|
Anthrax Investigation
By Robyn Shepherd
13 November 2001
Bucks County Courier Times and Salon.com
1. The tone of these two stories was very different,
because they were aimed at different audiences. The
print story was more of a service story, and the online
was a
more in-depth look at how the crisis is affecting a
population.
2. The online story implements links within the story
(much like a weblog) to link to other columns written
by this writer. One such link details the writer’s
move fron
San Fransico to St. Louis, establishing the writer as
a new Midwesterner.
3. I don’t think that Salon.com has very many
features on anthrax, so it’s hard to follow any
continuing coverage.
4. There was very little difference in this article
compared to a print article. It looked like a traditional
piece, and read like one. I didn’t notice any teasing.
5. Both of these pieces were the same in that they
addressed the matter of becoming worried about anthrax
hitting close to home.
6. The digital story seemed like the more important
one, as it was given prominent placement on the site.
The print story was buried in the back pages of the
local
section. This is probably because the digital story
was a lengthy feature that would interest many, while
the print story was an advice column of interest only
to
parents of inquisitive young children.
7. Advertisements did not interfere.
8. In this case, there was very little difference beterrn
digital and print.
14 November 2001
New York Times and NYTimes.com
1. The tone of the print story was more feature-like
than that of the online story. The online story was
much more dry.
2. The Online medium did not utilize many interactive
features. The story felt more like a recent addition,
or breaking news.
3. I wouldn’t say that the up-to-the minute coverage
of nytimes.com is flawed, but the effort to keep the
site’s content current can result in lean stories,
such as this
one.
4. It only took one click to get to the digital story,
which was short. It seemed like an abbreviated form
of what would be found in the print publication.
5. Both of the stories use quotes to back up the points
in the story, but the online story uses far less than
the print. The story version uses only two quotes, while
the
print uses seven.
6. The online story had high placement on the homepage
of the website, while the print was not given such a
level of importance. This may be because the story of
the online article was more important, although it was
much shorter than the print article.
7. Advertisements did not interfere with the story
in either case.
8. The two mediums do indeed complement each other
in this case. In-depth stories that highlight unusual
aspects of an issue can be given space in a print
publication, such as a story about how small towns are
coping with the anthrax threat. But digital resources
can be updates more frequently.
15 November 2001
ABCNews.com and Washington Square News
1. The tone of the online story was more dry than that
of the print story.
2. The digital story used only a few links in a dialog
box within th estory. The links went to three other
top stories at ABCNews.com, none of which concerned
anthrax.
3. The digital publication is updated constantly, and
like NYTimes.com, the up-to-the-minute coverage sometimes
results in lean stories.
4. The language of the digital story was simpler than
that of the print story. ABCNews.com also broke up the
story. The lead paragraph was in bold type as a teaser
for the rest of the story. Mid-way through the story,
the block header “Son” Morris Should Have
Been Given Cipro” appears. ABCNews.com also utilized
both a
headline (“Misdiagnosed Anthrax”) and a byline
(“Postal Worker’s Son Sues Over Anthrax Death”).
5. In this case I didn’t feel that there was much
similar between the two publications. The print story
was about an NYU-hosted discussion with health experts
on the
ability of a large city to handle bioterrorism. The
ABC story was a straight news story about a son suing
over the anthrax-related death of his father. The tones
of the
stories were different, the lengths were different (the
WSN story was longer).
6. The ABC story was not very prominent on the site,
while the WSN story was given bigger placement. Subsequent
news stories have not dealt very much with the
son’s lawsuit, so it can be assumed that the WSN
placed higher emphasis on its story than ABC did with
theirs.
7. Advertisements did not interfere with the stories
in either case.
8. In this case, I actually preferred the ABC story,
because it was brief and to the point. I felt that the
WSN story over-reported the event and placed too much
emphasis on it as news.
16 November 2001
CNN.com (no print publication today)
1. N/A
2. CNN used a series of links placed after the story
to give it relevance to other, previous stories. There’s
a link to a story of the same day (“Anthrax on
stamps in
N.C. ‘medically significant’”), a link
to a link database of health-related sites, and five
top health stories (none of which pertained to anthrax).
3. Like many other sites that are updated regularly
throughout the day, this is a very dry, brief story.
4. The language in the story is simple. The story is
also broken up. The lead paragraph is printed in bold
and is used as a teaser for the rest of the article
(1 click to
get to the article).
