Monmouth's snow closure policy has taken a turn for the really irritating since President Gaffney has taken the reins. It used to be that, if the roads are dangerous both around here and around the majority of the area where people commute from (I figure an hour and a half in all directions), then school was closed. Now, there must be seven inches or more in order to have classes cancelled. Without those seven inches, we'll have a delayed opening, if even that.
This is a really big issue for me. I live an hour north, which means that I'll definately get more snow than down here because it doesn't really snow all that much by the ocean because of the salt water. Plus, I live on the Watchung Mountains, the only mountain range (if you could even call it that. Compared to the Rockies, we're a tiny molehill, but it's still a mountain in NJ) in New Jersey, so we're definately going to get more snow than the lower elevations, even those within a few minutes from my house.
I could be stuck on the top of that mountain with a foot of snow, while down here, they'd only gotten an inch or two. Because I'm on a mountain, obviously the only way to get down is to go downhill, and the road that takes me downhill, Vosseller Ave. is one of the most dangerous roads you could ever imagine. It's one of those windy, steep, blind-curved country backroads that most people are terrified of. Even getting to that road is dangerous on a completely clear day. Hillcrest, the road I have to take to get to Vosseller is another windy, curvy road, but to make things more hazardous, it all of the sudden turns into a steep, downhill stretch, that, when slippery, can make you slide directly onto Vosseller. To make matters just that much more dangerous, you can't see people coming in either direction when trying to turn off of Hillcrest onto Vosseller. Vosseller takes a sharp left-hand turn, where it looks like there should be a stop sign because you're turning so tightly. And below Hillcrest is a tight turn and a lot of brush and trees that block any hopes of seeing a car coming up the hill. So I take my life in my hands every time I leave my house, so adding snow to the mix is just doubling my odds of getting killed.
Another factor in whether I can get to school after a snow storm is whether or not Bridgewater Township has come to plow my street. Last year, when we had that major storm that dumped something like two feet of snow overnight, they didn't come around with a plow until the next day. Legally, they're supposed to plow our house out as one of their first priorities because my father is a fireman, and first responders are required to be plowed out first.
I've devised a nice little way to make sure that my professors understand that I was snowed in: I'm going to take a yard stick outside, stick it in the snow, and take a digital picture that I can then email to all of my professors. I'm supposedly not supposed to be penalized for having to miss school due to severe weather, but I wonder how far that policy would go and how many people know about it.
I really think that our president is putting our lives in jeapoardy by putting such a strict guideline on the snow closure policy. I am sure there are people who, like me, hate missing class especially when something important is due, and who will actually try to drive down here to get to class. I think this policy was created out of laiziness and doesn't take any of those of us who commute from a distance into account. It's not fair to me!
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Monday, January 29, 2007
Television: Why must they tease us so?
A note on TV shows. Yes, the majority fall into any one of about 5 different formats, but the shows on cable are impressive. I'm a huge fan of Rome, on HBO at 9pm, Sundays (unfortunately the same time as the Apprentice, which I like, but Rome takes precedence, even though it'll be on about a dozen times this week. I just have to know what happens as soon as I possibly can!) and I really think they've broken out of the usual molds, as they do with pretty much every show they've done (Think Sopranos, Curb Your Enthusiasm, Extras, etc). But there is something they do with this show especially that drives me absolutely insane. I'll use an example from tonight's show, so if you haven't seen it yet and plan to, don't read any further. They're killing someone off. It's either Atia of the Junii or her daughter Octavia. You see the assassin put the poison in the soup and then it's ladled into a tureen and taken out to Atia, who is sitting at the table, ready to eat that tainted soup. You see the servant walking out with it, and they zoom in on the tureen. All of the sudden it hit me: they're gonna end the show here!!!! I looked at the time, 9:55pm, and I was sure that was it for this week. Why can't they at least show me the person dying??? Then there's suspense about what they're going to do about it (we all know what she'll do; the person who ordered the killing will be found out, and she will be killed if she's lucky. I know that Servillia, Atia’s worst enemy, ordered the “hit” because they showed us the meeting between the assassin and Servillia where they planned the poisoning.). There's suspense in the other story line the show follows, and it's some big suspense also. So why torture us viewers twice? You know we'll be back next week to find out what happens with Vorenus and Pullo and Vorenus's kids, so why add more torture to it. However, the suspense isn't that bad for the first story line (the one with the poison for those keeping a scorecard) because they made a HUGE mistake with the summary of next week's show: they showed Octavia, and it was obviously her, on the ground with a bunch of people standing over her. They don't show her face, but you know it's her because she's wearing something substantially different from her mother, Atia. But then they make a bigger mistake: they show Atia torturing the assassin. So obviously she doesn't die. But I still want to be completely positive!! Why torture your viewers for them to come back week after week? We'll be back with only a little torture! If the show is good, or even great like I think Rome is, we'll be back without a doubt! As it stands, you couldn't (or wouldn't want to try to) separate me from my TV at 9pm on Sundays, and you don't even want to know what would happen if the cable or power went out at 9pm on a Sunday. I just don't understand why they must torture their viewers!! Give us a break!!
Luckily, this trend doesn’t seem to be completely uniform throughout television programming. The Apprentice, another show that happens to be on Sunday nights at 9pm, actually finishes out the episode at the end. It ends with the infamous board room firing squad, and then someone gets into a taxi (actually, this season it’s a Lexus I think) where they tell the camera how they felt about getting fired. Either the person tries to make it seem like it was something they expected to happen and that it was a great opportunity, or they are completely blown away and can’t control themselves and then completely go off on camera about Donald Trump and the other contestants on the show. In my opinion, there really aren’t enough of the flip outs for my taste! But at the end of the show, that’s it. The episode is over and you know who has gone home and then the slate starts off clean the next week. There’s no real suspense of not knowing what is about to happen on the show, and there’s no suspense wondering who is going to be sent home next. Viewers still come back, because it is a great show and some times because they just want to know who will be sent home next time and if the Don has any huge freak-outs or anything else that’s entertaining.
The bottom line is this: To all those in the television industry, please, when you end an episode, give us a little teaser, not this teaser of a huge event that will change the course of the entire story line! I promise, we’ll be back next week without the suspenseful preview. You have nothing to worry about if you have a good show!!
Luckily, this trend doesn’t seem to be completely uniform throughout television programming. The Apprentice, another show that happens to be on Sunday nights at 9pm, actually finishes out the episode at the end. It ends with the infamous board room firing squad, and then someone gets into a taxi (actually, this season it’s a Lexus I think) where they tell the camera how they felt about getting fired. Either the person tries to make it seem like it was something they expected to happen and that it was a great opportunity, or they are completely blown away and can’t control themselves and then completely go off on camera about Donald Trump and the other contestants on the show. In my opinion, there really aren’t enough of the flip outs for my taste! But at the end of the show, that’s it. The episode is over and you know who has gone home and then the slate starts off clean the next week. There’s no real suspense of not knowing what is about to happen on the show, and there’s no suspense wondering who is going to be sent home next. Viewers still come back, because it is a great show and some times because they just want to know who will be sent home next time and if the Don has any huge freak-outs or anything else that’s entertaining.
