the scoop on politico

When Looking at Politico.com the first thing that I noticed was how efficiently the website was laid out. The website greets the reader with a large headline for their front page article of the day along with a picture used to draw your attention. There is a menu bar as well at the top which leads the viewer to different portions of the site such as headlines, policy, video, click, and arena. I think that this bar is effective; however, they could make their titles for some of the areas more clear. Areas such as, “click,” and “arena,” are confusing to someone who is unfamiliar with the site. I wonder though if they purposely did this to draw viewer intrigue to click on the selections and further explore the website. I noticed that at the top there are thee very subtle search bars where it states, “search by author, date, or keyword.” I think that this is a great addition to the site because it allows for a reader to easily access articles by their favorite author, and makes it easier to find a specific article that they wanted to show to others. A missed opportunity that I noticed was that when the viewer clicks on one of the above tabs that it takes them to a page that literally is only the title of an article and then annotated portion of it and then the reader can choose to click on the title to view the whole article. (http://www.politico.com/arena/) I think that this is poorly laid out because and definitely does not appeal to my generation. I feel that unfortunately websites and articles really have to draw their reader’s attention now for them to even consider reading and this does not cut it. There is nothing that makes the articles look appealing and I am not drawn to read it. It almost feels as if they spent their entire time making the front page great and then just thought that that would be good enough. The creators of this site should spend more time with the actual substance of their site than just the front page, “glamour,” portion

Qadddafi Reps Visited China in Attempt to Buy Arms

Hey guys, I read some articles yesterday from Fox News, The New York Times, and the Huffington Post  that reported the ex Libyan dictator Moammar Qaddafi had sent his representatives to bid to buy arms from China. The Chinese government did confirm that the representatives were there but have also claimed that no arms have been sent and that they refuse to cooperate with Qaddafi. What makes this more controversial is that the Rebel Military Spokesman in Libya claims that there have been arms have been shipped through Algeria to Qaddafi's forces from Chinese companies. The articles I read were all pretty similar, they each presented the story in the same way, the only difference was that the article from Fox News was much shorter than the articles from the New York Times and the Huffington Post. The New York Times and Huffington Post were at least twice as long and contained more quotes. I definitely want to continue reading about this because no definite conclusion has been made of whether China has been aiding Qaddafi or not. Something that I thought was pretty interesting was the tone of the articles. It seemed as if the writers, while writing a report, also seemed to write as if they believed China is definitely aiding Qaddafi. They brought up the fact that before the revolts took place that China was a regular supplier of arms to Qaddafi and so it seems as if the reporters believe it is definitely possible that their relationship is still ongoing. I enjoyed reading all of the articles and they were all very well written, but if I were to put stock into one of them as the best, it would be the one from the New York Times. I felt it had the most information about the topic and had multiple quotes from both sides of the argument.