5 - 6. N/A
7. Advertisements did not interfere with the story.
8. N/A
17 November 2001
WashingtonPost.com (no print article today)
1. N/A
2. The WashingtonPost.com had two dialog boxes of links
to accompany this story about the U.S. Postal Service
needing to hold on to workers during the anthrax
scare. The first box, titled “Web Specials”
had five features. One was a graphic called “Economy
in Perspective.” Next was the “Latest List
of Layoffs.” Then there
was a link to “Track Local Tech Layoffs” and
then there were two reports on the economy and the Fed.
Since the story concerned an economic issue as well
as the
anthrax scare, these links were relevant.
Following the story were related links to Business
News top stories.
3. This was a bit more in-depth than most online publications
that are updated throughout the day. The topic, writing,
and above-average length suggested that this
was a feature that ran in the print version of the Post
as well as the online version.
4. The story itself did not seem to be much different
in language or format than a printed story. The soft
lead and heavy use of quotes was not like the simpler,
stripped-down style of most online publications. This
would further indicate that the story ran in the print
version of the Post.
5 - 6. N/A
7. Advertisements did not interfere with my reading
of the story.
8. N/A
18 November 2001
Time.com and New York Daily News
1. The tone of the Time.com story, about a man developing
a machine that tests the air for biotoxins, was more
like a feature than that of the print story, about the
lack of anthrax spores at subway stops frequented by
a victim. This has not been the pattern that I’ve
seen since starting the project. Usually, the feature
article is the
print article. I think that because I went to Time.com,
the story that I read online may appear in the print
issue as well.
2. No major digital web features on the Time story.
It is a brief story, and maybe doesn’t warrant
as much dressing up as some of the major stories.
3. I don’t think that the Time website is updated
nearly as often as the newspaper-related sites. So the
stories can have something other than a straight-news
tone,
and can highlight unusual aspects of a story.
4. The digital story didn’t seem to be very different
from a print story. It does not have block headers,
and is one page long.
5. The Daily News article and the Time article both
focused on a human-interest element. In addition to
reporting the status of the subway lines, the Daily
News
article also touched on the life of anthrax victim Kathy
Nguyen. The piece also had the tone of a service piece,
assuring readers of the safety of the subway lines.
The
Time article delved into the life of the machine’s
creator, Richard Langlois, and how he feels his machine
is important in the light of the terrorist attacks.
6. The Daily News story was given higher placement
than the Time story, due in part perhaps because it
is more “newsy” than the Time story.
7. Advertisements did not interfere with my reading
of the stories.
8. In a way, these two stories did complement each
other. The Daily News story dealt with a search for
biotoxins, and the Time article discussed a tool for
finding
biotoxins. However, I’m not sure if it mattered
which source was the digital source and which was the
print.
19 November 2001
Philadelphia Inquirer and CBSNews.com
1. The tone of the Inquirer story, about the hisory
of anthrax, reads, appropriately enough, like a history
lesson. The CBS story, about the discovery of another
anthrax-laced letter at the Senate, is more news-like.
2. CBS uses many web features. There are two interactive
features in the right-hand column, titled “Anthrax”
and “America on Guard.” There is video from
CBS
News detailing the Senate building cleanup plan. Five
“Related Stories” link to other stories pertaining
to anthrax, the CDC, and other biological weapons. There
are
also links to other sites, such as the FBI, the CDC,
and sites detailing the other letters sent to Senator
Daschle and Tom Brokaw. One photo depicts Senator Leahy,
the recipient of the latest letter. There is also a
link, in the middle of the story, to “Get the latest
on developments in Afghanistan.”
3. For a site that is updated fairly often during the
day, this is an extremely in-depth story. I suspect
that at the time I logged on, the story was recent enough
to have
high placement, but had gestated long enough to warrant
a long article.
4. The layout of the actual story on CBSNews.com was
not unlike that of a print story. There were no block
headers and it was not broken up. It only took one
“click” from the home page to reach the article.
5. Both of the stories are surprisingly in-depth. The
CBS article quotes many sources, outlines why Sen. Leahy’s
letter was most likely sent by the same person who
sent the other two, describes the measures being taken
to clean up the offices, and outlines other developments
that occurred on that day. The Philadelphia Inquirer
story gives a fairly comprehensive view of the use of
biological weapons since Biblical times.
6. The CBS story was given extremely high polacement
on the homepage, since it was a late-breaking news story.
