As a Washington native, I’m naturally choosing to blog about the The Seattle Times. Not only is the Times a source of award winning journalism but is also cheap to subscribe to, which as a college student I am more than grateful for!
I really enjoyed the bridge piece. I found the commentary amusing and the use of visuals fantastic. I thought the visuals told more of the story than the text did, in fact; the commentary was cute but it was the three photos that sold me- they really made me feel like I had climbed the bridge, too. The video was also well done. The GoPro footage was admittedly unnerving but it was fun to see a bird’s eye view of a bridge I’m very familiar with. For an article of this nature (i.e. documenting an excursion), I found the use of media right on target.
That brings me to the second piece. I have absolutely no knowledge of seismic monitoring and even I could follow what the author was talking about; I thought she did a great job of presenting complicated information in an easy to understand fashion. I do wish she had employed more visuals, however. The two graphics she included were helpful because they let you visualize the project she was referencing, but they weren’t enough for such a text-heavy post. I got lost in the middle, which I think could have been avoided by adding more visuals. I would have liked to see more photos or even more graphics to break the article up and make it more web friendly.
For a first look, the Times is off to a good start. Not bad, Seattle, not bad!