Friday, October 31, 2008

Razor blades and Three Muskateers

Halloween is Christmas morning for the pedophile.

As hoards of unrecognizable and often unsupervised children approach strangers doors, eyes widen as opportunity arises. The gleam from the thick pair of bifocals and meaty mustache that sits upon a smirking upper lip compliment the devilish desires that on this very night rise from the grave and attack the weary.

This Halloween, we take back the night.

Across the nation, different cities are issuing court rulings demanding registered sex offenders to hang "No Candy" signs on their front lawns. As the night often disguises the sex offender status, this is an extremely important decision.
"Maryland is one of a growing number of states that are expanding restrictions on sex offenders for Halloween, including required signage and curfews." (Dizikes,C. (2008, October 31)No Haloween for Marylands sex offenders. LA Times. Retrieved October 31st, 2008 from http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-pumpkin31-2008oct31,0,2115760.story)

Other states jumping on board include Missouri and Indiana. In regards to Missouri, they're dealing with this issue for the long term future, not necessarily this Halloseason.

"Federal judge Carol E. Jackson ruled Monday that a Missouri state law restricting the activities and mobility of sex offenders on Halloween was to be blocked pending linguistic restructuring." (Mumford-Zisk, B. (2008, October 29)No candy for you. The Spectrum)

As these two publications have portrayed similar material, they have definitely done so in different manners.

With The Spectrum, UB's very own newspaper, the article is found on page 2 on the designated editorial section. Since it's on the opinion page, it also issues the papers sentiments as well. Alongside the article is an opinion piece on race and voting, a list of the members of the newspaper, and an article dealing with airline ticket pricing.

With the online LA Times article we notice a significant difference. For one, if you didn't see the article on the front page, you'd have to search the site to find it. The article is a strict reporting piece, so it does it's best to serve no bias. The major factor that differentiates this online piece from print are the advertisements.

Right in the middle of the article are links to different Google sites dealing with sex offenders. On the sides we find links to the other sections of the paper, election sites, entertainment links, and even a picture of a dog, toting the site's member photography.

Online journalism is a giant advertisement with an article fit snuggly within the linking boarders. Print journalism remains focused on the topic and that alone.

Further delving into online details, we can look at this breakdown.

"Interactive options on Web sites can be subdivided into three types or forms: navigational interactivity (through 'Next Page' and 'Back to Top' buttons or scrolling menubars), functional interactivity (through direct mailto: -links, Bulletin Board Systems (BBS) and moderated discussion lists for example), or adaptive interactivity (offering chatrooms and personal customization through 'smart webdesign'; see Guay, 1995)." (http://www.firstmonday.org/ISSUES/issue6_10/deuze/index.html)

Print journalism remains strong because of the mom and pop and ocal citizens who want to read about their localized, sub-divided culture and area without any big-town bias or spin.

"And despite the world-wide reach of online media, that very world-wide reach dilutes the value of online to those constituents." (http://seekingalpha.com/article/30749-why-print-journalism-will-never-really-die)

Though both fields of journalism, those of online and print are worlds apart. Where does your allegiance lie?

Heres lookin at you Lackaff.


Labels: , , ,

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home