Challenging Journalism'

I like this title. Challenge. We're all up for a challenge. Aren't we?
Like Morgan Spurlock's Supersize Me documentary, 'lets get fat and eat McDonald's' challenge was interesting, factual, and did have an impact of the viewers. How much did McDonald's change its menu-post Spurlock? A lot.

To me, this kind of 'challenge' journalism was absolutely aimed at the viewer, surely Morgan himself didn't enjoy eating shit for a month, then having to review the gruesome effects it had on his body? Or maybe he did, i don't know.

But this kind of 'journalism' makes us (the public) listen and take notice, doesn't it? Watching the actual effects on a human who had consumed such crap for this amount of time, has far more impact than a story in a paper, or an advert on the T.V?

Can you call this immersion journalism? Its not investigative, its commercial. Its made for the viewer. Morgan was still himself, he didn't go undercover, he simply set himself the challenge, and recorded his findings. Without a T.V camera he wouldn't put himself through it.

This kind of challenge journalism, to me, is made for a viewer. The person/people undergoing the challenge wouldn't do it unless they had a viewer (or a lot of time on their hands) otherwise whats the point? Wouldn't this be a waste of time?

I like the 'challenging journalism' sites, like the eggsbaconchipsandbeans where a man sets out testing (it would appear to be) EVERY greasy spoon cafe, then records his findings.

I'm in fact more concerned for his health....

The blog itself is very well written, and funny. The involvement of humour and images makes this obvious he wants the readers interest (of course he does, isn't that the point?).

But seriously, he could in fact keel over at any second...arteries. Hello?

This has given me an idea for my 'challenge' blog, i want to obviously interest my viewers and keep the whole challenge updated with some images involvement...

Its going to be fun...