The Inquirer story was relegated to the Science
section, since it was a feature that, while interesting,
did not contain much news.
7. Advertisements didn’t interfere with my reading
of either story, although the link in the middle of
the story was jarring. A link to developments in Afghanistan
in the
middle of an article about anthrax in the Senate seemed
out of place.
8. I like that the printed outlet was able to give
some placement to something like a historical feature
in order to place current events in context with history.
That
might have been able to be accomplished on a news website,
but I doubt it would have been very visible on the site.
20 November 2001
BBCNews.com (no print article today)
1. N/A
2. There are several web features in the BBC article.
There are two photographs: one of workers in HazMat
outfits outside of the Senate building and one of Chilean
Health Minister Michelle Bachelet. A dialog box on the
right side of the screen chronicles much of the BBC’s
anthrax coverage since late October. In addition to
relevant stories, there is a fact file with info on
anthrax, TV and Radio reports from the BBC, and links
to coverage on the War in Afghanistan and the Attack
on
America. There are links to the CDC, FBI, and the Chilean
Health Ministry. There are also links to top stories
in the Americas section of the site.
3. The site is updated constantly, but this article,
about an anthrax alert in Chile, seemed a bit longer
than average. It discussed not only the discovery in
Chile, but
also the recent discoveries in the Capitol.
4. There is one block header close to the end of the
article, but I’m not sure if it helps. If anything,
I think it’s awkward to make the viewer pause by
drawing
attention to a new header five short paragraphs from
the end of the piece.
5 - 6. N/A
7. Advertisements did not interfere with reading the
article.
8. N/A
21 November 2001
MSNBC.com and New York Daily News
1. The tone of the print story is different from that
of the MSNBC story in that it focuses mainly on the
case of a 94-year-old woman stricken with anthrax. The
Daily
News interviewed people in the community and suggested
how jarring it was for a small community to be affected
by bioterrorism. The MSNBC story discusses the
Connecticut anthrax case, as well as giving lengthy
coverage to the Senator Leahy letter in the same article.
The Daily News article feels more informal.
2. MSNBC uses many web features. There are links to
local papers near the site of the woman’s home
in Connecticut. There are links to other MSNBC anthrax
coverage. There are links to the latest developments
in the war and the home front. Photos include authorities
gathering at the victim’s house and a photo of
Connecticut governor John Rowland which links to a video
clip of his appearance on the “Today” show.
There is a slide show featuring “images and video
from the
ongoing anthrax bioterrorism attacks.” A map of
the U.S. feature rollover bullets pinpointing locations
of anthrax outbreaks. An interactive guide features
animation
that details how to check your mail cautiously, and
how anthrax affects the body.
3. MSNBC.com is updates fairly regularly, which makes
the massive amount of coverage impressive.
4. The story uses block headers to break it up. Like
many other sites, the lead paragraph is in larger type
than the rest of the article, acting as a teaser to
draw the
reader in. However, unlike other sites there is a row
of ads directly under this paragraph.
5. Both the print article and the online article feature
maps showing where the victim’s town is located.
6. In both cases, the story was given prominent placement.
The Daily News featured it as their cover story, while
MSNBC.com had it as their main graphic on the
homepage.
7. The advertisements after the introductory paragraph
on MSNBC.com was very intrusive. I thought that I had
reached the end of the article when I saw the row of
ads appear at the bottom of the screen.
8. I thought that the web features were useful, but
there was an awful lot of them. I think I liked the
simplicity of the print version.
22 November 2001
Philadelphia Inquirer and NYTimes.com
1. The tone of the print story was much newsier than
that of the online story. The Inquirer reported the
death of an anthrax victim in Connecticut in a straightforward
manner while the NYTimes.com story focused on the life
of the victim and how her death affected the community.
2. The online story did not have many web features.
There is one picture of the town’s church and one
link to the New York Times’ straight news story
on the topic.
3. NYTimes.com is updates fairly regularly. The feature-ish
tone suggests that this was a piece that was also written
for the print version, so it had more detail than a
strictly online article.
4. The online story was not broken up in any way. There
are no block headers, and it is not broken into pieces.
5. Both of the publications focused on the same story,
so both included quotes from people of the victim’s
hometown.
6. Both articles were given prominent placement, but
the Inquirer’s story seemed to be a bit more important.
It was located on the front page. The NYTimes.com
story was on the homepage, but wasn’t among the
top headlines at the top of the page.
