This post is another response to a blog assignment that will assess a famous, or infamous, recent trial’s coverage throughout the web.
This post will examine the case revolving around Oscar Pistorius.
A double amputee since age 11, Pistorius was charged with the murder of his girlfriend in South Africa.
Pistorius claimed that he thought his girlfriend was a late-night intruder and that the murder was accidental.
The South African court found Pistorius guilty of culpable homicide not murder; a charge that means that the murder, while still illegal, was accidental.
Coverage of the case was widespread here in America from such news heavyweights as CNN and NBC.
CNN coverage of the trial and verdict was accurate but at the same time also called into question Pistorius’s truthfulness encouraging readers and viewers to go back over a step-by-step NBC hosted walkthrough of all of his testimony.
Their site is laid out in a somewhat clunky three-column design. It is navigable and user-friendly despite the layout choice.
The site also hosts several advertisements along with several videos, photos and links to other sites.
The article also talks about the outcome of three lesser-known charges in the same trial all weapons related. Pistorius was found not guilty for a vehicle sunroof shooting incident as well as illegal possession of ammunition.
He was found guilty of the third charge involving a restaurant shooting incident and faces a five-year charge for that offense.
The comments for that article from readers are all pretty one sided against Pistorius claiming that he is guilty of murder and that the South African justice system is broken.
In another CNN article they also provide a flowchart that shows every possible outcome of the case and what exactly was decided where to come to the verdict.
This page uses the same clunky three-column design but is much cleaner than the first article.
The NBC site is a massive compilation of video. There is everything from a blood-spattered Pistorius captured on an elevator security camera to video of the trial itself.
This site is just a single column but is very clean and easy to navigate. The only real criticism I have is just wondering if possibly linking to the videos rather than embedding them all on one page may unclutter things a bit.
There are no advertisements on this site and no content that doesn’t pertain to the trial on this page.
It is very accurate and unbiased as the information is coming directly from the trial and events that for sure took place.
Both sites did an excellent job in covering the trial and explaining in detail to the readers what happened in a streamline and efficient way.