When considering all three of live blogs, I think that i liked the Huffington Post one the best, and that it was the most effective. I think this because it has good commentary on the Rally before going into each event of the Rally in chronological order.
I think that a weakness of the Guardian post was that it delved right into the factual events of the Rally and did not take the time to explain some of the significant outcomes and reasons for the Rally. The New York Times one I like second best, as it had a good but shorter introduction which lead up to the events of the Rally, going into further depth the details of the comedian's opinions and performances that day.
I think a major strength, also, of the Huffington Post was that it used a good compilation of quotes that got the reader familiar with what happened at the Rally before going into the actual details of each comedian. I liked how the Huffington post went for general to very specific in their overview of the Rally, especially as it reminded me the most of a news worthy article written in the right format for public display. I liked the lead, and I enjoyed how it fit the comedian's smart comments into the author's own news story. I felt that the other live blogs simply used the Rally as the meat of the article instead integrating the facts into the report.
I guess, mostly, why I liked the Huffington Post is because it organized their ideas the most effectively for the amount of time they had and I was also able to recognize the writer more in the piece. it was more objective and not simply factual, making it a more interesting read for me.
No comments:
Post a Comment