Northern Alliance's offensive against the Taliban
By Monica Yoon

11.20.01

BBC.com & Newsday, print edition

I am covering the story of the [anti-Taliban] Northern Alliance's role in launching an offensive against the ruling Taliban regime. They have become the focus of the Pentagon's strategic planning for their ground troops' efforts.

I noticed that Newsday covered the story with a very somber tone as they described the Northern Alliance overtaking the Pashtun villages. Their language was very lucid, but leaves the reader with the feeling that they just read a very serious piece. On the other hand, BBC.com concentrated on the implications of this. It was much more analytical and a decent understanding of recent events was required to appreciate this article. However, they did use the digital medium in a highly effective way because I couldn't keep myself from clicking on the links to related stories and the "fact files" of the key battlegrounds. The photos enhanced the story, because it grabbed my attention. This story was not updated because it analyzed the situation more than it described it. I was "stuck" on this story for quite a while, especially after having started on the main page, which teased the story. There was one block header that broke the story down, though, which didn't make it seem as long as it was. In total, it took me two clicks to read the story in full. The story was placed prominently in both mediums, but I did feel as though the print version seemed more important because it had a huge headline and font and dedicated the whole first two pages of the paper to it. I preferred the digital medium because of the extra information that was a mouse-click away, but neither had any obtrusive advertisements.

11.21.01

New York Times.com & The Washington Post, print edition

The tone of the story did not change in either medium, because they critically analyzed the strategic fiasco that Pakistan faced now that the Northern Alliance controlled most of Afghanistan. They both had similar photographs supporting the article, but the one New York Times.com was slightly bigger, which made it seem more important. Also, since it was teased on the home page of New York Times.com, while on the 14th page of the Washington Post, it seemed more significant in the former. The digital medium offered video and sound bytes of reporters abroad as well as links to related stories and editorial pieces on the story. This story was not updated at all since I checked it in the morning, but they did add more links later on in the day. I found that they approached the story in a similar way and included quotes (though not the same one) from the same Northern Alliance leader. My reading experience was disrupted in The Washington Post article because of an obnoxious ad that took up more than half the space on the page. However, I felt that both mediums complemented each other well because of the information and articles that would be in one medium but not the other.

11.22.01

MSNBC.com & New York Times, print edition

Today's article discussing talks between leaders of the Taliban and Northern Alliance over the surrender of Kunduz had a more dramatic tone in MSNBC.com. Even the way it was displayed on the home page, with a powerful headline and graphic gave me a totally different impression than the serious, yet distanced tone in the New York Times. I preferred the New York Times version because it stimulated a deeper evaluation of the story. The digital medium gave it a "soap-opera" feeling, as though they dramatized everything. However, I thought that their supporting links were cool, though some, like the opinion poll was somewhat unnecessary. Both mediums included maps that illustrated the situation, which I found to enhance the reader's understanding. Though I preferred the New York Times article, the one in MSNBC.com made it seem more important. I find the ads on the homepage of MSNBC.com irritating, even wary of clicking onto any stories. In total, it took me 2 clicks to read the article in the digital medium. The story was updated twice during the day with more detailed and accurate information.

11.23.01

CNN.com & The Wall Street Journal, print edition

To be honest, I love CNN.com, so today's analysis might be (unintentionally) biased. The tone in the Wall Street journal was terse and straightforward while CNN.com examined the situation in Kunduz in a more thought-provoking way. The story seemed equally important in both mediums. CNN.com effectively used links to resources, more information, other related stories, and video/audio clips, which impressed me a great deal. They also polled readers' opinions on whether or not they felt a surrender would lead to peaceful future in Afghanistan. While it took me 3 clicks to read the story, I probably clicked 10 times because I was stuck on the other information that was available. The publications were similar in their professional manner, though CNN.com exhaustively covered the story from all angles. The language was quite similar in both publications. There were 3 block headers that broke down the story, and the story was teased twice from the home page. While I preferred the digital version, I thought that both mediums complemented each other very well (after all, there are those who prefer a quicker and snappier run-down of the story). The CNN.com article was updated throughout the day, but I didn't find that it resulted in flawed coverage.