The bottom line is this: To all those in the television industry, please, when you end an episode, give us a little teaser, not this teaser of a huge event that will change the course of the entire story line! I promise, we’ll be back next week without the suspenseful preview. You have nothing to worry about if you have a good show!!
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Today's Movies: Isn't there anything I haven't seen already??
I find it absolutely amazing. In the past year, there has been about 3 movies I’ve seen that are genuinely new. Their storyline, plot, characters, everything is new and different. The rest of the movies that have come out have been the same old story, or a remake of the same old story. Either it’s a boy-meets-girl situation, where she’s a sad, lonely, ugly person because she wears glasses and comfortable looking clothes, and she wants the cute, perfect boy, so she loses her glasses, gets her hair cut, and gets some new, trendy, completely uncomfortable looking clothes, then “poof” here’s the man of her dreams begging her to go out with him, which she does, then something goes wrong or gets misunderstood, they break up, then in the last scene, they run into each others’ arms, say “I’m sorry honey and I love you and always have and always will,” and then they assumedly live happily every after. This story like is a good one, for maybe the first one hundred times it has been used, but by now, it’s getting old. Now, they just toss in something bizarre, like the nerdy girl turns out to be a superhero, or the woman is substantially older than the man. It’s just getting so old!
And then there are the remakes of old movies. Just because the movie was made over 10 years ago, without all of the magical technology we have now does not mean that it isn’t a good movie and really doesn’t mean that it absolutely must get remade! Now, King Kong was good. Peter Jackson did a nice job on it and I think really honored the old movie, but look at War of the Worlds. The original was so interesting because we weren’t even close to developing the technology those aliens had and we really didn’t have the technology to kill them all (which is probably why they were killed off by some sort of fungus; exactly what that fungus was has never been named). But I even think that the first one shouldn’t have been made. Orson Welles did such an amazing job with the radio show and it’s sad that many people in my generation haven’t heard it. It makes the listener use their imagination to see what these alien machines looked like; people had to imagine what it would be like if these aliens were attacking; the first time it aired, actually, people didn’t have to imagine their reactions because they all thought it was real, even though there were numerous statements read throughout the program to tell listeners that it wasn’t real. But everyone listening had to imagine what it was like, imagine what he was telling them since they couldn’t exactly walk out their back door and say, “Oh gee Ma, there’s this alien thing out here.”
I’ll never understand why people can’t come up with something different. It’s so nice to see something different from everything else out there that I tend to run out and buy the DVD just so I can preserve it and watch it when I start pulling my hair out from the repetition. Please, Hollywood, get an imagination and dream up something, ANYTHING NEW!!! STOP using the same old, TIRED story lines OVER AND OVER AND OVER again!! Please, for the sanity of those people who pay your salary, the public!!
And then there are the remakes of old movies. Just because the movie was made over 10 years ago, without all of the magical technology we have now does not mean that it isn’t a good movie and really doesn’t mean that it absolutely must get remade! Now, King Kong was good. Peter Jackson did a nice job on it and I think really honored the old movie, but look at War of the Worlds. The original was so interesting because we weren’t even close to developing the technology those aliens had and we really didn’t have the technology to kill them all (which is probably why they were killed off by some sort of fungus; exactly what that fungus was has never been named). But I even think that the first one shouldn’t have been made. Orson Welles did such an amazing job with the radio show and it’s sad that many people in my generation haven’t heard it. It makes the listener use their imagination to see what these alien machines looked like; people had to imagine what it would be like if these aliens were attacking; the first time it aired, actually, people didn’t have to imagine their reactions because they all thought it was real, even though there were numerous statements read throughout the program to tell listeners that it wasn’t real. But everyone listening had to imagine what it was like, imagine what he was telling them since they couldn’t exactly walk out their back door and say, “Oh gee Ma, there’s this alien thing out here.”
I’ll never understand why people can’t come up with something different. It’s so nice to see something different from everything else out there that I tend to run out and buy the DVD just so I can preserve it and watch it when I start pulling my hair out from the repetition. Please, Hollywood, get an imagination and dream up something, ANYTHING NEW!!! STOP using the same old, TIRED story lines OVER AND OVER AND OVER again!! Please, for the sanity of those people who pay your salary, the public!!
MSNBC vs. CNN
Honestly, I really don’t like MSNBC’s website. There’s something about the way it is set up and the way they organized it that really puts me off. One of the biggest things that I have a problem with is the amount of advertisements on the pages. They are everywhere! CNN.com didn’t have any ads on any of their pages. The advertisements are overwhelming and get really irritating, especially when placed in the middle of a story. The ads that are placed within the stories are especially distracting because they break up the story in an awkward way and can stop a reader from continuing on in the story. I know that I stopped reading when my attention got interrupted by the advertisement. It makes it seem that making money from the advertisements is more important to MSNBC than giving their readers the news. There are also two ads on the home page that separates the groups of headlines (“In the News,” “Recommended Stories,” and “Only on MSNBC” to name a few) from the section listings (“U.S. News,” and “World News” for example).
Also, both sites have the ability to search their site and the web, but MSNBC uses their own search engine, MSN, while CNN uses Yahoo. Both sites list their stories using only the headlines without any sort of description to entice readers to click on the link. Also, both sites use sections to break down the news by topic or regional area. They both list them toward the bottom of the page, and they both give readers options for different types of content in each section. Both sites include links to outside sources, but MSNBC only used a link to “Newsweek” magazine’s site.
I really think that the content is missing on MSNBC’s site. There are no links to other related stories when you’re reading even the big story of the day like there are on CNN. Also, there are no links to videos or other media on MSNBC. Take, for example, the top story on Sunday, January 28, 2007. Both sites covered a big battle that took place in Najaf, Iraq that killed 250 insurgents. MSNBC only used the Associated Press story on their site, and didn’t add anything of their own. CNN actually wrote their own story and included links to content on the site. The story included links to a photo gallery with pictures of Ashura, the commemoration of “the martyrdom of Imam Hussein, the Prophet Mohammed’s grandson”. (MSNBC’s description of the holiday was horrible. It didn’t clear anything up for me and actually confused me more about what the holiday was.) Also, the story included links to numerous videos that were directly related to the story. The link I found most interesting was the link “Watch what the insurgents planned in their attack.” I expected to find a video with detail on what the insurgents had planned and what had actually happened, but instead, I got a video of the news story that was reporting basically the same story that I had just read. Also, when I opened the link, a separate window opened with the video, and underneath the screen where the video played, it said “All CNN videos Commercial Free,” but as I was reading that, a commercial popped up. MSNBC had no real media that was related directly to the story like CNN’s was. They included three videos, but none were important to further a reader’s understanding of the story. Also, on MSNBC’s page, they included a box titled, “Resource Guide,” that was simply another advertisement for numerous other sites, just like the classified section they included with the list of other sections on the site.
MSNBC doesn’t include a list of popular stories like CNN does on its homepage. In order to see the most popular stories, you have to go to a story and find the box on the right side of the page, half-way down into the story. As far as allowing people to participate and contribute to their coverage, visitors to MSNBC have to look very hard for it. It is with the section titled “Blogs, etc.,” and then a viewer must figure out that the section called “Firstperson” is the section for some participatory journalism, at least as far as giving readers the ability to post pictures. There are archives of old reader-written stories, but there isn’t any apparent place where someone can send in their stories. CNN seemed to encourage their readers to send in stories.
I can’t decide what it is that I don’t like about the MSNBC site, but there’s just something about it that makes me want to go elsewhere for my news. The site looks like it is only there for a few of the biggest stories and a lot of advertising space and revenue. There is only one thing that I absolutely loved about the MSNBC site. It has a box on the right side of the page about a third of the way down where readers can enter their zip code and stocks so they can have the coverage of their local news and anything about their stocks on MSNBC. I really like that a reader can tailor the coverage to their local area news. I doubt that it’ll be really local, like covering Bridgewater, New Jersey, Somerset County, or even New Jersey (since we are always lumped together with New York; just look at the coverage of Rutger’s football game, “The New York metropolitan area Rutgers football team.” I would have been happy with the “New Jersey Rutgers football team,” and I know I would have been asking too much for them to be the “Piscataway Rutgers football team.” And, as the commentators said during Rutgers’ bowl game, “all of the South Jersey fans are out today,” it would be nice if they got even close to the geographical area. Sorry, this seems to have turned into a rant) but at least the coverage on MSNBC would focus on stories that we might actually care about in this area of the United States.
If I had to make a choice about which site I would rely on for my news, I would definitely have to go with CNN. I’ve only seen one ad on the entire site, and that was during the video; I know that when I go to a story, I can find all of the supporting information I may need to understand the story. I really like the way the site is set up, and the amount of interactive material they include on the site. Lastly, I really love that they give the people the ability to send in stories that may be used, and if I were to send in an editorial about something I had seen on the site, I’d actually be able to get a response from CNN. So CNN seems to be the news site for me, at least between these two sites.
Also, both sites have the ability to search their site and the web, but MSNBC uses their own search engine, MSN, while CNN uses Yahoo. Both sites list their stories using only the headlines without any sort of description to entice readers to click on the link. Also, both sites use sections to break down the news by topic or regional area. They both list them toward the bottom of the page, and they both give readers options for different types of content in each section. Both sites include links to outside sources, but MSNBC only used a link to “Newsweek” magazine’s site.
I really think that the content is missing on MSNBC’s site. There are no links to other related stories when you’re reading even the big story of the day like there are on CNN. Also, there are no links to videos or other media on MSNBC. Take, for example, the top story on Sunday, January 28, 2007. Both sites covered a big battle that took place in Najaf, Iraq that killed 250 insurgents. MSNBC only used the Associated Press story on their site, and didn’t add anything of their own. CNN actually wrote their own story and included links to content on the site. The story included links to a photo gallery with pictures of Ashura, the commemoration of “the martyrdom of Imam Hussein, the Prophet Mohammed’s grandson”. (MSNBC’s description of the holiday was horrible. It didn’t clear anything up for me and actually confused me more about what the holiday was.) Also, the story included links to numerous videos that were directly related to the story. The link I found most interesting was the link “Watch what the insurgents planned in their attack.” I expected to find a video with detail on what the insurgents had planned and what had actually happened, but instead, I got a video of the news story that was reporting basically the same story that I had just read. Also, when I opened the link, a separate window opened with the video, and underneath the screen where the video played, it said “All CNN videos Commercial Free,” but as I was reading that, a commercial popped up. MSNBC had no real media that was related directly to the story like CNN’s was. They included three videos, but none were important to further a reader’s understanding of the story. Also, on MSNBC’s page, they included a box titled, “Resource Guide,” that was simply another advertisement for numerous other sites, just like the classified section they included with the list of other sections on the site.
MSNBC doesn’t include a list of popular stories like CNN does on its homepage. In order to see the most popular stories, you have to go to a story and find the box on the right side of the page, half-way down into the story. As far as allowing people to participate and contribute to their coverage, visitors to MSNBC have to look very hard for it. It is with the section titled “Blogs, etc.,” and then a viewer must figure out that the section called “Firstperson” is the section for some participatory journalism, at least as far as giving readers the ability to post pictures. There are archives of old reader-written stories, but there isn’t any apparent place where someone can send in their stories. CNN seemed to encourage their readers to send in stories.
I can’t decide what it is that I don’t like about the MSNBC site, but there’s just something about it that makes me want to go elsewhere for my news. The site looks like it is only there for a few of the biggest stories and a lot of advertising space and revenue. There is only one thing that I absolutely loved about the MSNBC site. It has a box on the right side of the page about a third of the way down where readers can enter their zip code and stocks so they can have the coverage of their local news and anything about their stocks on MSNBC. I really like that a reader can tailor the coverage to their local area news. I doubt that it’ll be really local, like covering Bridgewater, New Jersey, Somerset County, or even New Jersey (since we are always lumped together with New York; just look at the coverage of Rutger’s football game, “The New York metropolitan area Rutgers football team.” I would have been happy with the “New Jersey Rutgers football team,” and I know I would have been asking too much for them to be the “Piscataway Rutgers football team.” And, as the commentators said during Rutgers’ bowl game, “all of the South Jersey fans are out today,” it would be nice if they got even close to the geographical area. Sorry, this seems to have turned into a rant) but at least the coverage on MSNBC would focus on stories that we might actually care about in this area of the United States.
If I had to make a choice about which site I would rely on for my news, I would definitely have to go with CNN. I’ve only seen one ad on the entire site, and that was during the video; I know that when I go to a story, I can find all of the supporting information I may need to understand the story. I really like the way the site is set up, and the amount of interactive material they include on the site. Lastly, I really love that they give the people the ability to send in stories that may be used, and if I were to send in an editorial about something I had seen on the site, I’d actually be able to get a response from CNN. So CNN seems to be the news site for me, at least between these two sites.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
4 things I hate about pain medications...
1. The stigma: Anyone who uses pain medications are drug addicts and aren't willing to work for a cure to their pain. Too often people think that we're just using the medications so that we don't have go through physical therapy or other types of rehabilitation. People feel that there must be more options that just popping a few dozen pills each day. But they're completely wrong! These medications carry so many risks, especially at the levels I take them, that I avoid taking them at all costs. The truth is, we are in that much pain. And these meds are the only way we can survive. Also, we are too commonly called addicts. We're not. There's a huge discrepancy between an addict and someone who is physically dependent on these meds. When you take them for an extended time, your body will get dependent on them and your body will need them to function. That's the way it is, no matter what the medication. Addiction is when you psychologically need the substance and will do whatever you can to get it, even if it has a negative effect on their lives. There's a huge difference between the two, but few actually believe it.
2. The side effects: These meds carry some heavy costs. One of the side effects, allbeit a rare one, is death. They can depress the repiratory system to the point where you just stop breathing. Beyond that minor side effect, there is sweating profusely, either increased appetite or so nauseaous that you can't eat, drowsiness or energizing. There are dozens of side effects for these medications and most of them make us question whether the side effects are worth whatever pain control these meds give us.
