As I begin this class, I have no prior knowledge of convergence in media. None of the other classes I have taken at UF have allowed practical experience of the skills required in this area. Many journalism textbooks mention the trend toward convergence in a few paragraphs -- maybe even a chapter -- but they don't prepare me in any way to deal with the Web.

However, I do realize how imperative it is to learn these skills. I stumbled across an example recently that's only slightly related to this class, but it does show the importance of utilizing the Web in every field. I was reading a marketing textbook this week that was discussing the declining popularity of the Hermitage Museum in St. Petersburg, Russia. After receiving a $2 million grant from IBM to create a new Web site, the museum was able to draw more visitors. The site - http://www.hermitagemuseum.org/ - takes online visitors on a "Virtual Visit" and allows artwork to be looked at more closely by zooming in. This isn't media convergence, but it does show that marketers who ignore the Web will be left behind, just as journalists will be.

As for newspapers, I am still viewing these sites as a user and obtainer of information -- not a media-pro. What I always find to be most helpful as an average viewer is the election coverage. This is a huge area for the Web because it's impractical to list a summary of candidates, qualifications and major issues in the newspaper each day, especially a year before the actual election. Every major newspaper seems to have been able to build a kind of crash-course election guide, but they differ in some aspects.
http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/candidates/index.html
The New York Times has every candidate displayed, along with the issues they support and videos of them. One of the things I really like about the New York Times coverage of the candidates is that they separate them into the groups "Officially Announced" and "Widely Mentioned," while the Washington Post doesn't provide information about these people.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/?nid=roll_08campaign
The Washington Post, though, gives more information overall about the current candidates. By clicking on one of the links, you can see all the issues that are dominating in the campaign and the amont of mentions the candidate has given to each issue. It even has a tool that allows users to put the issue tracker on their Web sites. The Washington Post also has photos and videos of each candidate's complete career, as well as a financial summary and campaign tracker. I can't really think of any information that's been left out by this site. If anything, it's a bit overwhelming. But because of the additional information that we can post on the Web, an average American who wants to make the most informed election decision will be able to do just that.