 5
When stumbling upon one of Ron Kampeas blogs, there’s a good chance that the reader will immediately leave or be become a regular viewer. Kampeas may lose a large portion of his viewers for the same reason he attracts others. The Jewish perspective he presents may drive away many non-Jews while the same time attracting those interested in the Jewish community. This specialized approach gives Kampeas’s writing a unique perspective compared to other sites which do not focus on a simgle religious perspective.
The perspective that Kampeas offers is in no way hidden, being posted on The Global News Service of the Jewish People, http://jta.org/user/stories/1112/P0, the issues discussed will form around this broad audience. A person who happens across the site because they are following a certain topic, for example President Obama’s meeting with Israeli Prime minister Netanyahu, will find the perspectives invaluable and unique. While being presented with a thorough critic of white house press management, the reader is also given an excerpt of questions answered by Press Secretary Gibbs. This mix of opinion and dialogue allows readers to read for themselves and make their own decisions.
A regular visitor to the site will be disappointed in the recent posts concerning the presidents meeting. While objective and informative, then posts offer little criticism of those involved, relying merely on white house press releases. When comparing to previous posts it’s disappointing to see such limited insight into issues that were discussed.
The perspective that Kampeas offers is in no way hidden, being posted on The Global News Service of the Jewish People, http://jta.org/user/stories/1112/P0, the issues discussed will form around this broad audience. A person who happens across the site because they are following a certain topic, for example President Obama’s meeting with Israeli Prime minister Netanyahu, will find the perspectives invaluable and unique. While being presented with a thorough critic of white house press management, the reader is also given an excerpt of questions answered by Press Secretary Gibbs. This mix of opinion and dialogue allows readers to read for themselves and make their own decisions.
A regular visitor to the site will be disappointed in the recent posts concerning the presidents meeting. While objective and informative, then posts offer little criticism of those involved, relying merely on white house press releases. When comparing to previous posts it’s disappointing to see such limited insight into issues that were discussed.
Assignment Five - Calculated Risk
ProPublica - Assignment 5
The top item posted on ProPublica's main page is entitled about a Chicago psychiatrist who's facing multiple lawsuits. The headline reads "High-Risk Meds, Cut-Rate Care for Chicago's Indigent Mentally Ill." The article was also published in The Chicago Tribune. According to the reporters' investigation of public documents, the psychiatrist's overprescription of an antipsychotic drug led to the deaths of several of his patients. They also found out that the psychiatrist sees a lot more patients than all practicing doctors in Texas combined.
I think the top item can easily attract a regular site visitor to keep reading. ProPublica is an investigative news Web site, and most of the stories are comprehensive. As someone who visits the site regularly, I'm aware that this is ProPublica's purpose and of its reputation as an investigative news Web site. I go to the site not just to learn a little bit about a news item or to read the first two paragraphs and move on. I go to the site, choose an article and read it all the way through. I think the article did a good job of covering all sides of the story. It didn't just focus on the details of the lawsuits and the doctor's practice, but also told the stories of the patients who died. That attracted me to read more into the article.
If, for instance, I visited ProPublica's Web site after hearing about it from someone, and I saw this item on the Web site's main page, I think I'd be interested in reading it. What would probably attract me into reading more is the fact that the entire story is not just paragraph after paragraph of details and information. It also includes images and interactive maps that better explain to the reader the significance and impact of the story. Having said that, I think I would probably visit the site again because it made an impression that it's not just about long stories and countless details.
If, for instance, I just came across this article by searching on Google, and I've never visited ProPublica's Web site before, I'd also read the article all the way through. It usually takes me two or three paragraphs into the story before I decide if I'd keep on reading or move on to something more interesting. In this case, I think I would've read the entire article regardless of whether I found it on ProPublica's Web site or somewhere else. Having said that, if a top item on the Web site interested me enough to read it all the way through, I'm more likely to want to explore the Web site itself.
Perspectives on naked capitalism
I will be reflecting on a guest post from Richard Alford titled “Trading This Crisis for the Next.” I wasn’t sure about writing a reflection on a guest post, but since naked capitalism often has guest posters, most visitors would see them and the reputation of the blog would be staked on their posts.
As such, Richard Alford’s merits are summarized in two sentences. He is a former economist for the New York Fed and is currently working in the financial industry as a trading floor economist and strategist on both the buy and sell side.
From the get-go, Alford begins by introducing the G20 Statement, which is a set of principles issued that would help the current economic growth. In Alford’s analysis, the G20 Statement’s primary focus is to sustain the current economic growth rather than attaining economic balance. This strategy would help continue the growth in the current crisis, but in the long term, it will only add to future economic crises. Alford uses a graph and a few quotes to help his argument.
1. From the perspective of a regular visitor, I would find this post fascinating. It meets the style and topics that are covered by the blog. It’s written intelligently without a need to dumb down language, but it summarizes the G20 Statement so that readers won’t be lost. It is an analysis of current financial affairs in the global economic environment. It gives links to its sources. All in all, this post, though it is a guest post, is what regular readers come to expect.
2. From the perspective of a first time visitor who is interested in the topic, I would say that it is a good introduction to the site. The blog doesn’t go terribly in depth with the topic as some beats in legacy newspapers are, but there are good analyses to be found on relevant topics that I’m sure legacy newspapers might miss. This post is a representation of the average length of analyses and posts that the blog features. There are 14 reader responses when I check the blog. Some of these reader posts are insightful and adds to the conversation. Contrasting to legacy media websites, their reader posts were not very insightful from the times I’ve checked. It’s certainly a nice introduction and a welcoming example of the blog that should interest people on the fence about the blog to return.
3. From the perspective of a happenstance visitor, I would ignore the site and move on. The language is written for those who are interested in the financial industry. Many people are interested in the industry these days because of the economic environment, but most people would not know the more in depth topics like the G20 Statement. After reading the first line and confirming that the post is primarily about the G20, happenstance visitors would simply move on to a site that they would more likely understand its topics. In support of the post, however, the title “Trading This Crisis for the Next” is very captivating and would certainly interest those who’ve been hearing about how the economy is improving, but has their concern of whether is it is valid or not.
60 Minutes- Three Men and a Web Site
Today's top article is "Cyber War: Sabotaging the System." It is regarding how the advent of the internet has made it so that cyber-terrorism is as big of a security concern, if not bigger, than the typical physical attacks. The article also emphasizes how some experts, such as former spy Jim Lewis, believes that the U.S. is unprepared for such a cyber-assault. The article itself is longer than the typical "60 Minutes" story, coming in at six pages. So, here is my rundown of I believe three different readers would perceive the story and Web site.
Frequent Frank: A user who visits the site often, meaning they enjoy the site, like how it is formatted, etc., should be happy with the story. The story itself is well-constructed and interesting. It does run long, way too long for any Web site in my opinion, but if the user was a person who read the articles found at the page, then they probably wouldn't mind the extra length.
Also, the story is presented well on the home page. The headline given for the article is "Sabotaging the System" which alludes to the subject matter as well as present an alliteration (I mention the latter only because alliterations are fun to say and are bound to attract some readers, whether consciously or not). The graphic paired with it is of the reflection of a man in a yellow hazmat suit, which gives a science-fiction vibe bound to appeal to some readers. No matter, though, a dedicated reader is bound to return anyway.
Curious Carl: Anybody interested in checking out the Web site for the first time, or is just interested in the article, would have a mixed experience. On one hand, the article is well written, interesting and gives the feeling that it is about something pertinent. Also, the article is easy to find on the home page and is accompanied by various extra videos the viewer could watch for additional information.
However, considering the length of the article and how the internet seems to feed off of low attention spans, the user could easily quit reading the article after the first page. And the extra videos, while a nice addition, could over-saturate the experience and cause the viewer to not watch any of them. So, the article could make a new follower out of the reader, or it could turn them off completely. I'd put the odds at 50-50.
Lost Larry: A first-time visitor to the site would probably find the article interesting for the reasons I covered in the first entry (Frequent Frank). It's a well-written and well-marketed article. The only Achilles' heel I see is the fact that it is so long. To a person who stumbled upon the site/article on happenstance, I don't think there'd be enough to encourage the viewer to read all six pages. If the user can handle the entire load, and they like what they read, then I could see the reader coming back for more. Otherwise, I believe that viewer would just wander off into cyber-space never to return.
Frequent Frank: A user who visits the site often, meaning they enjoy the site, like how it is formatted, etc., should be happy with the story. The story itself is well-constructed and interesting. It does run long, way too long for any Web site in my opinion, but if the user was a person who read the articles found at the page, then they probably wouldn't mind the extra length.
