My first idea, unfortunately, seems to be falling kind of flat. I haven't found much research on changing standards for news thanks to the Web, though I have considered just doing a lot of interviews with editors.
That said, I'm considering a new route: a study comparing traditional media coverage of major natural disasters versus Web 2.0 coverage of similar disasters. For example, Hurricane Katrina would be a great case study to compare with, say, Hurricane Andrew.
This study analyzed what words popped up on the Internet during a certain time frame to determine whether the natural disasters were a heavy topic of discussion.
I want to find out what people consider a reliable news source in a time of crisis. Are the displaced going to wait for the newspaper the next day? Are people in Ohio with family in New Orleans going to wait for something to come on television? Unlikely. I think people are going to the Internet in droves to get this information.
The real topic that my research should address, though, is how media changed the way they covered these natural disasters with new tools at their disposal.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment