When reading weather it be a blog newspaper or any other type of content,
Do you prefer just getting straight to the facts? Are you an information person
Do you prefer a more personal approach where you feel like you are getting to know the writer.
Just gimme the facts, ma'am, the facts, and cut the small talk. :shifty:
PS: welcome to the forums.
I like to read a mix – it's great to have articles that are just the unbiased facts, but at the same time it's also useful (particularly around sensitive issues) to know what the "opposition" are thinking, so sometimes it's also useful to have articles from that particular viewpoint. My only worry when I'm presented with an article that appears to be factual is whether it actually is. Sometimes it's obvious that an article has a particular editorial slant, and then you know to compensate for it. But if it's a site that you are less familiar with, it may not be obvious where on the spectrum it falls.
PS: welcome to the forums.
This is so true of many newspapers, which is why I never read them. I gave up newspapers around the mid-nineties and have never missed them.
<rant>It was so obvious they had an agenda with what they were writing. Sometimes they were writing about celebrities or public figures with such vitriol that the facts they were conveying were completely missed, and didn't even suit the story's stance.
You’d get vicious headlines, with accompanying photographs, designed to force an opinion upon the reader before the article had even been read. Then, once read, you’d wonder what the vitriol was about – unless of course you were the sort of person who was sucked in by it, and you’d form your opinions based on what The Sun, The Daily Mirror or the Daily Mail wanted you to think.</rant>
Unfortunately, it isn't just the print media that is like what you describe. Last night on "The Daily Show", John Stewart had a segment on the downfall of CNN, which used to call itself "The most trusted name in news." Now they are full of op-eds and segments that have little to do with news at all. To wit:
"Rockstar", "Street Talk" (which has little to do with the man on the street), "Your fifteen minutes are over".
Anyway the segment was hilarious but the humor was on the dark side, showing the public how far away from news reporting news media has grown.
I agree with your observation, but I wonder if I could amplify.
The fact is that newspapers (at least, the more sensational of them, which these days means nearly all of them) thrive on controversy. Where no controversy exists, they invent one. But they don't do that to push their own point of view. Their only interest is in stirring things up in order to engage the reader.
So, if you see a headline like "Fury over plans to cut school crossing patrol", it's not because the journalist or editors don't want the patrol to be cut. They really don't give a cuss. Nor is it because there is some pressure group out their that is genuinely furious over the cuts. It simply that the newspaper knows that the best way to attract readers is to engage them emotionally, and one way to do that is to make them angry.
I'm a former journalist myself, and I know how these things work. I've worked with editors who won't accept a story unless you make it controversial, however non-controversial the subject matter. So you edit the article, peppering in words like "anger", "outright opposition", "record-breaking", "make or break", "extreme right/left wing", and so on.
Unfortunately, the same attitude is now spreading to other media, including broadcast news and many news-based websites. Getting "just the facts, ma'am" is sometimes exceedingly difficult.
I like to read pages and articles that are written in context with the design of the website, something that really reflects the character of the person writing the piece. It's hard to read facts all day but a view colorful adjectives really add a lot to an article.
Usually, I prefer to read the two. It's better if a news has balance in all parts. One is facts. Facts are important and it's what makes a news so credible and worth-reading. The more facts that is presented means there's more "truth" in the news, right? On the other hand, a news must also be filled with bits of entertainment. The news can easily connect with the readers should the writer adds a bit of personal experiences. This technique can either add something special to the news or destroys its overall feel should it's done excessively.
I like both, need facts to believe information and then it is quite well if author gives his personal opinions and experience.
I think you have to tell a story, if you have a good story you have a good article, getting to know interesting details about someone is more intriguing than just a bland breakdown of facts. The idea is to keep the readers attention. If you can get them emotionally involved you've done your part.
I would definitely prefer articles which emphasis on providing facts. It should be short, sweet and to the point. All we need is the facts. no one has time to go through a descriptive article.
I would prefer to read the facts but at the same time it is better if a news has balance in all parts.
It really depends what I'm reading, if it's a book about html5 API, or something like that, then I would much rather have a personal touch to the content, otherwise it reads like a manual and no one wants to read a 200 page manual. On the other hand if I am browsing through the morning newspaper I usually just want to know the facts and skip "getting to know the author".
This may have something to do with how how long the content is. If you are in it for the long haul (a book) then you want to get to know the driver (the author). If you a just browsing through quickly then you don't care too much about the author because you have no emotional attachment.
It's a hard line to walk. I love to hear first hand experiences, but I don't like "fanboy" writing which completely disregards opposing viewpoints or spreads unsubstantiated rumors.
That reminds me of how I used to write stuff about my favorite singers back when I was in high school. As time went by, I kinda figured that I have to let that biased kind of writing go and start using a style that would enable people to share their own views instead of forcing them to go along with me and "fanboy" all day.
If its just a normal day and a daily weather report , i prefer facts only. But incase there has been a rainy day, or a storm came or alike, something unusual then i prefer details ofcourse:)
I want to get a feel for the writer.
I don't read major newspapers anymore. I just go to my favorite internet hangouts that are really active and get second hand news from them. It's far more interesting than boring facts without pictures.
Ok, so let's say I go to Yahoo! I see a headline about the country I live in and click on it. Oh boy, how exciting, a dispute over the Spratley Islands.
To get that personal dash of flavor, I just scroll right down to read the angry testosterone filled comments. Hmmmm, I just avoid sites like Yahoo! news.
This topic is now closed. New replies are no longer allowed.