i admit, i get a lot of my news online, especially nonlocal news. i find the la times' web page to be a pretty good news source. i also really enjoy their different sections. today, i found 3 opinion articles that were pretty interesting.
two were debating the value of hip hop, particulary social conscious hip hop and it's ability or inability to instill change.
the other was about darwin in patagonia.
here's a quote from the latter, "Poor old Darwin. Like an incorrigible drunk, he always seems to be in the dock. First it was the Oxford debates in 1860, then the Scopes monkey trial in Tennessee in 1925, and now Dover, Pa. He is forever being dragged before some school board or another (in November, Kansas became the fifth state to allow discussion of Intelligent Design as an alternative to Darwinism). To a sizable percentage of America, the mild-mannered beetle-collector from Shropshire is no more than a bearded blasphemer."
now, these are all opinion pieces, are slanted, and are not trying to be factual journalism. i found them well written, especially since they all seemed to have word count limits.
there was also an interesting read about a woman who is basically the queen of online gambling & porn.
the la times has such a good online presence, it makes me wonder why my local paper has such a terrible one? is it really that difficult to have a well laid out, easily navigated, web page?
6 comments:
True, the Bee's website is a mess. Interestingly, though, the LA Times has a terrible reputation among what I guess you might call the journalistic elite. I don't have any strong feelings on the paper either way.
i don't know about the paper, but the website seems to consistantly provide timely information mixed with good editorial type pieces.
"timely" and "good" are both subjective ideas. Editorials are very arguable and I've heard many people say that the editorials in the Bee are wonderful and many people say they are not.
by timely, i mean that they frequently update, have current stories. the bee seems to lag behind on their website.
good - true, subjective. i find the la times editorials to be well balanced, usually providing both sides of the issue. as for the bee editorials, they're not bad, sometimes. i just find that the la times tends to present editorials that i find more interesting. and they're consistantly so. the bee has some sometimes. i still stand by my early statement that their website stinks compared to the times. it's cluttered, even though it provides fewer articles.
i, like ed, also seem to get most of my news from the internet. and i also find the fresno bee website boring and poorly done. i'll have to check out the la times site. when i was in school, one of my classes had us use the new york times website to get opinion articles from, and i enjoyed that site. so ed, or anyone else, if you enjoy variety in your quest for news you might want to try the new york times' website too.
I just use FOX news.
na na
Post a Comment