3. There isn't one pill for everyone: There's no such thing as a magic pill. What works for one person may not work for another. A medication that worked last year may not work now. Because pain is so different between people, it takes trial and error to be able to determine what medications will work for someone. And until you find that one, you have to endure withdrawls, mind-blowing and completely disabling pain, and the thoughts that you'll never find anything that will work for you and that you'll be miserable forever.
4. No cure: These pills aren't a cure. No matter how many pain killers I take, I will never find one that will get rid of my pain forever. I will be on these medications for the rest of my life. And unfortunately, the really long-term effects of these medications on the body aren't really known because few people have taken them for more than 70 years straight before.
So, thanks to these medications and the pain that makes it impossible to live without them, I'm known as a drug addict, am debating if whatever pain control I get from these meds is worth the side effects, can't ever find something that will definately work for me, and may turn out with completely destroyed kidneys or some other organ by the time I'm in my 90s.
2. The side effects: These meds carry some heavy costs. One of the side effects, allbeit a rare one, is death. They can depress the repiratory system to the point where you just stop breathing. Beyond that minor side effect, there is sweating profusely, either increased appetite or so nauseaous that you can't eat, drowsiness or energizing. There are dozens of side effects for these medications and most of them make us question whether the side effects are worth whatever pain control these meds give us.
3. There isn't one pill for everyone: There's no such thing as a magic pill. What works for one person may not work for another. A medication that worked last year may not work now. Because pain is so different between people, it takes trial and error to be able to determine what medications will work for someone. And until you find that one, you have to endure withdrawls, mind-blowing and completely disabling pain, and the thoughts that you'll never find anything that will work for you and that you'll be miserable forever.
4. No cure: These pills aren't a cure. No matter how many pain killers I take, I will never find one that will get rid of my pain forever. I will be on these medications for the rest of my life. And unfortunately, the really long-term effects of these medications on the body aren't really known because few people have taken them for more than 70 years straight before.
So, thanks to these medications and the pain that makes it impossible to live without them, I'm known as a drug addict, am debating if whatever pain control I get from these meds is worth the side effects, can't ever find something that will definately work for me, and may turn out with completely destroyed kidneys or some other organ by the time I'm in my 90s.
Monday, January 22, 2007
Whatever happened to common courtesy??
I’ve been noticing a disturbing trend over the past few years, and it seems like this trend has made its way throughout the whole of society. The phrase “common courtesy” has seemingly become foreign to too many people today. This trend even includes the smaller things that people do for others, like holding the door open for someone who is right behind you so it doesn’t slam in their face, or letting someone go in front of you in line at a bagel shop if they seem to be in a huge rush. On the roads today, a person could legitimately killed or at the very least seriously injured for giving someone else the common courtesy of letting them out of a parking lot when traffic is stopped instead of pulling up right in front of the so that they can’t get out, no matter what. Also, the idea of moving out of the left lane when you see someone coming up behind you, especially if that person is a police officer or an ambulance, or even if a person has strobe lights on their car because they’re fireman seems to have disappeared completely. It’s really sad. In my opinion, I think one of the biggest crises the next generation will have is that people value everything about themselves, but refuse to give anyone else a moment or even a split second of their time to make someone else’s life just a tiny bit easier.
Last week, I was leaving my mom’s office, and I saw the mailman coming in with a hand truck that was full of mail for the entire building. I had just walked out of the outside door when I saw him coming, but I walked the few feet back and held both of the doors open for him. He looked absolutely shocked when he saw me grab the door for him and he said to me, “Thank you so much! You’re so nice for grabbing the door for me!” I couldn’t believe that he was so surprised that I held the door open for him. He acted like it was the first time anyone had opened the door for him. I thought it was just something that you do when you see someone coming up to a door with their hands full. That was just one of a handful of times people acted completely surprised that someone would actually hold the door for them. I know that there are some times when I am at school, there are people who just let the door slam in my face when I’m coming out of the door behind them, even with they’re not on a cell phone. I think it is terrifying that there are so few people in this world that will do something that simple that might make someone’s life a little easier. You never know when opening the door for someone, picking up their pen after they dropped it, or helping them pick up papers that fell out of their notebook will make their day at least a little bit better. I know that we’re all in a rush between classes at school, so when I’m not in a hurry to get to class, and there’s a decent line at Einstein’s, I’ll let someone behind me who looks like they’re in a huge rush to get to class get in front of me so they can get to class on time. I’ve done that a few times, but when I do, I get groaned at by someone else behind me who doesn’t have class at that time. It’s another time that something simple and courteous can make someone’s day, but something that no one really does.
I think the roads around the state are the worst place for the concept of common courtesy. No one extends even the slightest bit of courtesy to another. When driving down the highways, the law is to keep right except to pass. I guess no one got that lesson in driver’s education. There are too many times when I am on the highway and am forced to pass on the right illegally because someone doing 10mph less than the speed limit refuses to move over to let me pass. It seems today that there’s no such thing as letting someone in, especially when they are trying to merge onto the highway. Too many people refuse to turn off their high beams, especially on the dark county roads I live on, even if someone is driving towards them. Courtesy is not something extended to other drivers, even with the tiniest details like not driving while talking on the cell phone, not putting makeup on doing 80mph on the parkway, not trying to read a file to someone over the cell phone without even using a hands-free device. I never thought it was too much to ask for someone to pay attention to the road in front of them, and occasionally the road behind them, to stay in their lane, and to just not do anything stupid that might get themselves or someone else killed.
It’s hard to believe that so many people refuse to help others with anything, even the smallest things. I wonder if the idea of common courtesy will soon start to fall completely out of people’s minds. There are so many simple things that a person can do as a courtesy to another without any effort whatsoever. And those simple things could make all the difference in someone’s day.
Last week, I was leaving my mom’s office, and I saw the mailman coming in with a hand truck that was full of mail for the entire building. I had just walked out of the outside door when I saw him coming, but I walked the few feet back and held both of the doors open for him. He looked absolutely shocked when he saw me grab the door for him and he said to me, “Thank you so much! You’re so nice for grabbing the door for me!” I couldn’t believe that he was so surprised that I held the door open for him. He acted like it was the first time anyone had opened the door for him. I thought it was just something that you do when you see someone coming up to a door with their hands full. That was just one of a handful of times people acted completely surprised that someone would actually hold the door for them. I know that there are some times when I am at school, there are people who just let the door slam in my face when I’m coming out of the door behind them, even with they’re not on a cell phone. I think it is terrifying that there are so few people in this world that will do something that simple that might make someone’s life a little easier. You never know when opening the door for someone, picking up their pen after they dropped it, or helping them pick up papers that fell out of their notebook will make their day at least a little bit better. I know that we’re all in a rush between classes at school, so when I’m not in a hurry to get to class, and there’s a decent line at Einstein’s, I’ll let someone behind me who looks like they’re in a huge rush to get to class get in front of me so they can get to class on time. I’ve done that a few times, but when I do, I get groaned at by someone else behind me who doesn’t have class at that time. It’s another time that something simple and courteous can make someone’s day, but something that no one really does.