Also, the story is presented well on the home page. The headline given for the article is "Sabotaging the System" which alludes to the subject matter as well as present an alliteration (I mention the latter only because alliterations are fun to say and are bound to attract some readers, whether consciously or not). The graphic paired with it is of the reflection of a man in a yellow hazmat suit, which gives a science-fiction vibe bound to appeal to some readers. No matter, though, a dedicated reader is bound to return anyway.
Curious Carl: Anybody interested in checking out the Web site for the first time, or is just interested in the article, would have a mixed experience. On one hand, the article is well written, interesting and gives the feeling that it is about something pertinent. Also, the article is easy to find on the home page and is accompanied by various extra videos the viewer could watch for additional information.
However, considering the length of the article and how the internet seems to feed off of low attention spans, the user could easily quit reading the article after the first page. And the extra videos, while a nice addition, could over-saturate the experience and cause the viewer to not watch any of them. So, the article could make a new follower out of the reader, or it could turn them off completely. I'd put the odds at 50-50.
Lost Larry: A first-time visitor to the site would probably find the article interesting for the reasons I covered in the first entry (Frequent Frank). It's a well-written and well-marketed article. The only Achilles' heel I see is the fact that it is so long. To a person who stumbled upon the site/article on happenstance, I don't think there'd be enough to encourage the viewer to read all six pages. If the user can handle the entire load, and they like what they read, then I could see the reader coming back for more. Otherwise, I believe that viewer would just wander off into cyber-space never to return.
Reflecting on Jeffrey Golberg
Jeffrey Goldberg's latest post is titled What the US Military Needs is More Muslims. This was posted only a few hours ago, and is a reaction to a reader's email about a previous blog entry about the our military's need for Muslims. The reader says that his prior entry was contradictory and unclear about whether the military should or should not have more Muslims. Goldberg's reply is: both. He goes on to explain the reasons why he thinks this.
As a regular visitor to the blog, I like this most recent post. Not even so much for the content, but I like when he reacts to reader feedback. It makes the reader feel more engaged in the blog, and gives his blog a more conversational feel rather than just an opinion outlet for Jeffrey Goldberg. Also, it shows that he welcomes debate and conversation over his blog content. While the title for the post is bold, it isn't surprising to someone who regularly visits the page.
As someone who is a first-timer, but interested in the topic...I wouldn't necessarily be turned off or on by today's post. For one, the page is really texty upon upload. There are no pictures or graphics,which is what usually grabs my attention. Since this post is a reaction to a previous post, it does require the visitor to dig into previous entries to be caught up with the content, and in this case that would require tracking back 5 postings. If someone was genuinely interested in this topic, I don't suppose they would mind doing that.
With that, I think if someone just happened to come across this post, they would not be so inclined to divulge into its content. If you never read his original post about Muslims in the military, then this post would be confusing. Also, in light of the recent Fort Hood massacre, a title implying we need more Muslims in the military can be very off-putting to many. If you didn't know any better, it might sound like this blog is Goldberg's forum to spout off some raw radical viewpoint, and a lot of people wouldn't care to spend the time figuring out what he really means in light of recent events.
As a regular visitor to the blog, I like this most recent post. Not even so much for the content, but I like when he reacts to reader feedback. It makes the reader feel more engaged in the blog, and gives his blog a more conversational feel rather than just an opinion outlet for Jeffrey Goldberg. Also, it shows that he welcomes debate and conversation over his blog content. While the title for the post is bold, it isn't surprising to someone who regularly visits the page.
As someone who is a first-timer, but interested in the topic...I wouldn't necessarily be turned off or on by today's post. For one, the page is really texty upon upload. There are no pictures or graphics,which is what usually grabs my attention. Since this post is a reaction to a previous post, it does require the visitor to dig into previous entries to be caught up with the content, and in this case that would require tracking back 5 postings. If someone was genuinely interested in this topic, I don't suppose they would mind doing that.
With that, I think if someone just happened to come across this post, they would not be so inclined to divulge into its content. If you never read his original post about Muslims in the military, then this post would be confusing. Also, in light of the recent Fort Hood massacre, a title implying we need more Muslims in the military can be very off-putting to many. If you didn't know any better, it might sound like this blog is Goldberg's forum to spout off some raw radical viewpoint, and a lot of people wouldn't care to spend the time figuring out what he really means in light of recent events.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)