Online News Knowledge Throwdown!

While at work, we at Cosmodrome sometimes want to know what is going on in the world beyond our carpet-walled cubicles. And occasionally we want harder hitting news than superstar bloggers like Ari Berman or even PageSix can offer us (Sca Jo said what? Kiefer’s doing karate in a bar again? Sweet.), though this happens less than we’d like you to think. Until iPods get their shit together and start to pick up broadcast news, we’re stuck with the only option of online news sources. At one point about a year ago I decided to analyze the way in which these sites have used headlines to rope in you and me and everyone we know.

The sites that I picked are CNN.com, Foxnews.com, and the BBC news site, for a bunch of different reasons. All are backed by well-trusted news organizations, in hopes to combat any claims of poor or shoddy reporting. CNN and Fox News are both cable news networks, both financially motivated and both claiming to be balanced politically, though Fox’s claim at being “fair and balanced” is total obvious horseshit. BBC was thrown in because it is the nationally funded news organization of Britain, not concerned with monetary gain, and located outside of the States.

I checked these sites 3 times a day for a week. I checked them at 9 am (morning nip/Irish coffee), noon (liquid lunch), and 6 pm (post-work happy hour!). I also only took stock of the main page, without any scrolling involved. This is because this is the first impression of what the site’s got to offer, or as is known in the news industry the “money shot." I then ranked all the stories I saw on a scale of 1-4. Category 1 is in depth coverage of a story. Category 2 is important news but without any snazzy supplemental graphics or commentary. Category 3 is somewhat newsworthy but without any sense of inflammatory urgency. Category 4 is the NY Post’s bread and butter.
Here’s a couple examples of these categories from each site:

GROUP 1
--CNN: “Homeland Secretary Confirmed (including Special Report)” (Feb. 15th)
--Fox News: “Beirut Blast Kills 10 (supplemental stories offered)” (Feb 15th)
--BBC: “Blast Targets Iraq’s Shia Muslims (supplemental stories offered)” (Feb 18th)

GROUP 2
--CNN: “Shiite-led Bloc Takes Majority in Iraq Assembly” (Feb. 17th)
--Fox News: “’Rising Tensions’: Syria and Iran Beef Up Intelligence” (Feb. 16th)
--BBC: “Iran to Aid Syria against Threats” (Feb 16th)

GROUP 3:
-CNN: “Skulls May Be Oldest Known Human Remains” (Feb 16th)
-Fox News: “Arlen Spector Has Hodgkin’s” (Feb 16th)
-BBC: “China Consumes Most, Report Says” (Feb 16th)

GROUP 4:
-CNN: “Extreme Skier Dies making Extreme Skiing Film” (Feb 16th)
-Fox News: “Mud Wrestling Soldier Kicked Out, Grandmother Says” (Feb 18th)
-BBC: “Vatican Offers Exorcism Lessons” (Feb 17th)

Here’s the breakdown of CNN.com’s 124 stories over the week:
-Group 1: 4 stories (3%)
-Group 2: 36 stories (29%)
-Group 3: 35 stories (28%)
-Group 4: 49 stories (39.5%)
Breakdown of FoxNews.com’s 204 stories
-Group 1: 2 stories (1%)
-Group 2: 82 stories (40%)
-Group 3: 55 stories (27%)
-Group 4: 65 stories (32%)
BBC only had 114 stories, and the breakdown is:
-Group 1: 1 story (1%)
-Group 2: 66 stories (58%)
-Group 3: 35 stories (31%)
-Group 4: 12 stories (11%)

So what have we learned? CNN resorts to pulp the most at about 40%, but their top stores always fell under category 1 or 2. Plus, they may just be using the pap to pull you in, hoping you will check out all the rest of their archived content. Fox News had the most Jacko focused coverage, more than the other sites combined, with him catching the top story spot 3 separate times. They scored better on Category 2 heavy content, but the site itself didn’t provide all that much beyond their few top stories, convoluted/complicated archive, and a shit ton of ads for their shows. BBC did the best, perhaps proving that their accent doesn’t just make them seem smarter.

Even with all this knowledge throwdown, we at Cosmodrome will stick with our PageSix nine times out of ten. No attempts to trick or fool us. They just provide us exactly what we want how we want it. How else will we find out immediately about the newest celebrity sex tape? (If you know of any, send them to us immediately.)