I'm trying to find something I once wrote that I thought was rather witty. In that process, I also found this post I made to CAJ-L, an email discussion list for journalists, on June 3, 1997. I thought it might be worth revisiting, given that Canada is currently in election mode.

Based on last night, the web has a long way to go before it can challenge TV for
delivering election information.

In fact, it won't happen until we have web-based TV.

When we're able to meld the interactivity of the web with the full audio and
video of TV, then we'll have something.

But let's talk about the web as it exists now.

CBC's web site <http://www.cbc.sympatico.ca> wasn't keeping up with TV in terms
of updating election data. In terms of running commentary, forget it. Where it
did have a natural advantage was the aforementioned interactivity: allowing me
to select the ridings I was most interested in. It had some good links to
background info on each riding. But in other ways, it was disappointing. It used
the same text on different pages and didn't really update that much. For
example, the home page was still telling me at 10:30 p.m. that CBC couldn't
release any election results until 8:30 p.m. Argghhh!!

I can't comment too much on CTV's online partnership with MSN Canada
<http://www.ctv.ca.msn.com), because it repeatedly crashed my browser after
logging in -- twice in Netscape and once in Internet Explorer. There was no
fourth time. I got the message I wasn't welcome there.

Of the two major print sites, Canoe <http://www.canoe.ca> let me get to the
information the quickest. Canada.com <http://www.canada.com> required a bit more
navigation which slowed things down. It should have had an election hot button
on its home page. I did like the design of the Edmonton Journal's online section
(accessible through Canada.com).

But here's a minor quibble from this morning. Take this lead:

>SHAWINIGAN, Que. -- Jean Chretien faces some tough questions about his ability
>to continue leading the Liberal party and the country as his much-sought after
>second majority government remained very much in doubt.

That was on the Journal site this morning at 9:40 a.m. MDT. We know the Libs
kept their majority. The question is, should that story have been updated for
the web? Is there some technical reason why it can't be? Is it economically
unfeasible?

My criticism is from an outsider's and consumer's perspective, but it seems to
me the web speeds the news cycle up considerably, and if you aren't offering
up-to-the-minute news like the other *broadcast* media, you won't build an
audience.

Considering it's not primarily a news service but an Internet directory, Yahoo!
Canada <http://www.yahoo.ca> did a good job of posting summary information and
stories.

Interestingly, I could find G&M-generated copy on Yahoo before I could find it
on the Globe site.

The Globe wanted to use PointCast to deliver ongoing election news, but since I
own a Mac, that counted me out. PointCast Canada hasn't released a Mac version
of its software. While the Globe posted a results table, there was no fresh copy
on the site itself when I crashed (as a biological entity, not my computer).

While I'm not tuned in as to how technically difficult this would be, I'm
surprised no one used any scrolling Java banners to deliver headline news. Such
"push" technology is supposed to be all the rage.

Those are some preliminary observations. Anyone else have some thoughts on this?

Bill Doskoch
Edmonton, AB