I think the roads around the state are the worst place for the concept of common courtesy. No one extends even the slightest bit of courtesy to another. When driving down the highways, the law is to keep right except to pass. I guess no one got that lesson in driver’s education. There are too many times when I am on the highway and am forced to pass on the right illegally because someone doing 10mph less than the speed limit refuses to move over to let me pass. It seems today that there’s no such thing as letting someone in, especially when they are trying to merge onto the highway. Too many people refuse to turn off their high beams, especially on the dark county roads I live on, even if someone is driving towards them. Courtesy is not something extended to other drivers, even with the tiniest details like not driving while talking on the cell phone, not putting makeup on doing 80mph on the parkway, not trying to read a file to someone over the cell phone without even using a hands-free device. I never thought it was too much to ask for someone to pay attention to the road in front of them, and occasionally the road behind them, to stay in their lane, and to just not do anything stupid that might get themselves or someone else killed.
It’s hard to believe that so many people refuse to help others with anything, even the smallest things. I wonder if the idea of common courtesy will soon start to fall completely out of people’s minds. There are so many simple things that a person can do as a courtesy to another without any effort whatsoever. And those simple things could make all the difference in someone’s day.
Sunday, January 21, 2007
Entry 2: Opioid-phobic articles, reporters, and even researchers...
As a journalist, I have always been taught to represent all of the possible sides and opinions in a story. However, when it comes to writing about opioid or narcotic pain killers, the majority of reporters only represent the negative sides of these types of pain killers. A few recent examples have pulled my attention back to this kind of lopsided reporting. I saw these articles on a Chronic Pain support message board, and they have gotten very strong reactions, both from me and others on the board. It seems that, because these medications have a darker side, they aren’t worth having in society, no matter what they might do for people in pain. It is too often forgotten that these medications are some people’s only hope for getting out of bed every day, let alone leading a productive and happy life.
The first article, which was found on philly.com, was titled “Dangerous mix: Teens & legal drugs,” and spoke about the increasing misuse of prescription pain medications by teenagers (found at http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/news/opinion/16477561.htm). However, the author, Judy Shepps Battle, fails to recognize anywhere throughout the article that, while there may be negatives to these medications, there are also many positives. There is no mention of what the proper use of these medications or what these medications can do for people who are actually in pain. The article focuses on two specific types of medications, Vicodin and OxyContin. The author states, “…62 percent of teens believe prescription pain relievers are "easy" to find at home.” However, OxyContin is only used in cases of severe chronic pain, not for the average broken arm or sprained wrist. It leads me to believe that the survey the author quotes is about Vicodin and the drugs in that class, as opposed to the long-acting, stronger drugs, but that isn’t mentioned anywhere in the quoted materials. Battle does not tell readers that the survey focused on any specific medications, leaving readers to assume that it is speaking about both of the medications mentioned throughout the article. This article was found under the opinion section, but was written by an addiction specialist. While she makes some good proposals about how to solve this issue (like keeping these types of medications “under lock and key” and disposing of medications no longer in use) she doesn’t mention any solutions that actually deal with changing the teenagers’ behavior. She simply says that keeping the medications out of a teen’s reach will stop them from using them, but I think that others would disagree that that course of action is the only one to be taken. If parents don’t teach their children that prescription medications aren’t for use other than that which is intended, nothing will stop them from taking them and nothing will stop them from getting to them. Some people, when reading this article, may conclude that these medications should be done away with entirely, which will pretty much get rid of the problem completely. In these kind of articles, a reader comes away with the thought that the world might be a much better place without these kinds of medications because the positive side to them, the power they have to help people live their lives, isn’t mentioned anywhere throughout the article. I very rarely see an article that actually praises the use of strong narcotic medications for people who have no other options and who, without them, would be in pain beyond comprehension every minute of every day for the rest of their lives.
The second story, titled “Program Helps Patients Deal with Chronic Pain,” implicates that those of us who use narcotic pain killers to treat our pain are addicts who need to be put on a 12-step program, similar to the one for alcoholics or gamblers. The story ran on the INDY channel news, located in Indiana (http://www.theindychannel.com/health/10782581/detail.html). They featured the Chronic Pain Rehabilitation Program at Methodist Hospital that helped people deal with their chronic pain by offering them this 12-step program. If the patients got through all of the 12-steps, they would need less medication and be better equipped to deal with the trials of having chronic pain. There are some pieces of this story that I completely agree with. In order to help deal with chronic pain, a person has to deal with the emotional impact it has on them. Someone once told me that the only way to describe the emotional pain this chronic pain causes is by relating to death. It is a death of the person’s identity and many times, their very lifestyle, and they must grieve for that loss. Everything changes with this kind of unending pain, especially when it is made clear to a patient, as it was for me last March, that this pain will last the rest of their life. It’s a scary thought. I lost everything that I felt made me the person I was at the time. And I had to go through the grieving process, just like I would if someone close to me died. However, this story doesn’t lay out the 12 steps of the program. It is extremely short and seriously lacks information. When someone without chronic pain reads this article, I think that it would say to them that chronic pain could be solved without pills and that those of us who do use medications are just trying to take the easy way out. This story is another one that fails to promote a positive image of chronic pain patients. Yes, it is a step forward, because it isn’t talking specifically about medications, but at the same time, it can give the impression that the pills are bad, similar to other stories, and this mind-body approach is the only way to go for everyone suffering. I think that this story does make one thing very clear, and it is one thing that most people just don’t understand: “Chronic pain generally can’t be fixed, but a growing number of patients are learning to come to grips with it.”
Finally, a recent study was published, “suggest(s) that opioid pain relievers often provide no advantage over non-opioids for relieving chronic back pain.” This really surprised me. I’ve been on opioid pain medications for over four years, and they have been helping me the entire time. Without them, I doubt I would be able to leave my bed, let alone get to school to finish my education and give myself the change at a life. The study does say that these medications carry a higher risk of addiction. I have one huge problem with that statement: they do not define addiction in the article summarizing the research. I have learned, in the research about my condition, that there is addiction, addictive behaviors, and physical tolerance. If those performing the study defined addiction as a person’s body craving the medication, then addiction isn’t the correct term. Physical tolerance is the term used for that type of issue. Addiction is a term used when a person craves the drug mentally and will go out of their way to get it, no matter the consequences, even if the drug has lead to bad things in the past. These terms are used interchangeably, so the majority of people would put those of us whose bodies crave the medication in the same category as someone who uses cocaine or crack, and it isn’t fair to us. Anything that’ll perpetuate this stereotype, I believe is horrible research. The summary quoted research about the percentages of the study group who, by the end of the study, had some sort of substance abuse disorder (exactly what that is was not spelled out). However, these numbers were not compared to the rates of this disorder in the general public, so the percentages quoted could be similar or even identical to that of the general population. I think an article like this, along with this kind of research hurts people like me who suffer from chronic low back pain. After reading this, many people may believe that I must be an addict because I’m on these medications even though they don’t work for my kind of pain. Also, everyone who has responded to this article in our support group’s message board completely disagrees with their findings, and these are the people who experience this study every day. (The article can be found at: http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=healthNews&storyid=2007-01-15T225652Z_01_KNE582550_RTRUKOC_0_US-OPIOIDS-CHBACK-PAIN.xml)
The more these stereotypical ideas are spread, the harder it makes life for me and all those like me. It is amazingly difficult for me to get my pain medications and get these medications in the strength I need them in because of the teenagers and even people my age misuse the medications and doctors don’t want to prescribe them, especially to people my age. People call me an addict, including my own family members, and tell me that the only reason I am in the situation I am currently in is because I am on these medications, and even, as my aunt told me, because I didn’t seek the care of a chiropractor. Stories like the second one I quoted here are part of the problem, not the solution. Add those two stories to the research I quoted here, and person who takes opioid pain killers for their chronic low back pain is turned into an addict who is contributing to the problems with today’s teenagers and is wasting their time with medications.
