Wait for the details?

I read the Tampa Tribune's site, a mash-up of the paper, a TV station and Internet news, every day. (Yes, I'm still pining for Florida but that's another blog.)

In some cases, the comments that follow a story are more interesting to me than the story itself. tday, I was checking the comments nad noticed that several readers chastised the site for printing breaking news as it happened. They wanted the stories held until there were more details.

I find this interesting, since newspaper chiefs have long trumpeted getting the news online as quickly as possible. Personally, I find sticking a post up on the Web before the details are complete is similar to TV news breaking in with news alerts. The difference is it's still easier for TV folks; they show the scene, rehash and have the luxury of pointing out it's still happening, etc. With print, you get a brief and that's it.

I wonder if Tampa should try a blog-style post. Show the event is ongoing and keep feeding new info instead of writing it as a formal brief. That might give it a sense of urgency.

I have to admit, though, I've never seen comments like that at other paper sites I've read, though, unlike Sarah Palin, I don't read "all of 'em" in regard to papers and magzines.

I find any type of live news post helpful, especially if I live in the area. There are cops everywhere? A chopper overhead? I want to know what is going on and it's great if I can go online and read, even if it's a line or two, about what's happened.

Weather alerts are handy, too, at least until the power goes out. The last time we had big storms in Dallas, I tried the Morning News site with my cell after power went out. Zip. Thank God for TV sites; they had updates so I could track tornado activity.