Speed, depth and just too much

When it comes to breaking news -- the news usually about something or someone somewhere breaking into pieces -- I've often wondered which medium did it best. Nothing beats radio for rapid-fire audio while you're on the road. Nothing beats the newspaper for depth and reflection the morning after. Nothing beats TV for moving images right on the spot, depth be damned. So where does the Net fit in?

With war raging, the Internet offers rapid delivery of information, with a depth and 360-degree view unmatched by old media. And advances in streaming video and high-speed connections make moving pictures an option for surfers as well. For Net junkies, a newspaper delivered to their doorstep the next day is already old news. Channel-surfing wll bring up all the mainstream views of the news, but few alternative viewpoints.

So has the Net lived up to these lofty expectations a few days into the war? Yes, and no. On the good foot, news sites have helped office workers stay informed during their workday (or during breaks, right?). A comScore VP told the Washington Post that people are watching TV at home then checking the TV network's Web site from work -- "the two media are playing tag team with each other." That makes a lot of sense, and don't forget about the legions who go online with the TV on in the background.

Roundups and more roundups

Another big positive for online media has been the plethora of helpful roundups, with journalists giving links to good resources, and rating the best coverage out there. Cyberjournalist.net's Jonathan Dube provides a great listing of weblogs from embedded journalists as well as top sites' in-depth news packages. Slate's Avi Zenilman covered maintream sites, background info, government sites, warblogs, and even humor sites. Slate's own man on the ground, Nate Thayer, has provided harrowing accounts from Baghdad as the bombs have rained down (see Quotable, below). PaidContent.org has a running commentary on how streaming video is playing out, with RealNetworks saying it added bandwidth to deal with demand.

So how can you follow what's happening in the blogosphere? MSNBC.com has gone furthest for mainstream sites, with at least three weblogs focused on war coverage. Its flagship Weblog Central has given over to covering warblogs (including MSNBC's own), and pointed to the trend of some bloggers combining their work onto "portal" sites such as Warblog:CC. While this concept is in its embryonic stages, you could see how someone like, say, Google News could swoop in and cover all of them.

If you're looking for something more specific, searching weblogs and/or news on Daypop can help. As Reuters found, the war has even sidetracked the dirty-minded, as searches in the UK for "war" topped those for "sex," according to Freeserve. The antiwar slogan, "make love not war," doesn't seem to be getting through online.

Worms, defacements and traffic jams

So what's the bad news so far for online war coverage? Why it's "digital mayhem," screams the Washingtonpost.com's Cynthia Webb, with a "flood of cyberattacks and malicious e-mail worms, as hackers of all stripes and colors (pro-Islamic, antiwar or just plain malicious coders) seize an opportunity to wreak online havoc." Put aside for a second that all these stories of cyberattacks are sourced by security companies. And if the worms don't get you, then slow servers might, as you wait, and waitn ... and wait for many sites to load (or not).

The other "problem" is just the other side of the coin of having so many outlets, so many viewpoints: how to sift through all that? The roundups definitely help, but you have to wonder that somewhere online, someone is posting the most amazing weblog from right inside Saddam's bunker and you just can't get the Google search syntax right to find it. So much information, so little time.

One other problem is with control. CNN correspondent Kevin Sites, who had to be won over on the power of running a personal weblog from the front, recently stopped blogging at the behest of his bosses. People posting comments on his blog were upset, and then found out that even his reports for CNN were recently curtailed because he's "sick as a dog." Does CNN respect Sites' freedom to blog, or does it feel this work is a distraction in the war zone?

But the work of Sites and so many other journalists running weblogs from the front brings huge advances in two areas: 1) personal journalism that touches readers; 2) journalists are now "getting it" and understanding interactivity and the Net. Despite the horrors of this war and any other war, the Internet at least can show journalists and readers a powerful way to connect.

Quotable

"We are as prepared as we can be for whatever may come next. We have 300 bottles of the water and have filled the bathtubs in each of several rooms for reserve. We've stockpiled enough food for weeks. Should the power fail, we have a generator and jerry cans filled with petrol purchased on the black market. If a bomb blows out our window, the duct tape we've covered it with should protect us from flying glass. All of our electronics -- computers, cameras, communications devices -- are wrapped in aluminum foil against so-called e-bombs that will destroy all the data of electronic devices."

-- Slate's Nate Thayer, writing about life in Baghdad on Sunday as the bombing got serious. Weirdly enough, he had to take an HIV test to get another visa extension.

"Please stop sending emails asking if I were for real. Don't believe it? Then don't read it. I am not anybody's propaganda ploy, well except my own. Two more hours until the B52's get to Iraq."

-- "Salam Pax," writing his last entry on Friday in response to so many skeptical queries from reporters about his popular "Where is Raed?" weblog, ostensibly in Baghdad. On this question, journalist Paul Boutin does the most intricate digging.