Podcasts & RSS Feeds
Most Active Stories
- What's Next For Pensions, Now That Court Has Tossed Illinois' Law?
- Power Players – Who’s In And Who’s Out When It Comes To Lobbying The New Governor
- Lawmakers Propose Adding Crime Victims' Bill Of Rights To Illinois Law
- New Pension Fixes May Emerge; Rauner Considering Ideas That "Haven't Been Brought Forward Yet"
- How Much Is Your AP Test Score Worth In Illinois? The Answer Varies By University
Mon July 22, 2013
Royal Baby News Or No? Guardian Lets Web Visitors Decide
Originally published on Mon July 22, 2013 8:02 pm
MELISSA BLOCK, HOST:
When it comes to interest in the birth of the royal baby, the world seems to be divided into two camps. Recognizing that, one news organization has divided its coverage in like manner.
JANINE GIBSON: Guardiannews.com has introduced a special feature for the royal labor.
ROBERT SIEGEL, HOST:
That's Janine Gibson of The Guardian. She's the U.S. editor in chief, and she's talking about a small purple button at the top right of The Guardian's home page.
GIBSON: For those readers who find royal coverage to be dominating and trivial in the extreme, it helps them considerably if they can just press a simple button - not Republican, or in the U.S. we've called it non-Royalists - and that all that coverage can simply disappear, shrink away and be replaced by other news.
BLOCK: If you opt in, choosing Royalist, you'll be treated to a rolling slide show of pictures of the former Ms. Middleton and the ecstatic throngs. Opting out yields a completely different front page, as if there were no royals and no baby.
GIBSON: All that coverage can simply disappear, shrink away and be replaced by other news, thereby leaving those that do enjoy a bit of royal fervor a guilt-free wallow in the festive day.
BLOCK: So are you a Royalist or not? You choose. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.