The first article, which was found on philly.com, was titled “Dangerous mix: Teens & legal drugs,” and spoke about the increasing misuse of prescription pain medications by teenagers (found at http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/news/opinion/16477561.htm). However, the author, Judy Shepps Battle, fails to recognize anywhere throughout the article that, while there may be negatives to these medications, there are also many positives. There is no mention of what the proper use of these medications or what these medications can do for people who are actually in pain. The article focuses on two specific types of medications, Vicodin and OxyContin. The author states, “…62 percent of teens believe prescription pain relievers are "easy" to find at home.” However, OxyContin is only used in cases of severe chronic pain, not for the average broken arm or sprained wrist. It leads me to believe that the survey the author quotes is about Vicodin and the drugs in that class, as opposed to the long-acting, stronger drugs, but that isn’t mentioned anywhere in the quoted materials. Battle does not tell readers that the survey focused on any specific medications, leaving readers to assume that it is speaking about both of the medications mentioned throughout the article. This article was found under the opinion section, but was written by an addiction specialist. While she makes some good proposals about how to solve this issue (like keeping these types of medications “under lock and key” and disposing of medications no longer in use) she doesn’t mention any solutions that actually deal with changing the teenagers’ behavior. She simply says that keeping the medications out of a teen’s reach will stop them from using them, but I think that others would disagree that that course of action is the only one to be taken. If parents don’t teach their children that prescription medications aren’t for use other than that which is intended, nothing will stop them from taking them and nothing will stop them from getting to them. Some people, when reading this article, may conclude that these medications should be done away with entirely, which will pretty much get rid of the problem completely. In these kind of articles, a reader comes away with the thought that the world might be a much better place without these kinds of medications because the positive side to them, the power they have to help people live their lives, isn’t mentioned anywhere throughout the article. I very rarely see an article that actually praises the use of strong narcotic medications for people who have no other options and who, without them, would be in pain beyond comprehension every minute of every day for the rest of their lives.
The second story, titled “Program Helps Patients Deal with Chronic Pain,” implicates that those of us who use narcotic pain killers to treat our pain are addicts who need to be put on a 12-step program, similar to the one for alcoholics or gamblers. The story ran on the INDY channel news, located in Indiana (http://www.theindychannel.com/health/10782581/detail.html). They featured the Chronic Pain Rehabilitation Program at Methodist Hospital that helped people deal with their chronic pain by offering them this 12-step program. If the patients got through all of the 12-steps, they would need less medication and be better equipped to deal with the trials of having chronic pain. There are some pieces of this story that I completely agree with. In order to help deal with chronic pain, a person has to deal with the emotional impact it has on them. Someone once told me that the only way to describe the emotional pain this chronic pain causes is by relating to death. It is a death of the person’s identity and many times, their very lifestyle, and they must grieve for that loss. Everything changes with this kind of unending pain, especially when it is made clear to a patient, as it was for me last March, that this pain will last the rest of their life. It’s a scary thought. I lost everything that I felt made me the person I was at the time. And I had to go through the grieving process, just like I would if someone close to me died. However, this story doesn’t lay out the 12 steps of the program. It is extremely short and seriously lacks information. When someone without chronic pain reads this article, I think that it would say to them that chronic pain could be solved without pills and that those of us who do use medications are just trying to take the easy way out. This story is another one that fails to promote a positive image of chronic pain patients. Yes, it is a step forward, because it isn’t talking specifically about medications, but at the same time, it can give the impression that the pills are bad, similar to other stories, and this mind-body approach is the only way to go for everyone suffering. I think that this story does make one thing very clear, and it is one thing that most people just don’t understand: “Chronic pain generally can’t be fixed, but a growing number of patients are learning to come to grips with it.”
Finally, a recent study was published, “suggest(s) that opioid pain relievers often provide no advantage over non-opioids for relieving chronic back pain.” This really surprised me. I’ve been on opioid pain medications for over four years, and they have been helping me the entire time. Without them, I doubt I would be able to leave my bed, let alone get to school to finish my education and give myself the change at a life. The study does say that these medications carry a higher risk of addiction. I have one huge problem with that statement: they do not define addiction in the article summarizing the research. I have learned, in the research about my condition, that there is addiction, addictive behaviors, and physical tolerance. If those performing the study defined addiction as a person’s body craving the medication, then addiction isn’t the correct term. Physical tolerance is the term used for that type of issue. Addiction is a term used when a person craves the drug mentally and will go out of their way to get it, no matter the consequences, even if the drug has lead to bad things in the past. These terms are used interchangeably, so the majority of people would put those of us whose bodies crave the medication in the same category as someone who uses cocaine or crack, and it isn’t fair to us. Anything that’ll perpetuate this stereotype, I believe is horrible research. The summary quoted research about the percentages of the study group who, by the end of the study, had some sort of substance abuse disorder (exactly what that is was not spelled out). However, these numbers were not compared to the rates of this disorder in the general public, so the percentages quoted could be similar or even identical to that of the general population. I think an article like this, along with this kind of research hurts people like me who suffer from chronic low back pain. After reading this, many people may believe that I must be an addict because I’m on these medications even though they don’t work for my kind of pain. Also, everyone who has responded to this article in our support group’s message board completely disagrees with their findings, and these are the people who experience this study every day. (The article can be found at: http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=healthNews&storyid=2007-01-15T225652Z_01_KNE582550_RTRUKOC_0_US-OPIOIDS-CHBACK-PAIN.xml)
The more these stereotypical ideas are spread, the harder it makes life for me and all those like me. It is amazingly difficult for me to get my pain medications and get these medications in the strength I need them in because of the teenagers and even people my age misuse the medications and doctors don’t want to prescribe them, especially to people my age. People call me an addict, including my own family members, and tell me that the only reason I am in the situation I am currently in is because I am on these medications, and even, as my aunt told me, because I didn’t seek the care of a chiropractor. Stories like the second one I quoted here are part of the problem, not the solution. Add those two stories to the research I quoted here, and person who takes opioid pain killers for their chronic low back pain is turned into an addict who is contributing to the problems with today’s teenagers and is wasting their time with medications.
