Okay, so, once again I have to say that although I've been keeping tabs on the 2008 election stories, there hasn't really been one big story that's caught my eye that I've read three or more articles on. And I'd hate to be trite and praise the NY Times (again, yeah, I'm sure you know...they're good), but...I'm going to anyway.
Check out the "Candidates on the Trail" interactive graphic on NY Times' online politics page. It's in the multimedia sidebar.
Like the Al-Qaeda attacks timeline that we discussed in class, the candidate campaign-stop map is a wonderful example of multimedia being used to tell a story in online journalism.
The graphic is a map of the United States with purple circles indicating where a presidential candidate has visited since 8/1/2007 (or any month you choose). The more visits a city has received, the bigger its circle. When you drag your mouse over a circle, a list pops up naming the candidates who have been to the city and the number of times they have visited.
It seems like an easy enough graphic to make, and I'm sure it is. But there's two things about the campaign visit map that I especially like: 1) it's incredibly easy to use, and 2) the rather simple visual tells an interesting story. The map shows which states the candidates are fighting over, and which ones they have deemed less important -- I assume because they are "very Red" or "very Blue" states, whose citizens have made up their mind on who they're going to vote for.
For example, the number of visits to:
Nebraska: 1 (Obama)
Kansas: 0
The Dakotas: 0
Actually, there hasn't been too many visits west of the Mississippi at all, except in California
The purple-ness of these states on the map tells a different story:
IOWA: Too many purples to count, unless you zoom in on the map three or four times
NEW HAMPSHIRE: The same as Iowa
SOUTH CAROLINA: Close behind the above two
You should really check out the map. It's kind of funny. Some states are covered in purple chicken pox. Some are completely bare.
The site also includes a list of upcoming presidential visits.
This map makes it easy to see which states are going to be the most prized next November, which states candidates are spending the most money on campaigning in. Take a look, especially if you're not too wise on the notion of swing-states.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Will,
Thanks for pointing this map out. I've seen the icon for it before but have never clicked on it. I liked that you described the map and why you liked to use it.
Don't forget that the reason New Hampshire and Iowa are full of "purple-ness" is because they are the first states to vote in the primaries. An even bigger story you might want to look at if your interested in this is the current problems involving the scheduling of primaries. Rumor has it that if Florida pushes up its date states might have to vote in December...
Just a little something to think about...
I like this purple chicken-poxed map as well. It's something so simple but is able to say so much. Props to the New York Times.
That map is really fantastic. Great example of finding the best way to tell a story. A list would have been far less effective. This really showed which states are more important to candidates... and it did it in an engaging way.
love iiiit. this maps intriguing. props to New Hampshire and Iowa for winning in visits, no surprise i guess.
even the states west of missippi need loving too, someone's gotta pull up the slack. i'm sure once the primaries are over the chicken pox map will change.
kudos for finding it.
Post a Comment