Website analysis: NME.COM

a)HOW IS YOUR CHOSEN SITE STRUCTURED?
The website (which also comes in a USA-version which uses the same layout) uses a horizontal row of hyperlinks to the different sections of the website, some of these sections feature a 2nd row of hyperlinks underneath this navigation-bar that link to even more specific sub-sections.
Just above the main navigation bar we find the date, a link to the US-version of the website and a search field that allows users to search either the website or the web in general. The Op left is reserved for the (recognised) NME logo (Top-left is the first thing you see, after all) and the top right is filled by an ad-banner. The navigation bar helps users find what they want from the website fairly quickly, after all the whole point of hypertext is that it's selective, non-linear and enabling users to just go for the part that serve their needs without having to work their way though stuff they're not interested in.

The font page of NME.com features the latest updates from each section of the website, so the latest added news stories, the latest photos and videos added, the latest features, reviews, concerts announcements, blog-entries, etc. The front page also enables the user to log in (or sign up to) a SNS-type service called MyNME.

The bottom of the page features another navigation area, repeating the links in the top bar but also links to other websites run by the same publisher and to NME’s profiles on Myspace, Facebook, Twitter & Youtube.

These top and bottom navigation areas are the same on practically all pages of the website due to the use of a web-template. NME is a dynamic website as opposed to a static one as the website’s content is constantly updated.

b) WHAT IS IT ABOUT ON A CULTURAL LEVEL
The NME website clearly relies on the reputation, public image and heritage of the NME magazine. However, the website doesn't simply present itself as the web-presence of the magazine, but as the online home of NME as an institution in general. The publisher seems to be eager to expand the NME brand's values and reputation to mediums other than the magazine itself seeing as in recent years they have also launched an NME radio station and NME Television channel (both featured on the website with NME Radio being available online aswel). I would argue that this way they want to make the NME synonym with the type of music (alternative/indie) and associated culture it deals with. Obviously, the readers of the magazine and those familiar with the brand and familiar with the music and culture associated with it would be interested in the website and they appear to be the website's target audience. Young, somewhat well-educated, predominantly male. It uses the norms of the indie-culture and adresses the user appropiately, using somewhat specialist terms where required and expecting the user to know what they mean, thus expecting the users to have some basic knowledge about the subject. (Could be seen as a mild example of boundary maintenance? The process of keeping “those who don't belong in this group” out by using specialist terms they will not get. What do people think?)

Despite presenting itself as a somewhat “alternative” platform, the increase in interest from the general public in the indie genre means that it is now quite a lucrative business. And despite this “facade” it doesn't manage to hide the fact that it is in fact a commercial website. Not only NME's co-operation with other brands such as Shockwaves (for the awards) and quite often co-operating with music retailer HMV make this clear but the website also features quite a large amount of advertisments, some slightly more covert than others. For example, the 'store'-link in the top navigation bar appears to take the user to a sub-section of the nme.com but is actually hyperlink directly to a completely different website, an online shop. Also, an important feature of the website is the online concert-ticket store, which is featured not only in the “gigs & tickets” section of the navigation bar but is even featured on the front page. The “check availability” links in their own turn then take you directly to another website that sells concert tickets online, no doubt paying a commission to NME's publishers IPC Media. It is a clever way of making use of the way the NME brand has become associated with the musical genre itself. You can easily imagine somebody typing NME into google to find out where to get concert tickets to see their favourite band.

c)WHAT IS THE APPEAL FOR ITS USERS?
Obviously, because the website's brand and its particular subject seem so very much associated with each other it is an obvious starting point for those who are interested in the music and culture it deals with, but also for those who wish to find out more about it. The news stories on the website, which is solely related to indie music and associated popular culture and written by members of a dedication website-team, can be commented on by users, but no stories can be submitted so the website isn't an 'open' news source. A traditional news source instead then, which seems to be in line with the way IPC/NME aspire to display NME as the country's main media institution when it comes to indie/alternative popular culture. This will probably make the user, who is familiar with NME's reputation, think of the website as a reliable news source about the subject that can be trusted. But surely IPC/NME's commercial means must influence the site's news values and the way it applies gate-keeping when selecting which stories are covered (and how).

The website also offers a social networking type area where users can set up their own profiles, private message and discuss related subjects in the discussion forums provided, all this does seem to produce a type of online indie-community where the users can discuss aspects of it that may be too niche or specialist to be discussed on other more general music websites, even if the website is ultimately run by IPC Media/NME for commercial purposes. So I would imagine it could be assumed that the online community doesn't provide complete openness and freedom to the user.

Sadly Sadly SADLY, due to a fault in the website's system, I could not finish the registration-process in order to check out this interactive part of the website myself. I have been trying for several weeks now and even e-mailed the web team about it but it still doesn't seem to be working. Surely they must notice at some point that they don't have any new users registering to their website? Hmm.

