WHAT THEY DID RIGHT, WRONG, AND MISSED
The New York Times says it starts coverage of the DNC at 7pm EST. but in reality the REAL live blogging didn’t hit off until the end of VP Biden’s speech.
For better or for worse the editors, staffers, and blogging experts of the Times barely skimmed over speeches made by Scarlett Johansson, Caroline Kennedy, and Eva Longoria (just to name a few). Albeit I understand the ‘celebrity’ aspect Scarlett and Eva brought to the conference might not have been a Clint Eastwood spectacle.
But their speeches mattered.
They spoke to a generation that’s desolate about what their futures might hold, students that are caving under loans and interest rates, and women who don’t want ownership of their bodies questioned or disputed. The Times lack of acknowledgement was disappointing to me and anyone else that was following them along since 7!
They did get some things right though. They updated regularly once President Obama came on. Most times taking a little over 5 minutes to catch up with the live feed (annoying, but understandable). Something I learned I have a love-hate relationship with was the effusive commentary.
Following any event on Twitter, especially the DNC, means you get a bit of wit and the facts all under 140 characters. Following the DNC through live blog is a lot different. The editors expressed their opinions thoroughly. It took some getting used to.
MULTIMEDIA – GRADE A
The NY TIMES has a nice post-DNC multimedia roundup.
I looked through a few multimedia pieces because it took me a while to find the 3rd day roundup. I enjoyed them all. The Times knows how to vet what images or video are worth their own piece. The images of DNC- backstage were great, the black and white really gave it a serious, thought provoking mood. The images of the last day of the DNC showed movement and emotion, which is what the speakers and President Obama wanted to provoke.