7. Advertisements did not interfere with the articles.
8. I was more interested in the online story, mainly
because of the tone. I don’t think that the format
of the article had much to do with it.
23 November 2001
Philadelphia Inquirer and Ft. Worth Star-Telegram.com
1. The tone of the online article, about how the anthrax
scare is reminiscent of Tylenol-related deaths in 1982,
was more like a feature than that of the print article,
which was a news article following up on the death of
a Connecticut woman.
2. There were barely any enhancements to the Star-Telegram
story. Because the Star-Telegram is not as big a publication
as the New York Times, it probably
doesn’t do much with exclusive online content.
3. I don’t get the feeling that the Star-Telegram.com
is updated all that frequently. I think that they post
the print version of the publication on the web, but
without
much added.
4. The layout of the online story was very similar
to that of a print story. No block headers, all on one
page.
5. Although the Inquirer story was far more like a
traditional news feature than the Star-Telegram article,
it did include some human-interest aspects, as when
it
discussed the personality of the dead woman. The Star-Telegram
article highlighted the fact that people are now scared
of something that they trust -- the mail -- just
as people were afraid of Tylenol 20 years ago. The case
of three members of a family that were killed by poisonous
Tylenol is used as an example.
6. The Star-Telegram placed its story on the “Front
Page” section of its web site, while the Inquirer
placed its story on page A18. Clearly, the Star-Telegram
story
was given more importance, and the case of the Connecticut
woman is shown to be on the way to becoming old news.
7. Advertisements did not interfere with the articles.
8. I preferred the online story because I felt that
the print story was re-hashing the events of the past
few days. The online story offered a fresh perspective.
24 November 2001 CNN.com and USA Today
1. The tone of both of these stories was similar in
that they both were primarily news articles with elements
of human interest. The CNN.com article focused on the
burial of an anthrax victim in Connecticut and the USA
Today article dealt with the possibility of that victim
being infected through the mail.
2. The online story used several web features. There
was one photograph of the victim. There was a video
clip from CNN that complemented the story. Links to
other anthrax coverage ran along the right side of the
story. Also on the right side were statistics stating
how many people had been infected with anthrax. At the
conclusion of the story were links to other health stories
as well as links to CNN’s top stories.
3. CNN.com is updated fairly regularly. I felt that
this was an informative article. The fact that there
was an accompanying video clip shows that this story
was not
created exclusively for the web.
4. The story was laid out traditionally, with no block
headers,
5. The content of the online story could just as easily
have run in USA Today, so similar were they in style.
6. Both of these stories were not given very prominent
placement. They weren’t readily visible on either
the front page or the home page. This suggests that
the story
was becoming old.
7. Advertisements did not interfere with the story.
8. I thought that both of these stories were very similar,
but I liked that I was able to link to other related
stories on the CNN.com site.
25 November 2001
New York Times and L.A. Times.com
1. The tone of the print story is more like a feature
than the online story. The print story concerned the
people of Oxford, Connecticut and their desire to have
peace
return to their town. The online story covered the event
of the anthrax victim’s burial, but from more of
a hard-news angle.
2. There were very few web features on the site. The
only links were to other L.A. Times top stories.
3. The website is updated regularly. I felt that this
piece was a bit lean.
4. No block headers on online piece. The layout is
much like that of a traditional news story.
5. The style of both the print and online news stories
was similar.
6. Both of these stories were buried. The New York
Times placed its story well insode the Metro section,
and the L.A. Tims story was not given high placement.
8. I really didn’t prefer one story over another
in this case.
26 November 2001
New York Daily News and BBCNews.com
1. The tone of both of these stories is that of a very
traditional news story. The Daily News story dealt with
the fact that the Connecticut anthrax victim was able
to
be interviewed before she died. The BBC story concerned
a suspicious package sent to a former member of the
Ulster Unionist Party.
2. The BBC uses links to other stories concerning Northern
Ireland, but none to other anthrax stories.
3. The BBC is updated regularly. The brief article
is pretty lean compared to other ones on the site.
4. The story online is too brief to be divided into
block headers. The language is simple.
5. Both of the stories take a distinct news angle.
6. Both of the stories were not given prominent placement,
indicating that they were not judged to be very important.
7. Advertisements did not interfere with the story.
8. I think I liked the BBC story better only because
it was a departure from the Conecticut site.
Home | First
Wave | Undertow | Reflections
| Stepping Stones
| Weblogs
Contributors
| About Us | Archive
|
