60 Minutes- Revisit

Since Massing did not cover "60 Minutes," I am revisiting my first article and seeing how it holds up to my current feelings on the site.

In my first assignment, I wrote that I felt as though it was a boon that the "60 Minutes" page was written by actual journalists instead of bloggers. I still feel the same way about that. Blogs can be informational and entertaining, for sure, but I'm certain the majority of people trust news from journalists more than they do bloggers. So, as such, the fact that the site hosts legitimate news articles is a good thing for internet surfers who want to know what's happening in the world.

In addition to that, though, it should be noted that the written articles are still unsuitable for the net. A lengthy, four-page article is virtually unreadable online when one considers how short people's attention spans are and the fact that it takes longer for people to read off of a computer screen than from a print paper. So, while the articles may be well written and in-depth, fewer people are reading them than if the articles were trimmed down to at least two pages. At least the videos are there as supplements.

In my first post, I also commended the website on being organized but not taking advantage of the medium. In a way, I'd like to reverse that remark now.

The home page of "60 Minutes" is fine above the scroll. It shows the top stories of the day in the center of the screen, and above that it lists tabs for access to other categories of stories. However, below the scroll it looks like everything has been thrown together. Or rather, it looks like my closet when I'm trying to clean in a hurry. Sure, everything is in a place, but that doesn't make it any less of a mess.

I believe that everything underneath the "recent segments" category should be cut out considering that they are already covered in other tabs. Or, if it is necessary to contain those stories on the front page, I believe it would be a better idea to have a list of titles off to the left hand side of the screen so that the reader can choose whether or not to look into some stories in greater detail. If this were implemented my only concern would be whether or not the screen was too busy and cause reader confusion and make them not know where to look.

And, as for me saying that the site doesn't take advantage of its medium, well, it doesn't. But I may have been too harsh the first time around. The videos are an excellent feature. Presuming the user has a decent internet connection, then watching the videos are an efficient way to learn about what's going on. But the four-page articles are a serious weak point for the site.