|
Question
1: What surprised me about the experience of assessing online
coverage of the Presidential election?
- Online
updates of information are quick, but not quicker than TV
- Online
sites are learning as they go. They're still inexperienced
with handling breaking news.
- Internet
can be more reliable than TV. Because it takes time to update
sites -- even if it's a short amount of time -- more thought
goes into what is published on online news sites than goes
into off-the-cuff comments on TV.
- It's
difficult to navigate an unfamiliar website when you don't
have a lot of time.
- Stories
and tallies were always behind TV coverage in updating information.
- Surprised
by the amount of integrated online and TV coverage.
- Online
coverage on national sites was complete enough to be relied
on solely.
- Little
actual on-the-ground coverage of ordinary people on Election
Day. Could chat be considered a replacement for this perspective?
- Sites
that are known for their storytelling, such as Salon and
Slate, didn't capitalize on posting original content. Salon
posted a colorful and compelling story about Hillary Clinton,
which was terrific, but stories like that were rare.
- Online
coverage was dynamic, changing throughout the night.
- Inconsistency
of updating. You could find different Electoral College
results depending on which site you were looking at.
- Not
enough funky stuff that's actually useful. A good example
of something useful was The Washington Post's chart
showing which states each TV network had called the winner
in, updated throughout the night.
- The
vast degree to which online coverage is framed by its traditional
media counterpart.
|
|
[National
Newspapers ] [National Broadcast Outlets]
[Opinion
Websites ] [Web-Only
Politics ] [Swing-state Broadcast Stations]
[Local
Newspapers]
[Web-only
vs. Newspaper] [International
Websites]
Lessons Learned:
Introduction
Question
1:
What
surprised me?
Question
2:
What did I learn?
Question
3:
What
do I need to learn next?
|
