Entertain me, news monkey

As fickle as I am, I'm terribly laid back. However, lately I've been starting to sit up a little more. I've been content with the way news web sites have been laid out for years. After all, why expect anything different? That's how they've always been, that's how they will be, so what's the big deal? The "big deal" is that news sites seem content to be among the worst-designed sites in Internet existence to-date. The more I think about this, the more I'm not fine with this happening. I'm not okay with it, because the Internet, thought to be the newspaper killer, will be killed itself by the next new medium unless it forces a change upon itself.

The death of newspapers, exaggerated though it may be, has become a great example for contemporary forward-thinking journalists to see how a lack of innovation breeds contempt, and if you want a product people want, you need a product that people will want. (Shocking, isn't it? Despite reporting on the entire world, sometimes the journalism world doesn't quite grasp how people work.) Television has been fortunate enough to have the unfortunate problem of needing constant innovation to hold on to people's attention spans. Over the past few decades, the entire news lineup has changed, from Block A being US/Intl, Block B being local, to now leading with local for both blocks and using outside stories when absolutely warranted.

The popular Internet, though, is still a little bit new. For me, personally, "the Internet" really started in full force after Matt Drudge posted a canned Newsweek piece by Michael Isikoff outlining an affair then-President Clinton had with a intern. That was 1998. This is 2009. So if the popular Internet is 11 years old, how much can we know about life cycles and how often we need to change things up to keep people interested?

So far, we don't know. Not quite. With the Internet ever evolving, thanks in part to blogs and social media networks, the life cycle of the Internet can be hypothesized, but has yet to be concretely proven. We know it moves fast. Real fast. A web site needs to be re-designed every 1-2 years to keep from getting stale, we know that. (A concept that The Drudge Report has never listened to, and insists on providing its tabloid links in the most 1992-way possible.)

We know the Internet evolves, and that news needs to change, you are thinking. But what does this have to do with news on the web dying? What it means is that over the past few years, news sites have not changed that much. Look at industry leader CNN.com, for example, in the year 2000. The layout, the boxes, the labels, everything looks like a template that could and probably is being used today. Is that, in itself, a bad thing? No... However, if you look at news web sites in multiple markets (like I do), there's not a whole lot of difference. In content, in layout, and not a whole lot of difference between the year 2000 and now. The corners are cleaner, there's the ability to comment on stories. Has the medium fundamentally changed? I'd argue that it hasn't.

And yet, we use the news on the Internet. Because it is the best medium we have... for now. Until it becomes obsolete and irrelevant, like radio, or at least, half as relevant as it once was, like newspapers. Is there hope? I'm not sure. All the creative types have fled the "regular" web to work on applications for mobile devices. There is some true innovation in how news is displayed on these challenging pocket devices. But on a larger canvas, like a 800x600 monitor? Innovation has long stalled.

I've long lamented that most newspaper front pages look the same. More editors are concerned with cookie-cutter designs that their copy editors can quickly throw together, rather than creating a display that is actually engaging and interesting. Newspaper design has become a science, rather than an art. Same thing, I fear, is happening to the web. If Newseum were to archive the front pages of all news web pages, I'm sure we would easily see how similar they are all to each other as well. It would be easier to see how the cookie cutter has started to destroy the innovation, the displays that the Internet can so easily provide.

This may make me a cranky, hypocritical curmudgeon, but I'll still continue to go to news web sites, if only because they are a fast and efficient method. The difference between them and the rest of the web is, I like visiting other web sites, I feel a need to visit news sites. I'm looking forward to a day when the innovators come back to the main Internet and put their heads together to create a new system of disseminating news. To paraphrase the Black Eyed Peas (see? There's some keyword search optimization going on there.), sites like Facebook and Twitter are so 3008, news web sites are so 2000 and late.

--- If you happen to see a visually compelling news web site, one that isn't a cookie-cutter of an existing web page (or decade), please let me know, either in the comments, or Twitter me a mention: @charlesjurries. Thanks.

Make use of your space

Web sites are being redrawn. For mobile applications, Blackberry and iPhone users can now enjoy content in a new type of web site that best utilizes the screen and design of their device. However, what does the desktop user get?

A web optimized for the smallest screen possible.

I realize the web isn't quite ready to go widescreen yet. It wasn't until this spring that I upgraded from my old CRT to a flat panel display, at 1440x900. While my desktop wallpaper looks amazing in widescreen, and I can watch HD shows that fill up my monitor nicely, the rest of the internet is not a particularly incredible experience. I can get used to viewing content on the left hand side of my monitor just fine. In fact, most times, I don't think twice about that.

