America's search for Osama Bin Laden and his troops
By Anna Ramos

11.14.01
USAToday.com & Daily News, print edition

The print edition seemed very different from the online. The tone switched dramatically from one to the other. The print was more serious and somber while the online was simply straight-forward. Both had about the same serious tone, only that the online story was more comprehensible for everyone. It was an easier read. The story online linked to six other top stories relating to the Taliban, which made it more informative. Graphics of maps, tunnels and caves where Bin Laden hides were also available online. There was a link to a photo gallery of America at war and audio/video relating to the Taliban and terrorists. These features helped me understand more the happenings of the event. But one thing I didn't like was the way these features I just mentioned were located right in the middle of the original story. It interrupted the flow of my reading. I enjoyed the print story more than the other because when I was reading the one online, my eyes began to hurt due to the light from the monitor and so I couldn't focus as well. I guess that's a major drawback to digital journalism, but hey, nothing's perfect!

11.15.01
BBCNews.com & Daily News, print edition

Both versions had the same focus and main point, but used different sources. Like the previous observations I made, the Daily News' writing is a bit more professional while BBC online uses basic words, which makes it easier to read. BBC online used three different photos, and has many links to other related stories on Afghanistan and the war. There were absolutely no advertisements getting in the way of the reader. A map was also featured to help the reader visualize the towns' distance to one another. The language is much simpler than the Daily News and I find it simpler than CNN.com as well. The story was actually a top story on BBC online. The only element both medium had in common was their focus. It was the same, but they used completely different sources and went around it in different ways. Both medium gave the story the same level of importance. I preferred reading this time the BBC online version, because there were no ads, no difficult words to use and the information made better sense.

11.17.01
BBC.com & Daily News, print edition

Today's print article used very strong words. The title alone read "Taliban are told:You can give up-or you can die." Other strong words used were surrender, bloodiest battle, fight, war, ruthless, horrific, executed, etc. Some of these words have become common over the past few months when relating to war, but these terms were used consecutively in today's Daily News article. But it was interesting how harsher words were used in the story, and how gentle the picture was. A little boy fleeing the fight in Kunduz was published to go along with the story. As for the online article on BBC.com News, the story was a bit more subtle. The words used were passive compared to the paper. But the images used were nicer than the paper's. Maybe because it's in color.

11.18.01
CNN.com & New York Times, print edition

The CNN.com article had pictures of a U.S. airstrike hitting the ground today. The New York times, on the other hand, can't do this because it can't update like cnn can. That was the major difference I noticed. Both stories' main point was of how the Northern Alliance have surrounded Konduz and are urging the Taliban soldiers to surrender. Another key point is how below the online article on cnn.com, there was a list of the latest developments throughout the day about Bin Laden and other related stories…more updated information, something the paper cannot provide it's readers. I'm slowly beginning to think that the paper is more of yesterday's events than current events!

11.19.01
MSNBC.com (Newsweek online) & New York Post, print edition

The New York Post's cover read "We Know Where You Are" in big bold letters with Osama Bin Laden's face and a map below him. The map illustrates the Taliban's refuges and the zone where bin Laden is believed to be hiding. The story begins with the information the readers want to know, where is bin Laden. The story serves as hope to the readers. It's tone is very optimistic. It says that if Bin Laden makes one move the spy planes and satellites will be sure to detect him. The cover seems to be a bit alarming, in a good way. It doesn't really say where he is, so why does the cover say "we know." I don't comprehend it, but I guess it's just a way to attract readers to buy the paper. By the way, the cover was in color too. The online article on msnbc.com was the top story on the homepage. It starts off as a feature, "In the night sky above the Afghan city…" The tone is down to earth, a bit less excited than today's paper. Some features included links to audio and to more articles relating to the topic.

