Journal Entry 3/13

Hey,

For this week's blog, I am going to start by comparing and contrasting a newspaper article online and a blog that talk about the same topic.

I chose Obama and his lift on Bush's reasearch restriction on stem cells.
Here are the two links to the websites I chose:

New York Times Article - http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/10/us/politics/10stem.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=obama%20and%20stem%20cell%20research&st=cse

AOI Blog - http://www.aoiusa.org/blog/2009/03/obama-stemcells/

In the New York Times article, the writer introduces the article by giving a description of the organization of the event that occurred (a presidential ceremony). In the blog, the writer introduces the subject by simply restating the title of the article.

In the New York Times article, the writer quotes the president and others that were interviewed. In the blog, the writer is writing his opinion on the affect of the President's decision without quoting any authorities or anyone for that matter.

In the New York Times article, the writer concludes the article with a powerful quote from senator. In the blog, the writer concludes the blog with his opinion of what his group should do about the President's decision on lifting the ban on stem cell research.

I found the New York Times article to be informative and extremely credible. I learned about the ceremony that took place and exactly what was going to happen in the future with stem cell research. I found the blog to not be as informative, and it was plagued with a bunch of opinions.

I feel that blogging can be just as effective as digital media print as long as the blog is supported by fact and not just a rant about a topic made of pure opinion. A good news blog needs a combination of opinion backed by fact with good organization and nothing that distracts the reader. A good online newspaper is needs a good writer that keeps the reader interested while not distracting him with typos and grammatical errors, also enough promotion for people to want to read the online article. Generally, I find the online newspaper more credible because of how it's written, I find them to be a little more professional and opinions are usually backed by facts (stats, graphs, quotes, etc.).

The research I just did does not support my original thesis because I found the article to be much more credible and informative than the blog (which makes it more effective and impacting to the newspaper industry). I would rate it:
2: Somewhat did not support my thesis.

After this research I would actually like to change my thesis... but I might just keep my thesis to see if I can back something I don't believe :)