Entry 1: CNN.com Review
I went to CNN.com over the span of a few days to see if there were any differences to their site from day to day and to see if stories were listed differently depending on the day. There’s a lot I like about the site. I think the company has put together a very user-friendly, accessible webpage. There are a few things that I don’t like about the site, but the majority of my comments are positive about the site.
Overall, I think that the main page is laid out very well. I like that one story is placed with prominence on the right side of the page with pictures and links to the full story, another story that relates to the original story, and some video content. However, I don’t like the way they list the other stories they feature prominently on the top of their home page, under “Latest News: Top Stories”. All that is listed is the title of the article, but nothing else. I couldn’t figure out what many of the stories were about, and if I should even bother clicking on them to find out. I prefer what they do on other sites, when they list at least the lead to the story or a single sentence summary to entice a reader to click on the link for the story. I do like how they list the most popular stories on a tab that is shown behind the one for “Top Stories,” but again, the list of the stories’ headlines are very sparse and don’t really lead to any idea of what the article is really about.
At the very top of the page, the site lists all of their sections, along with some of their most popular shows, which makes it that much easier for someone to navigate through their site. If they see something on “Lou Dobbs Tonight,” they can go to the site and immediately find the show’s page at the top of the home page. Also, if they’re only looking for stories that deal with a specific topic, like “Analysis” of the day’s politics, they can find that directly at the top of the home page. The easier it makes a user find the information they’re looking for, the better the chance the person will return to the site for other information they need.
One of the best things I think CNN did with their site was to prominently feature a developing area of news coverage: participatory journalism. Just under the featured story on the left side of the page, the site gives readers the ability to participate in their coverage, called i Reports. The small box features a red font color and a bold headline to draw attention to it. This section gives the user the ability to send their pictures and video, and even comment on CNN’s coverage. One of the best features, I think, of their i Reports is the section called “Editor’s Notes” under the section heading “Sound Off: Your Comments” on the i Report section’s main page. It gives readers the ability to comment, and then get a response from an editor. I think that too many times people give their opinions about coverage or stories, but never even find out if the site or newspaper even got their comments, let alone see if anything has been done about it. I believe that this leads to people not bothering to send in their comments about something they read or saw because there’s no return on their efforts. This site is the first I’ve seen with so many opportunities for the readers/ users to participate in their own news coverage, and feel like their opinions are being heard.
The main page also displays a list of stories that are featured in the different sections’ main pages. They are listed closer to the bottom of the page, but a great short-cut if you’re looking for something specific, but know only what subject matter the story deals with, like a story on a development in space technology would be found under the “Science and Space” section. Also listed with the stories under each stories are buttons that let the user choose what kind of content they want to find. A user can find videos under almost every section heading, while for other sections, they could be linked to an outside site that can give them more coverage of that particular topic area. Under the business section, there are links to CNNMoney.com, and under “Technology,” a user can link to the “Fortune” magazine site and the “Business 2.0” site. It says to me that it is more important to give people the information they need, even if it means sending them elsewhere. Four of these sites, “Time,” “Entertainment Weekly,” “Sports Illustrated,” and “CNNMoney” are listed at the bottom of the page, with all of the stories that are prominently featured on their home pages.
A final thing I really like about the home page is that you can perform a search specifically on CNN.com or over the entire internet, all from the two boxes on the page. These search boxes are conveniently located at the very top and very bottom of the page.
One of the things I like the most was the way that the individual stories were laid out. I was most impressed by both the “Story Highlights” and additional materials that are listed on the page with the story. The “Story Highlights” box is prominent at the top of the page, before the beginning of the story in a red, bold box, and gives a reader three of the most major pieces of information to the story. Also, along the right side of the page, usually underneath the story’s accompanying photo, is a vertical group of boxes that list “Advertiser Links,” “Video,” and “Related” stories. In the “Video” box, that isn’t listed with all stories, but most, a user can also search for videos or browse through CNN’s collection of videos from a link in the border of the box. I really like this feature of the site. They group all, or at least most, of the information that a user might need to fully understand the story, the facts, and the story’s connection to any related archival stories. They also do this within some of the stories. One story, “Questions remain in whale shark death,” had a lot of accompanying information and other items that helped a user understand all the facts of the story. In the “Story Highlights” box at the top of the page listed four sentences total, with the first two marked as “New” in bold print which helps those who have been following the story get to the newest information without having to go through all of the old. There is a link to a video of an interview with an official at the aquarium the shark, Ralph, lived, listed under “Videos” on the left column of the page. Underneath the video box, in the related materials box, are two interactive guides, one a guide to whale sharks in general, and another to the Georgia Aquarium where Ralph lived. Also, there are three links to other stories that have something to do with the major parts of the original story. I really liked seeing that within the story, when they wrote about whale sharks in general, they put a link in parentheses right after the last sentence in the paragraph that said, “Learn more about whale sharks,” and then again in the following paragraph, when they wrote about the necropsy (an animal autopsy), they put in a link that lead to a video titled, “Watch how the aquarium will learn from Ralph.”
The biggest thing that I didn’t like about the site is that some pages seemed to be overlooked and some of the boxes they put in on the sections’ homepages for features within the site had nothing to do with the section at all. The page for the weird news of the day, “Offbeat,” was very sparse and had only a few items on it. When I clicked onto the section’s main page, the only items were stacked against the left side of the page. The largest section of the page was at the bottom, when they list past dates and the stories that were “offbeat” on those days, but the top of the page was seriously lacking in content. Also, while I was exploring the site, I went to the International page, where I found a box that said, “Your Emails: What the Dems should do; for the first time in 12 years, the Democrats are in control of both houses of the U.S. Congress.” First, I’m not sure what the point of the box is. Where does this link lead me? What is the point of clicking on it? Will it be a page where I’m able to send an email saying what I think they should do, or should I write about what I think about the Democrats being in charge? There needs to be a bit more of an explanation about why someone should click on the link and what makes it more important than other content. Also, it seems to be in the wrong place. I know that many people across the world are probably watching our country’s politics closely, but I doubt many people care enough or are knowledgeable enough to feel they should write something. I would think this would belong on the U.S. section page. At the very least, put it on both of the pages, since it wasn’t on the U.S. page at all, only on the international page. If I were an international reader, I think I would be somewhat disappointed. They have the ability to change the language the site appears in, but there are only four languages listed: Arabic, Japanese, Korean, and Turkish. Why isn’t Spanish listed? What about Italian, French, Russian, or German? Does the site expect people from countries besides the ones where those four are the main language spoken to know English well enough to be able to read it in English? I don’t understand why more languages wouldn’t be listed. I like the ability to change it to suit the user’s linguistic needs, but they really need to expand the available languages to include the majority of the world.
Overall, I really like CNN.com. I think it is a great site with a lot to offer any user. It is a one-stop-shop for information about breaking news, and also a place to find out how this story fits into the overall general scheme of the topic and how it fits into a user’s life. I think they have some really great ideas with the way they organize both the main page and each section’s page. They all lend themselves to usability and to making reading news online a lot easier for everyone. There are a few things I don’t like, and it sometimes seem like they are more an American news provider than an International one, but overall, the site is a good one and definitely one I would use again for any future research into a news story.
