There are some pretty clear differences between WTNH and ESPN. For example, WTNH seems to only post hard news and stories. ESPN, on the other hand, is very active about live scores and lighter stuff, as well as the hard news. As is the essence of sports, ESPN also posts speculative and analysis pieces. On Twitter, WTNH tweets a lead and then a bit link to their story. ESPN takes a little more casual approach to tweets, as well as tweeting facts and sometimes pictures of relevant athletes. In terms of comparison, WTNH is very similar to its twitter in tweeting news. On ESPN’s facebook ,they post mostly hard news, as opposed to the twitter which covers a lot more light stories and fun random stories.
Broadcasts are different between the text and video of a story on ESPN. Usually the video is related; something like an analysis of the same topic from an ESPN show such as SportsCenter. Also, quick recommendation, STOP WITH AUTOPLAY VIDEOS. It helps nobody, ESPN. Especially with auto-playing play list, because the next video is usually unrelated. In WTNH’s case, the broadcast matches video news to print news, but they do not simply post the script of the broadcast.
When it comes to WTNH’s website, it essentially does exactly what you would want from a news network. It tells the news. It is not flashy and does not really force anything. ESPN’s is a little different. As someone who has been using the website for a long time, I know where to look and how it works. That being said, it is incredibly crowded and almost unusable. There’s too much going on and it is hard to find anything. Thankfully, the search feature functions well, but it is still incredibly confusing. I almost exclusively use the app now, which is also a struggle to use in terms of loading time and crashing.
In terms of recommendations, WTNH: do not use that background banner on your site. That’s wasted real estate. ESPN, de-clutter, please, because that website went from approachable to atrocious overnight. Otherwise, WTNH and ESPN do essentially what they need. WTNH covers hard news objectively. ESPN covers sports and can keep it light, but also posts hard news where it needs to. Overall, they do a fine job of accomplishing an online presence.
Broadcasts are different between the text and video of a story on ESPN. Usually the video is related; something like an analysis of the same topic from an ESPN show such as SportsCenter. Also, quick recommendation, STOP WITH AUTOPLAY VIDEOS. It helps nobody, ESPN. Especially with auto-playing play list, because the next video is usually unrelated. In WTNH’s case, the broadcast matches video news to print news, but they do not simply post the script of the broadcast.
When it comes to WTNH’s website, it essentially does exactly what you would want from a news network. It tells the news. It is not flashy and does not really force anything. ESPN’s is a little different. As someone who has been using the website for a long time, I know where to look and how it works. That being said, it is incredibly crowded and almost unusable. There’s too much going on and it is hard to find anything. Thankfully, the search feature functions well, but it is still incredibly confusing. I almost exclusively use the app now, which is also a struggle to use in terms of loading time and crashing.
In terms of recommendations, WTNH: do not use that background banner on your site. That’s wasted real estate. ESPN, de-clutter, please, because that website went from approachable to atrocious overnight. Otherwise, WTNH and ESPN do essentially what they need. WTNH covers hard news objectively. ESPN covers sports and can keep it light, but also posts hard news where it needs to. Overall, they do a fine job of accomplishing an online presence.