11.20.01
CNN.com & Daily News, print edition

Bin Laden made the cover again today on the Daily News print edition this time. The cover read "CIA Hunts Bin Laden." The paper has been following Bin Laden's footsteps you can say. There was a map again illustrating the cities in Afghanistan with a key legend of where the U.S. has striken, where Taliban forces are located, and where the U.S troops are standing. The focus today was about how the CIA is offering $25 million for the capture of Bin Laden. I can't find this same story in any online news. So far, for the past week, I've noticed that the papers, whether it's the New York Post, New York Times or the Daily News, prints stories that focuses on the government's hunt for Bin Laden. The online articles focus on the Taliban's search but it's not as specific as the paper and I haven't found a good story that just focuses on Bin Laden. After searching for this same story I finally found it on CNN.com. I had to scroll all the way down and read every paragraph to see if it related to the story of the $25 million. There was an introductory paragraph that linked to the full story with a picture of Bin Laden next to it. I found it odd how that story made the cover page on the print edition and it was hidden on CNN.com.

11.23.01 CNN.com & USA Today, print edition

USA Today's article "Taliban's last city in north may fall" announced the surrender of the Taliban. The story was printed on the right-hand cover of the paper. It informed how the Northern Alliance spoke to the commander of the Taliban and on how they have agreed to surrender. The story was extremely short. It read more like a summary than a complete story, where the CNN.com edition was much longer and more detailed. It online version listed the statistics and other more focused information about the surrender. I found interesting, however, how USA Today's story resembled a story online, because right below the last paragraph of the story, the writer listed extra key information relating to Pakistan and the Taliban, as if they were links.

11.24.01 Slate.com & New York Newsday, print edition

The print edition today seemed a bit more focused and clearer than Slate. I think this is because Slate.com's story titled "Osama:Where Art thou?" inclined more to a feature story than a straight forward one as the print version. Slate.com also includes various sources in its stories. This particular one contained information from the New York Times, Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times. I know attribution is required, but it was annoying to read when every single sentence was attributed to a source. And because of so many sources used, the story was extremely long. The print version also continued to another page. As days pass on, the story seems to be longer. More information becomes available everyday making both online and print editions longer. Slate.com's story appeared more like a feature than hard news. The print version illustrated a map of the town of Kunduz to help explain how the Norther Alliance are getting closer to Taliban troops.

11.25.01 BBC News.com & Daily News, print edition

I was proud of BBC.com today. It had great close-up pictures of troops holding their weapons, ready to fire. The stories today focused on how the Northern Alliance is closing in on Taliban, and how the Taliban is losing control. One thing that bothered me of the online story today was how the story was interrupted in the middle or in between paragraphs to click on a link to see a map of the battlegrounds, which was located below the article. Instead of having readers click, I think it would've been better to let them finish reading the story in peace and as they scroll down they would see the map. I don't think there's a need to bombard the reader with so much information at once. I must be honest, the print edition in the Daily News was a bit boring. Like BBC News' article, the focus was on how the N.A. is surrounding Kunduz, but the Dialy News contained more statistics information than the digital version. The stories were "Top Stories" in both medium.

11.26.01 msnbc.com & New York Newsday, print edition

"Enter The Marines" read today's Newsday's cover. The U.S. sends in the Marines to Kandahar and this made the cover in almost all media coverage. The article was on the 5th page and contined to another page. Two medium sized pictures were printed with a lot of writing surrounding the images. The U.S. soldiers landing story was on msnbc.com's homepage. I clicked on it once and it lead me to the story's first paragraph. But then I had to click on a link that says "Complete Story" to read the rest. I found this to be annoying, because if I clicked on the story the first time, why should I have to click twice. Something I noticed was how msnbc.com used quote from one of President Bush's address, and the print version never even mentioned the President. Both stories focused on the same topic and both were about the same length. Although, msnbc.com's story was broken up in six sections, making it easier for its reader to grasp one idea at a time. I've seen the paper do this at times as well, but no today. And it helps to do it that way when the story is longer than usual like this one.

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

Contributors | About Us | Archive