Times V Guardian

3 05 2011

I’ve payed my subscription for The Times and am now looking at their coverage of the killing of Bin Laden and comparing it to The Guardian.

The Times has gone for a live blog approach, updating events in real time. They include every aspect of the story, Pakistan’s refusal that they had any knowledge, children searching the compound and further statements from the Americans.

The Guardian has written individual, traditional type journalistic pieces.

There are some great graphics on The Times site, I can’t link to them and I don’t want to copy and paste in case I get sued but I can tell where they’ve put a lot of effort in. Above the main story there are four buttons. Article, video, pictures and graphics.

The Times is easier to navigate than the Guardian. The Guardian tend to riddle their text with links which can be disracting.

Moving over to sport and again The Times looks better and is easier to navigate. The page layout is very similar to a print page. There are headlines and columns as you would expect. The Guardian is nearly the same but not as much space given over to the main articles.

The Times doesn’t feel like an overload of information and is not as colourful as The Guardian. This is a good thing as the colourful Guardian will give me a slight head-ache. I think for £2 a week Times is value for money.

Advertisements




Good ‘New York’ Times

27 04 2011

The creators of the NYT paywall are very happy with its performance. Though we have The Times to keep an eye on over here this is the one that the international market is most interested in.





Times are looking up

5 04 2011

A sight for poor eyes

Good news for Murdoch’s grand plan. Is the huge paywall gamble begining to pay off?

The Guardian reports a rise of over 50% from Novenber.

Here’s an article pointing ot how we, the public, may not have to foot the bill. Leave it to the advertisers.





Paywalls, what will be there impact?

28 03 2011

We are constantly being told about the future of journalism being uncertain. Advertisers are moving online and newspapers are finding it incredibly difficult to make money out of the online world. The Times and The Sunday Times have gone behind one and there are conflicting reports on how successful this has been.

The Telegraph has unveiled plans to go behind one and there is a school of thought that tablets such as the iPad have led to people being more willing to pay.

The NYT is following suit, this is the most relevant because it is the most popular online paper. This happened today but they don’t intend a complete shut out like The Times did.





ONLINE VIDEO

25 04 2010

So today we’ll have a quick look at video links on media websites and we shall begin with a little peek at how they do it over the pond.

With the video link on the top of the home page The New York Times make it very easy to access their online videos. When you get there the page looks very professional and it is a navigating treat, with the main sections listed down the left, pick one and then a large number of videos appear for that link.

Plenty of choice for categories, you want technology? No problem. Science? Health? Style? Interviews? That’s a little taste of the 23 main options available.

Click on sport and there are 115 separate videos, environment 94, travel 90. These can then be broken into smaller categories, business breaks down into: Dealbook, CNBC, Green Inc and Your Money. Arts: Music, Movies, Urban Eye etc. It is clear that the NYT take this part of their web operation very seriously.

Comparing it to The Times in the UK where if you click on their sport link there is a choice of 8 videos, there’s no need for a sub-section as all the videos are there in front of you. I’m sure there’s more on offer but I just can’t see a link with ‘MORE’ on it. Click latest video and of the eight on display six are on the same topic. Two even use the same thumbnail.

If the Times in the UK dedicated the effort their namesake in New York did it would be marvellous because all those sport videos would be about football instead of baseball.

NOT SO GOOD