The subject: The Egypt protests
Outlet 1 (TV): the Aljazeera Western network
Outlet 2 (Online): The Guardian website. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2011/feb/03/egypt-protests-live-updates
This visual differences: the core difference is how close they got to the actual protests. When I watched the English Aljazeera stream the camera was solely focused on the fire-lit sky with a journalist describing in a limited fashion what was below. He was simply to far away from the action to keep mine and any other viewers attention.
The Guardian coverage how ever has managed to life up to it's reputation of being known as Gruadian (I meant to make the spelling mistake), this means that the Guardian tend to be more focused on obtaining some great photos as they've proved below:
- Taken from the Guardian website.Okay they're certain limits of course. A video camera used by a new station would be a lot heavier and harder to move around. Meaning it would struggle in the hetic nature of the incident, this was even mentioned when the cameraman informed the journalist on Aljazeera he couldn't pivot the camera, this could be linked to financial backing of the station and their equipment being outdated. So comparing all these drawbacks the photographer for the Guardian would be able to move around quicker.
Though for both their is one key drawback which if of course the fragile chaotic nature of the protests and being to close to could have put them in danger.
Who's quicker ?: we all know news is only interesting to the masses when it's hot and fresh. The Guardian have a dedicated page for the story which is constantly updated and also links to a Twitter feed (more upon birds tweeting later), meanwhile Aljazeera seemed to suffer from the same syndrome that any 24 hour news station has. Which any new information it has is constantly churned every two minutes.So it becomes quite stale and rotten. I over heard a second year comment on the quality of Aljazeera's Western and basically called it 'pants'.
Who's got more friends ?: The Guardian takes this round, Aljazeera was relying heavily on old stock footage and bias official sources. For example it was mainly the countries Government and the arrival of the UN ambassador. The Guardian seemed to have a small army of embedded journalists and photographers on the ground. This is displayed by (yes now I'll mention it) by the Guardian posting links to Twitters of various journalists who were in Egypt. This lead to the Guardian having a wider and richer range of stories, they also borrowed a slide show from the New York Times.
Who's been told to keep quiet ?: never if I'm honest but presented fine ethically correct coverage of the events and kept it all fair and clean (well from the bits I've seen).
Outdated formats ?: since I started this blog post I've come to a little conclusion, with a story as big as this as new network which is a big screen medium and limited interface for a consumer like Aljazeera is going to have limited coverage. The Guardians website is alive with information and has even tackled the moving image by adding Youtube videos relevant to the story.
Who would I shamefully endorse: if I'm honest if this was any Western news channel who was little better at life coverage they would have probably taken the day. However this time I'll have to say I feel more enriched and more informed by the coverage of the Guardian, any various stories on the subject.
Good content here, but is a little disjointed. You need to make sure you check all your work for spelling, punctuation and grammar errors. Maybe use shorter sentences to make it more punchy (and also means you don't have to use complicated punctuation).
ReplyDelete