Class Activity (10/08/05)
What is the piece about?
The piece is a report from the US version of 60 Minutes about baseball player Jose Canseco’s confession to using steroids throughout his career (and the release of his new book regarding the confession)
Who do think its target audience is?
Since the report was released by 60 Minutes, it may benefit persons who appreciate a tinge of entertainment value mixed with their news. However, considering this was the first interview Canseco did after his confession, anyone who follows current hard news issues (in this case, drugs in sport) would be interested (and of course, baseball fans).
What can the piece show that normal news reports can't?
Obviously with multimedia journalism you get the best of all worlds. The site features text, photos, video and audio, which basically illustrates all the major strands of journalism media. The page also contains relevant links to other 60 Minutes stories involving sports doping, major league baseball etc. Therefore, the piece allows you to delve into the elements of the story you’re interested in.
Has the presentation effectively communicated its message?
It’s very effective in supplying you with background information on every item presented in the story, therefore making sure all the elements are properly and interestingly presented.
How 'interactive' is the presentation?
Although text, video and numerous hyperlinks are included, the page doesn’t really mix everything together. Everything is presented separately, which doesn’t make the page as interactive as it could be.
How does it use individual media elements to communicate? Are there elements that don't work? If so, what are they?
The page presents a solid basis of information and works very well. However, if these elements were rearranged to allow a little more elemental intertwining, it would be a much better page.
Could the same information be presented better?
For some reason the programmers decided not to let the elements gel together, resulting in a rather bland-looking webpage (by splitting everything into groups) compared to others available on the net.
How does it compare with other multimedia journalism you've seen?
The examples shown to us in class have been the most impressive. They seem to be the highest calibre with backgrounds, animated links and menus with more interactive features (namely, 4 Corners). Even links that pop up in the middle of the story, as well as raw footage of interviews etc.
The piece is a report from the US version of 60 Minutes about baseball player Jose Canseco’s confession to using steroids throughout his career (and the release of his new book regarding the confession)
Who do think its target audience is?
Since the report was released by 60 Minutes, it may benefit persons who appreciate a tinge of entertainment value mixed with their news. However, considering this was the first interview Canseco did after his confession, anyone who follows current hard news issues (in this case, drugs in sport) would be interested (and of course, baseball fans).
What can the piece show that normal news reports can't?
Obviously with multimedia journalism you get the best of all worlds. The site features text, photos, video and audio, which basically illustrates all the major strands of journalism media. The page also contains relevant links to other 60 Minutes stories involving sports doping, major league baseball etc. Therefore, the piece allows you to delve into the elements of the story you’re interested in.
Has the presentation effectively communicated its message?
It’s very effective in supplying you with background information on every item presented in the story, therefore making sure all the elements are properly and interestingly presented.
How 'interactive' is the presentation?
Although text, video and numerous hyperlinks are included, the page doesn’t really mix everything together. Everything is presented separately, which doesn’t make the page as interactive as it could be.
How does it use individual media elements to communicate? Are there elements that don't work? If so, what are they?
The page presents a solid basis of information and works very well. However, if these elements were rearranged to allow a little more elemental intertwining, it would be a much better page.
Could the same information be presented better?
For some reason the programmers decided not to let the elements gel together, resulting in a rather bland-looking webpage (by splitting everything into groups) compared to others available on the net.
How does it compare with other multimedia journalism you've seen?
The examples shown to us in class have been the most impressive. They seem to be the highest calibre with backgrounds, animated links and menus with more interactive features (namely, 4 Corners). Even links that pop up in the middle of the story, as well as raw footage of interviews etc.
posted by Manny Tsigas at 5:12 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home