Chapter seven of our Foust textbook Online Journalism (pg. 148-154) details the way in which MSNBC covered the Virginia Tech shooting in April 2007. The book describes MSNBC’s method of updating the existing online article with new information, highlighting new portions of the story as it developed with a light shaded background “to allow readers to recognize updated information quickly.”
As I read this, I was thinking about this technique of updating online news and wondering how effective it is with articles that are not as important as this one.
I think this technique of updating makes perfect sense for the Virginia Tech shooting incident because it’s likely that readers are checking back for updates on the situation. But what about news items that people aren’t following closely? I’m not sure anyone would see the update to a story of lesser importance because I think people don’t usually return to a story they’ve already read.
I’m curious as to how an editorial decision is made between updating a current online story or writing a new, separate story with additional information. Does it have to do with the amount of time between updates? For example, if new information needs to be added within a short period of time, the first story is updated, but longer periods of time require a new story? Or does it have more to do with the prominence of the story and how many people are reading it?
The publication I work on doesn’t have news stories with frequent updates (somehow the news in the payroll world just doesn’t work that way), so I would love to know how other news organizations handle updates. Do most update the way the Foust text describes, or are there any that have different policies?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment