Interactive Narratives is a good site if you are looking for a visual explanation, rather than reading about what happened. Also, it strikes me odd that all of the stories on interactive narratives are from other credible news sources. I suppose that this is good, because people know the news will be reliable if it is from The New York Times and USA Today. I was expecting an online news source that would have articles, written by reporters working for the website, instead of video graphics from other credible news sources, showing or explaining a certain event. It seems as though anyone can do this, so interactive narratives doesn't seem like that good of a news source. However, most people probably understand better if the story is laid out in front of them step by step, with virtual graphics to show what basically happened. An example of this would be:
www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/05/30/nyregion/20080530_CRANE_GRAPHIC.html#
The story of the crane, which killed two and hurt several others, is fully mapped out by this interactive graphic. The story is shown step by step, with small passages explaining what happened as well. Overall, this is a very good idea to show people the news, but I believe that true journalism is best portrayed with words, not pictures. Interactive Narratives is somewhat effective, but I wouldn't consider it online journalism.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment