Online Pacemakers for 2006

Here are the Online Pacemaker winners for 2006. See below the fold for commentary.

Some of the winners make sense. Some … not so much. For instance, I understand why FMagazine, a publication of the School of the Art Institute of Chicago, was selected. I am mystified as to why the Harvard Crimson won, especially when other publications with far more interactivity (not to mention design) were finalists.

Of course, this points up the problem with most media contests - the lack of clarity in the guidelines.

Here are the ACP guidelines for the online pacemakers:

The online publication must be accessible via Internet Web browsers during the months of February and/or March, when the sites will be judged. The site must be produced and maintained primarily by students. Awards will be based on design, ease of navigation, writing and editing, graphics and interactivity. Sites will be judged by non-ACP staff members knowledgeable about design, journalism and interactive media.

I’m down with all that, but I also have to ask how much “writing and editing” can be judged as a part of a news web site when I know many sites are shoveling content from the newspaper (try to find a link in a story on some sites - I dare you). And I’m not sure how “design” and “graphics” are separate, unless by “graphics” they mean “photographs.” And “interactivity” is a notoriously vague term. What counts as “interactivity”?

Likewise, I can shake my head in wonder at how the judges applied these criteria to the sites in question. I hate to keep knocking the Crimson, but I had to work hard to find any “interactivity” on their site, until I stumbled across the “Magenta Blog”, which allows comments.

Maybe the judges’ comments will be shared with the world, but I for one am mystified.

Start Slide Show with PicLens Lite