Overall, I think that the main page is laid out very well. I like that one story is placed with prominence on the right side of the page with pictures and links to the full story, another story that relates to the original story, and some video content. However, I don’t like the way they list the other stories they feature prominently on the top of their home page, under “Latest News: Top Stories”. All that is listed is the title of the article, but nothing else. I couldn’t figure out what many of the stories were about, and if I should even bother clicking on them to find out. I prefer what they do on other sites, when they list at least the lead to the story or a single sentence summary to entice a reader to click on the link for the story. I do like how they list the most popular stories on a tab that is shown behind the one for “Top Stories,” but again, the list of the stories’ headlines are very sparse and don’t really lead to any idea of what the article is really about.
At the very top of the page, the site lists all of their sections, along with some of their most popular shows, which makes it that much easier for someone to navigate through their site. If they see something on “Lou Dobbs Tonight,” they can go to the site and immediately find the show’s page at the top of the home page. Also, if they’re only looking for stories that deal with a specific topic, like “Analysis” of the day’s politics, they can find that directly at the top of the home page. The easier it makes a user find the information they’re looking for, the better the chance the person will return to the site for other information they need.
One of the best things I think CNN did with their site was to prominently feature a developing area of news coverage: participatory journalism. Just under the featured story on the left side of the page, the site gives readers the ability to participate in their coverage, called i Reports. The small box features a red font color and a bold headline to draw attention to it. This section gives the user the ability to send their pictures and video, and even comment on CNN’s coverage. One of the best features, I think, of their i Reports is the section called “Editor’s Notes” under the section heading “Sound Off: Your Comments” on the i Report section’s main page. It gives readers the ability to comment, and then get a response from an editor. I think that too many times people give their opinions about coverage or stories, but never even find out if the site or newspaper even got their comments, let alone see if anything has been done about it. I believe that this leads to people not bothering to send in their comments about something they read or saw because there’s no return on their efforts. This site is the first I’ve seen with so many opportunities for the readers/ users to participate in their own news coverage, and feel like their opinions are being heard.
The main page also displays a list of stories that are featured in the different sections’ main pages. They are listed closer to the bottom of the page, but a great short-cut if you’re looking for something specific, but know only what subject matter the story deals with, like a story on a development in space technology would be found under the “Science and Space” section. Also listed with the stories under each stories are buttons that let the user choose what kind of content they want to find. A user can find videos under almost every section heading, while for other sections, they could be linked to an outside site that can give them more coverage of that particular topic area. Under the business section, there are links to CNNMoney.com, and under “Technology,” a user can link to the “Fortune” magazine site and the “Business 2.0” site. It says to me that it is more important to give people the information they need, even if it means sending them elsewhere. Four of these sites, “Time,” “Entertainment Weekly,” “Sports Illustrated,” and “CNNMoney” are listed at the bottom of the page, with all of the stories that are prominently featured on their home pages.
A final thing I really like about the home page is that you can perform a search specifically on CNN.com or over the entire internet, all from the two boxes on the page. These search boxes are conveniently located at the very top and very bottom of the page.
One of the things I like the most was the way that the individual stories were laid out. I was most impressed by both the “Story Highlights” and additional materials that are listed on the page with the story. The “Story Highlights” box is prominent at the top of the page, before the beginning of the story in a red, bold box, and gives a reader three of the most major pieces of information to the story. Also, along the right side of the page, usually underneath the story’s accompanying photo, is a vertical group of boxes that list “Advertiser Links,” “Video,” and “Related” stories. In the “Video” box, that isn’t listed with all stories, but most, a user can also search for videos or browse through CNN’s collection of videos from a link in the border of the box. I really like this feature of the site. They group all, or at least most, of the information that a user might need to fully understand the story, the facts, and the story’s connection to any related archival stories. They also do this within some of the stories. One story, “Questions remain in whale shark death,” had a lot of accompanying information and other items that helped a user understand all the facts of the story. In the “Story Highlights” box at the top of the page listed four sentences total, with the first two marked as “New” in bold print which helps those who have been following the story get to the newest information without having to go through all of the old. There is a link to a video of an interview with an official at the aquarium the shark, Ralph, lived, listed under “Videos” on the left column of the page. Underneath the video box, in the related materials box, are two interactive guides, one a guide to whale sharks in general, and another to the Georgia Aquarium where Ralph lived. Also, there are three links to other stories that have something to do with the major parts of the original story. I really liked seeing that within the story, when they wrote about whale sharks in general, they put a link in parentheses right after the last sentence in the paragraph that said, “Learn more about whale sharks,” and then again in the following paragraph, when they wrote about the necropsy (an animal autopsy), they put in a link that lead to a video titled, “Watch how the aquarium will learn from Ralph.”
The biggest thing that I didn’t like about the site is that some pages seemed to be overlooked and some of the boxes they put in on the sections’ homepages for features within the site had nothing to do with the section at all. The page for the weird news of the day, “Offbeat,” was very sparse and had only a few items on it. When I clicked onto the section’s main page, the only items were stacked against the left side of the page. The largest section of the page was at the bottom, when they list past dates and the stories that were “offbeat” on those days, but the top of the page was seriously lacking in content. Also, while I was exploring the site, I went to the International page, where I found a box that said, “Your Emails: What the Dems should do; for the first time in 12 years, the Democrats are in control of both houses of the U.S. Congress.” First, I’m not sure what the point of the box is. Where does this link lead me? What is the point of clicking on it? Will it be a page where I’m able to send an email saying what I think they should do, or should I write about what I think about the Democrats being in charge? There needs to be a bit more of an explanation about why someone should click on the link and what makes it more important than other content. Also, it seems to be in the wrong place. I know that many people across the world are probably watching our country’s politics closely, but I doubt many people care enough or are knowledgeable enough to feel they should write something. I would think this would belong on the U.S. section page. At the very least, put it on both of the pages, since it wasn’t on the U.S. page at all, only on the international page. If I were an international reader, I think I would be somewhat disappointed. They have the ability to change the language the site appears in, but there are only four languages listed: Arabic, Japanese, Korean, and Turkish. Why isn’t Spanish listed? What about Italian, French, Russian, or German? Does the site expect people from countries besides the ones where those four are the main language spoken to know English well enough to be able to read it in English? I don’t understand why more languages wouldn’t be listed. I like the ability to change it to suit the user’s linguistic needs, but they really need to expand the available languages to include the majority of the world.
Overall, I really like CNN.com. I think it is a great site with a lot to offer any user. It is a one-stop-shop for information about breaking news, and also a place to find out how this story fits into the overall general scheme of the topic and how it fits into a user’s life. I think they have some really great ideas with the way they organize both the main page and each section’s page. They all lend themselves to usability and to making reading news online a lot easier for everyone. There are a few things I don’t like, and it sometimes seem like they are more an American news provider than an International one, but overall, the site is a good one and definitely one I would use again for any future research into a news story.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