That doesn't mean it should be fine.

If we can optimize the web experience for a tiny phone, web developers, how about the "regular" internet? I know technologies exist that'll add or subtract widgets based on the detected monitor resolution. Why isn't this become more commonplace? I have all this real estate available on my screen. Shoot, this text editor I'm using to write this blog post only covers about half the width of my screen.

This is my hope for the future of web: That web sites will become smart enough that they will have a fixed site size (for the smallest of small monitors, the ones that they cater to today), but then, based on browser and window size, widgets (added content) will be added (or subtracted). I have this nice widescreen monitor. I'd like the internet to be able to do something with it.

EDIT: Yes, I understand the irony, considering how small my blog's width is.

Video Mystery Shops

I was cruising through my local craigslist, seeing what was happening, when I came across an ad for a "Video Mystery Shopper." The job would have one entering a place of business with a tiny concealed camera and secretly videotaping an employee using customer service techniques. The employee's superiors would then use that videotape to show the employee how to improve their job performance.

While I'm sure this is hardly a new occurrence, it freaks me out a little. Who would go out of their way to conceal a camera on themselves to secretly record a conversation, knowing full well it will go towards a tedious review? No matter what employers have you sign when you get hired, that kind of practice just freaks me out a little. 

I'm sure later I'll look at this post and be like, "man, I just didn't get it then," but, for right now, that seems really tricky and devious. 

Reporter survives zombie attack

On Oct. 30, 2008, Rob Bliss continued his mass social experiments in downtown Grand Rapids by staging an attempt to beat the world record for the largest zombie walk. 

The event itself was fun, if not disturbing to see large masses of 'zombies.' Many of whom were very much decked out as the "realistic," kind of scary zombies. It was not for those lacking any imagination or a sense of humor. (For those who had both, it was still unsettling.) 

Now, I don't necessarily want to make this news report a big deal. (Those who know me, and news channels, and my internship at Unnamed Media Company, know why) However, I felt terrible for reporter Elizabeth Erwin. Watch the video. Blog continues after.

Did you see that at the end of the video? They fade out as the creepy happens. Look again:

A ZOMBIE WAS PAWING AT HER HAIR. 

A ZOMBIE WAS PAWING THROUGH HER HAIR.

I was there as she was reporting and briefly spoke to her afterwards. She laughed a little about the live shot, how unique and different it was, and how it's nice to be able to cover something not tragic once in a while. 

That said, I certainly have not been trained for this kind of thing in journalism school. And I don't think you can be.

Creepy Lego Invades Amsterdam, says "No Real Than You Are"

"No Real Than You Are" is apparently a term of introduction among the giant LEGO people, as that's how one 8-foot-tall giant introduced himself to the Dutch the other day. He is friendly and smiles and now pretty much just stands there like the guardian angel that he is.

Major news sites report Saddam's death

Yes, this is infringing on Delta's territory. But I made that site a no-humor-zone when I created this blog, so, this will go here. And why am I justifying all of this, anyways? Am I that insecure that I need to explain what I'm posting, and where? Whatever. Anyways, I took some screen grabs of some of the different news sites out there, shortly after we got confirmation that Saddam Hussein had been executed for war crimes against humanity. Here are the results:

ABC News is the most simple and restrained, not making a huge deal out of the fact that a mentally-unstable tyrannical dictator was hung for crimes against humanity.

The next is CNN, which has by far the most dignified graphic for a brutal dictator EVER. Also, what a compelling sub-headline: "Witness: It's over, Hussein's dead." That doesn't even invite me to read the summary of the article. After all, "It's over," so, what's the point? Let's just leave the site already, it's over.

NBC News/MSNBC managed to get a picture of Saddam Hussein looking slightly surprised. Surprise! You're DEAD!

Yahoo! managed to convey a more appropriate anger for a man of such dissalussioned calibar: anger. He's so angry that he was executed, he's moving his hand sooo fast that it appears blurry in the picture. All in all, it's not too tacky, and not too respectful (That's right, CNN. I'm talking to you!)

Using the power of Photoshop, the new CBS News can tell a story in a single graphic. Let's see, we have the Iraqi flag, a noose and Saddam Hussein. Um, um... Saddam's going to kill an Iraqi? No, he's already done that. Let's see here. Um... Oh, I know! He was executed! Alright, I'll give myself a pat on the back now.

This is seriously the. best. graphic. ever. HANGED! the red headline screams, as old skulls and bones beckon Saddam to join them in the grave. HANGED! the headline screams, as the former dictator gives that same surprised look as he gave to MSNBC.com. HANGED! the former dictator was.

That's all I have for now. Talk to you later!