Across The Atlantic: Some Thoughts on Effective Articles and Ineffective Multi-media Applications

Source: pentagram.com

The Atlantic magazine has always been on my reading radar, but I can’t honestly say that I am an avid reader. No—I don’t subscribe or even check the site out on a monthly basis, but I do find myself turning to The Atlantic when I want to read an article on a news story that I find utterly befuddling. I find that the magazine tends to publish articles that present comprehensive, even-keeled analysis of complicated topics that save me the burden of combing through a multitude of articles from other news outlets before gaining enough background and foreground on a subject to form my own opinion. Even better, in my experience The Atlantic stays well away from the zone of mere summary by publishing authors that are uniquely qualified or otherwise able to shed unexplored insight on a subject. Pair such revelations with excellent writing and topic comprehension and you’ve got, in my opinion, an article that is the perfect package deal.

James Fallows’ “How America Can Rise Again” seems to me to be a great example of The Atlantic’s ability to provide the whole package with its articles. Fallows begins by outlining, in case you’ve missed it, the basics tenets of the argument that America is newly on a slippery slope to hell. He includes a personalized narrative, excerpts of interviews and commentary informed, he tells us, from his own experience in politics—which all assist in ensuring that, though we are reading a summary of a topic, we don’t feel like we are reviewing old news. With the stage set and the arguments against America’s continuing prosperity clear, he moves on to critically evaluating these assumptions with the help of a wide array of other informed voices gleaned from a large number of interviews and research into applicable literature and history. Finally, refusing to leave us with all problem and no solution, he finishes the article by exploring our options, both through the authority of his personal narrative and continued consultations from expert sources.

Of course, one can’t forget the multi-media options that go along with this article on The Atlantic’s site: charts, video interviews and a link to a related article. These extras help to expand upon the analysis that Fallows offers, building new insight or perspective on the larger themes of the print article. The way the magazine uses these extra sources is my preferred practice when it comes to multi-media add-ons: they treat them as supplementary, completely non-mandatory but completely enlightening nonetheless. These digital offerings provide the reader with the option to expand their thinking on the subject but the article on the remains completely self-sustained—meaning that, whether you choose to clink on the “Interactive Graph” or not, you’ll still be getting a full, comprehensive read.

By the end of the article you’ve got a tight little package of information and insight—no need to look elsewhere for background info, perhaps inspired to keep reading on the topic elsewhere on the site. I finished this article feeling as though I had a much better grip on the reality of America’s standings as global, social and economic entities along with some new ideas and solutions to mull over.

It was interesting to follow up Fallows’ extensive article with Rhett Miller’s “About That Day.” I have never before read an article in The Atlantic (or on its website) that consists solely of a personal account of a significant event. The individual insight Miller delivers in this article is quite enlightening—after gaining all my information about 9/11 from generally analytic news articles and books, it is fascinating to read an eye-witness report of Manhattan in the minutes before and after the towers fell. This piece is highly intimate. Miller doesn’t attempt to link his experience to anyone else’s and (rightly, I think) avoids the inclination to attach his experience to a larger message about that day. Reading Fallows’ piece just before, by the time I finished “About That Day,” I found it refreshing to find that The Atlantic is a venue willingly harboring two such different kinds of writing. Rather than attempting to stay with one genre (either personal accounts or investigative articles), the magazine seems to be embracing the value of each form as informative, enlightening works of writing. 

In case you couldn't tell from his haircut and leather jacket, Rhett Miller wants you to know that he is a musician. Source: dedica.la   

 

            However, I am not so sold on the multi-media inclusions in “About That Day” as I am with “How America Can Rise Again.” When I saw that Miller is a musician, I assumed that we were provided with this information because his profession would deliver further insight into the topic on which he wrote, just as Fallows’ history of political involvement offered a valuable perspective to his article. But then I listened to Miller’s linked music video and by the time the 3.30 minute clip was over, I found myself deeply questioning the relevancy of the writers’ music to the testimony provided in the article. Whereas the multi-media options attached to Fallows’ piece offers further insight, Miller’s video offered . . . well, I really can’t come up with any valuable element it brought to the table, outside of a hefty dose of self-promotion. In regards to his article, what does it matter that Miller is a musician (outside of the fact that he lost his guitar in the disaster—just one personal item among millions gone that day)? What information are we given by watching a video of a song whose 3^rd verse may or may not have been influenced by 9/11? And what about the hokey disaster montages played over this acoustic tune? What does that sentimentalism offer us other than a forced reminder that the song is somehow connected to the destruction of the World Trade Towers? If the Fallows piece sums up effective multi-media usage, then, in my mind, Miller’s piece sums up that which is most ineffective. It is expository and irrelevant, an add-on with little other purpose than to provide a face to the text on the page. In my opinion, this piece would be just as strong without the music video—perhaps stronger if you are one to get offended by self-promotion placed under the guise of relevant reporting. My thought is typically that if an element of an article doesn’t provide a relevant purpose, either creative or informative, your only choice is to toss it. One benefit of these sorts of multi-media options, of course, is that it is the readers’ choice as to whether or not he or she takes the time to explore them. Yet, with a publication that clearly knows how to put such features to good use, I would expect a level of consistency in the value of the media they choose to include.