Once you've read a story, would you ever click on the same news produced from a different source? My guess is probably not. If it's a developing story you might follow it's progress, reading updates and follow ups. Perhaps you might even dig into the background of the story. But reading exactly the SAME breaking news from a different source? It's probably less likely.
I laugh every morning at the national paper's alternative stance towards a news item. What the Telegraph might report as 'Business lending down' will be seen in the Daily Mail as 'business crisis as stingy banks hoard money for secret holidays to the Maldives!...Oh, and you're going to die.'
But in terms of content, differing sources can rely on differing leads, thus highlighting crucial information others may have missed. For example, recently a company won a key contract in the North of England. Most nationals covered it, most locals covered it and most industry journals covered it. But only one article out of the whole bunch mentioned a plucky protester who planned to launch an appeal against the contract. ONE local article that could have quite easily been overlooked.
That is the advantage of automated media monitoring. Being alerted to crucial bits of information that a human eye can miss. If you really want to cover all angles, it has to be automated.
0 comments:
Post a Comment