11.24.01

ABCnews.com &The Washington Post, print edition

Today's article in The Washington Post had a tense tone that reported the moves made by each side concerning the negotiations over Kunduz, while ABCnews.com had an almost zealous tone. The digital medium utilized effective links to full coverage on related stories, video clips, and my favorite was an interactive link to our community's thoughts on the war on terror. However, they also included links to other ABC stories that weren't related to the story, which I thought was almost like placing an advertisement within the story. The digital news publication was updated throughout the day, which guaranteed the most dependable and accurate information. I didn't find that the coverage was flawed in any way due to this up-to-the-minute coverage, however. The story in ABCnews.com was rather long, and they used 4 block headers to break the text up. The language was simpler on the web than it was in the paper. It took me 3 clicks to read the story because it teased from one page to another. I thought that the publications were similar in that they provided pretty much the same exact information with a similar spin of it. Neither story seemed more important because both were on the front page and on the home page with a small little photograph. ABCnews.com had thin, long ads on the right side of the page that were distracting. Overall, both mediums complemented each other.

11.25.01

USAToday.com & LA Times, print edition

The tone of the story remained somber and serious throughout both mediums. The digital medium used links in a brilliant way, breaking them down to top stories, graphics, photos, and video clips. It allows the reader a freedom to look deeper into the story if they wish. USAToday had to-the-minute coverage that was updated throughout the day, and I found one typo, which made me feel wary as a reader. The story was not broken down into sections, so I had a hard time concentrating on the whole story because I had to scroll down for so long without any breaks in between. The language was similar, but if anything, simpler in the digital medium. It took me two clicks to read the full story, since the story was teased from the home page. Both publications were the same in their use of pictures showing Taliban soldiers leaving the Taliban, which they both focused on. The story seemed more important in the LA Times because it was their leading international story that spills from the front page to the tenth and eleventh page. However, I preferred USAToday.com because they provided the most updated information. Neither had any distracting advertisements.

11.26.01

Salon.com & Daily News, print edition

The tone changed from straightforward reporting in the Daily News to a witty analysis in Salon.com. The language in Daily News was simpler. However, I preferred Salon.com because it stimulated me to think sharply, while the print medium read like a list of updates. Salon.com didn't have any interactive links or any links pertaining to the story. Neither was it updated during the day. For once, I wasn't bothered that block headers didn't break down the story. It took me a total of 3 clicks to read the story, and it was teased from the home page. Honestly, I didn't find anything similar about the publications except for the fact that they were reporting about the same event. The story seemed more important in the Daily News because it had a huge graphic and headline on the front page as well as a cartoon-looking map. I preferred Salon.com because I wanted more than just the basic facts of the story.

11.27.01

DailyNews.com & New York Times

It was really interesting to compare these two publications, because the Times focused on the small number of American Special Forces and British Special Air service troops that were placed inside the fort, while the web medium dramatized the number of Northern Alliance soldiers that were killed and the details of the battle. The links on the web publication detracted from the story because it just linked to other top stories that were not related to the topic. There were no photos, video/sound clips, or interactive elements, which gave the impression that the Times article was more important. The Dailynews.com has updated coverage that links to the actual AP headlines, which were pretty accurate. The Dailynews.com gave off the impression that they just started their news website because the set-up of their teasers and the lack of block headers in their stories showed little effort and innovation. The Times article seemed way more important since the set-up of the teasers in the digital publication gave equal weight to each story; plus, the Times had a very attractive photograph. Neither had distracting advertisements. I definitely preferred the print publication.

11.28.01

BBC.com & The Wall Street Journal, print edition

While the print publication had a terse and straightforward tone, the tone of the digital publication was earnest and thought-provoking. The digital medium was utilized in a way that enhanced the story because under each block header, there were links of detailed information, video clips, and graphics or pictures. It was also fun to explore the other stories they had. The publications were updated frequently, but they were still reliable, as BBC.com usually is. I thought that they broke down the text very well, but I would recommend they link the page to another page, instead of letting it scroll down forever! It took me 2 clicks in total to read the story, and yes, it was teased from the home page. The publications were the same in that they were very serious and speculated upon future possibilities now that the U.S. warplanes hit a target near Kandahar. BBC.com's publication seemed more important because the story had more to offer; the print publication had no pictures and it was a short article. There were no advertisements that interfered with my reading experience. I preferred BBC.com for their wealth of information and web features.

