Weblog for New Media Storytelling

Posted: 1:50 a.m. 10/1/01

How a site uses interactivity
With news breaking fast and furiously, interactivity briefly took a hit on the top news Web site, but "in the wake" and "in the aftermath" of the September 11 terrorist attacks, interactivity has taken off on sites like CNN.com. CNN.com now has a full interactive section for users, called Voices, with online discussions, message boards, chats, and compilations of e-mails from site viewers. On article pages, the site features polls, links to video and opportunities to receive breaking news alerts by e-mail. The article-level interactivity strangely does not seem to mix with the "Voices" level interactivity. In fact, the most obviously link to the "Voices" section can only be found at the bottom of the site's special report page about the attacks. Also strange, the site's front page touts a "Maps and Interactives" section that includes few interactive experiences. That page has the opportunity for viewers to see a 3-D model of the Trade Center area from different angles, but the pages offers mostly maps and photo galleries otherwise.

Have online news changed since the attacks?
Online news sites have certainly changed since the 11th, and the changes can be looked at from a few angles.

• Design: Until the middle of last week, several of the major sites, such as washingtonpost.com and cnn.com, were running stripped-down front page designs. After people charged to the Internet to find out more information, sites' servers got smacked big time. Implemented by many top sites on the 11th, these actions eased servers loads by removing extra features on sites and unnecessary coding in menu interfaces. For example, while the Post usually has a complex table in its left menu bar, the site changed to use just links separated by br tags. Although this made the site less attractive, it made the page lighter and did not lose usability. Also, removing features from the front pages seems to have been a common sense move. As attendance numbers at sporting events, Broadway plays and other events showed, no site viewers needed an "Entertainment" section in the first days following the attack. Hit counts for these sections would have dropped dramatically even if they had been left on the front pages.

• Content: Web news sites have been trying to keep a balance on their front pages. After going all-attacks all the time for a while, the sites have worked to give other news front page news holes-but not very big news holes. Sites have basically been trying to answer the question: how do we deal with one of the biggest stories, if not the biggest story, in decades? Additionally, news publishers on the Web probably have it harder than newspapers because they are far more front-loaded in their presentation. Major news sites rely on their front pages to draw the big hit counts while their sections see much lower numbers. (I can't site any concrete evidence to prove this, but I know from experience that Post section numbers are far lower than their front page numbers. Also, the New York Times on the Web seems to have continuously shrinking left menu bar on their front that links to their sections. It could be inferred that this menu isn't seeing the kind of clicks that would make it deserve more space.)

  Newspapers, on the other hand, are very section-oriented. Why else would tabloid-style papers start the news on the front cover and sports on the back cover? The tabloid publishers know that sports will get nearly as many or even more readers than news. But, comparison aside, it will be interesting to see how the major news sites play an event such as Barry Bonds breaking Mark McGuire's homerun record (which seems likely). This story would have been given a relatively large news hole on sites' front pages before (possibly a picture, caption, headline and blurb), but online editors will now have to judge by the day. Even if no major news breaks, minor attack-related news can bring viewers up or down emotionally. They will have to decide whether their U.S. viewers would welcome a distraction from the world of sports or simply be annoyed by it.

• Business model: I include this only because I spotted it on Salon an hour or so ago. Its editor, David Talbot, has announced that most of its news and politics sections will become "Salon Premium" content, pushing much more of the site under its paid-content umbrella. In an editor's note, he explains that the change is necessary to cover costs brought on by the attacks, such as hiring a Middle East correspondent. This troubles me to some extent. First, I don't know if I believe him or not. Second, if I do believe him and think he has valid reason for pursuing this end, I don't know if this is a good thing. On the first problem, the timing is simply auspicious. Salon has had notable cash shortages in recent years, just like nearly every other dot com, and the site has been pushing its "Premium" subscriptions hard. So, it makes me uncomfortable then that the site would make this leap in the wake of the attacks. "Gouging" is the word that pops into my head. On the other hand, if the books are already tight and they're spending to cover the impending war, maybe the move is a zero-sum gain for the site. That's very possible.

  But onto the second question-do I like this even if it's necessary? Should a site like Salon charge subscription fees for mainstream content that used to be free? News and politics are meat and potatoes on Salon, not extras like porn (excuse me, "galleries of erotic art and photography"). I've asked myself this question before (and wrote a whole paper about it in June), and post-9/11 the question seems even more important. People, whether they can afford online subscription fees or not, need reporting and thoughtful media analysis now more than ever. But do they need it from Salon? I guess I would say no. The media has stepped up their coverage to an overall solid level, and Salon has not seemed as superb by comparison as it normally does. But what does worry me is the rest of the media and their online business models. If a smaller newspaper shifts its Web site to a subscription-only business model, as several have already done in the United States, the poorer news consumers who cannot afford the entry (subscription) costs are left out. Thus, those who likely need the most education from the media are ignored at a crucial time in history.