Week 5 | Meikle: Indymedia and The New Net News

Para. 7-9 What do you think constitutes ‘news’ on the Web?


Well, the article claims that the internet “has led to a shift in how we recontextualise news around a much larger search for information”. I think the jist of this phenomenon is that the internet has significantly removed the "authority" of news services. Whilst before the audience would mainly use one source for their news-imput for different types of media (reading ONE newspaper and/or watching ONE TV news bulletin) the internet makes it very simple to look at different news sources and select the news stories they find interesting (and often click on those for a more in-depth analysis of the story) Also, news sources other than big established agencies can run news-services online. And, as I have said abut a lot of things on the internet, they can often report about news on very specific interests and for very specific communities. However, not all of the news sources online are reliable, in fact, ever idiot can start a website and declare themselves a news source. But following a combination of both types of news sources could be a good idea: using the open news sources to find out the latest events and checking the established (quality checked) news sources later to confirm their reliability.



Para 9 Are there ‘new kinds of journalist’ online? If so, how so?
I guess by new kinds of journalists we could mostly think about those who post on "open" news sources like Indymedia where, according to their website, anyone can post news stories and news-media:
"The content of the Indymedia UK website is created through a system of open publishing: anyone can upload a written, audio and video report or a picture directly to the site through an openly accessible web interface. Through this system of 'Direct Media', Indymedia erodes the dividing line between reporters and reported, between active producers and passive audience: people are enabled to speak for themselves. At bigger actions, Indymedia UK volunteers extend this participatory model by establishing 'Public Access Terminals' on the streets, and facilitating direct access to the technical equipment that enables participants to upload to the website."

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/static/mission.html

However, obviously, in a similar way as WIkipedia, nobody "owns" the content, but that also means that , really, there is nobody responsible for it, or it's genuinity. Anonymous posting of articles means that the produser's actions have no consequences for them. Therefore, I'd say that websites like Indymedia is a good way to get an idea of what is happening, but not to take anything for fact unless it has been confirmed by professional sources in a similar way in which Wikipedia is good to get "the jist" about something but relibale sources need to be checked before what WIkipedia states is in fact true.

Paras 14-15 Are those who want to make DIY news online, best thought of as part of an alternative culture (that also exists offline) or is it more diverse than that? Think of examples beyond Indymedia.
In all honestly I am somewhat struggling with this one, but I'll have a go at it. I think that news concerning news coverage on alternative (small) cultures is often going to mostly be covered by DIY (open) news sources simply because the stories are too specificaly bound to an area of interest to get the attention of larger news sources. Also, a small open news-platform specific to a culture or interest can set up their own set of news values that are suitable for the culture or interest/perspective it covers. I don't think it is solely bound to offline-cultures or even alternative cultures persé, as some open news sources do cover "general" news stores aswel (be it from a specific point of view) but particular alternative cultures can make good use of the open-news formula, after all, what is the point of being alternative bybeing a DIY news source if you don't bring a certain specific point-of-view or directness to the story, there isn't much that makes it different from other (so-called professional) news sources.

d) Para 18 Is open news quality news?
Well, it can be, there is just hardly any way of checking it. Therefore it's hard to tell whether or not something is or isn't a non-biased report and what the intentions of the DIY journalist were when they wrote it (and how much research actually went into writing it.) The changes in the formula of the website in 2002 do show the institution's own doubt of the quality-value of open-news though, as now stories that make the front page were selected to do so rather than just wacked onthere.

e) Para 19 Can open news ever be completely open? Do people take different (possibly unequal) roles in collaboration?
I can't ever see open publishing being completely open, as not all web-users can be trusted the websites do need constant checking and moderating. Anyone can contribute but different websites will always have their own rules, regulations and discourses on what is and what isn't considered suitable material to be on their website. For example, Indymedia themselves in their mission statement:

We aim to live up to the following principles:
-Indymedia United Kollektives works on a non-hierarchical basis
-we reject all systems of domination and discrimination
-we acknowledge that the struggle for a better world takes many forms.
-The focus of the Indymedia UK collective is on grassroots politics, actions and campaigns
-Indymedia United Kollektives does not have any ties with political parties or larger NGOs
-we understand that by lobbying there will be no radical change.
-As a collective our attitude is assertive, and where necessary confrontational

Discrimination is considered a big no-no, understandibly, and so is Indymedia not beig affiliated with any political parties, but it IS an ideology that it is not acceptable all the same. Also, how can you even check a produser's own ideologies and point-of-view and what exactly ARE the parameters of an unacceptible article (other than these two extreme examples)? Surely, it can't always be that simple to say what is own opinion and iseologies aren't always that easy to spot. Furthermore, where does moderating end and freedom of speech start?

Hmmmm, loads of stuff to think about here.