11.29.01

CNN.com & The Washington Post, print edition

The story changed from heart-pounding coverage in the digital publication to a serious and somber tone in the print publication. I preferred to read CNN.com for their web features. I clicked on the link for the military desk and found more detailed information. They also enhanced the story, giving it more depth, by including video clips, informational graphics, and links to related articles. CNN.com is always updated and accurate. It took me 3 clicks to read the story, and the stories on the war on terror are always teased from the home page. The language was not simpler in either publication. I liked the way they broke down the story in CNN.com using clever block headers - the article had a perfect length. The placement in both publications was similar because they were on the homepage or front page with a pretty big photo accompanying it. There was an obnoxious ad for Burlington Coat Factory in the print publication, which took up more space than the actual article! However, I thought that both stories complemented each other very well.

11.30.01

NYTimes.com & The New York Times

I thought it would be quite clever to compare the two stories from the New York Times. Not surprisingly, the tone of the story didn't really change (it sounded slightly more optimistic in the print version), but the story was different in both. The digital publication had a lot more detailed information while the print one was a lot shorter. The digital medium enhanced the story by linking to other articles and graphics, which allowed you to piece together what the significance of the situation was. There were block headers in the digital publication, the language remained the same in both articles, and there was one teaser, which brought my grand total of clicks to read the full story to two. Both had similar placement, so neither seemed more important than the other. There were no distracting advertisements in either. I didn't prefer one over the other - they both complemented each other very well.

12.01.01

Foxnews.com & The New York Times, print edition

The tone of the story was very dry and solemn in the print publication, while it was "fluffy" in the digital one. I felt that the digital publication used web features for the sake of having web features, and not for the purpose to enhance the story. Their links to related information was not really relevant to the story - it was just a bunch of information ever since the war on terrorism was launched. However, they had links to multimedia features and photo essays, which I thought was neat. There were no block headers in the story, nor was it broken up into a number of pages. It took me 1 click to read the full story, since I clicked on the teaser from the home page. The language was simpler in the digital publication, though both probably have a more sophisticated audience. The story seemed more important on Foxnews.com because it was placed as one of the top stories with a teaser in bigger font. The publications were similar in the aspect that they included a wealth of quotes from government officials. There was a flashy advertisement in the digital publication that kept blinking which distracted me. Overall, I prefer the print version because for its straightforwardness.

12.02.01

WashingtonPost.com & The LA Times

The tone changed from tense and choppy in the digital publication to more laid-back and distanced in the print publication. The digital medium didn't enhance the story because none of the links, interactive features, or video clips contributed to the story's relevance. It seemed as though they just kept it up there for the sake of not having empty space. However, the story was broken down in a clear and concise manner in the digital publication with the use of block headers. The story was teased from the home page and it took one click to read the full story. It was disturbing to find the width of the article in the digital medium was the same as the advertisement that was to the right of the screen. WashingtonPost.com provides to-the-minute coverage, but I didn't find it to be flawed. The language was simpler in the LA Times. I didn't think that the publications were similar because they both read so differently. If anything, they were similar in that they placed similar photos next to the article. The story seemed more important in Washingtonpost.com because it was hidden in the LA Times. The digital publication had that Godzilla-sized blinking advertisement to the right, which was really distracting. However, I found that they both complemented each other well.

12.03.01

MSNBC.com & The New York Times, print edition

MSNBC.com presented the story in a dramatic way, while New York Times had a solemn tone. MSNBC.com had flashy video and multimedia links, which detracted from the story because it pulled me away from finishing the story I started with. The digital publication was updated frequently, though it was slightly flawed (I found a typo!). Block headers were used to break the text up and the language was very simple. It took me one click to read the full story. The publications were the same in that they were brief in their reporting. The story seemed equally non-important in both because I had to look more carefully to find the article, as it was not featured on the front or home pages. There were distracting advertisements in both because the advertisements were actually longer than the articles themselves! However, if I had to choose, I prefer the print publication because the digital one seemed rather "fluffy."

Home | First Wave | Undertow | Reflections | Stepping Stones | Weblogs

Contributors | About Us | Archive