I never understood Easter. Of course I love hunting for eggs and eating lethal amounts of chocolate, but the whole Easter bunny thing always bugged me. I was raised Catholic, so I was taught to believe Easter was the day Jesus rose from the dead. I've stuck by that belief my whole life, but the Easter bunny myth died quick. Why would a bunny have eggs if it is a mammal? At least Santa Claus is a religious reference. Maybe they should change it to an Easter lamb – for sacrificial reference – or a baby chick because they actually lay eggs. But we all know it's not up to me to make these important decisions. 

My important decision, today, lies in whether or not I believe the BBC provided good coverage of Holy Week. I have logged on to the BBC website every day leading up to Easter, starting last Thursday. Each day, more coverage was added, although it became increasingly difficult to find, which I found shocking. But when it came down to it, I was impressed by the BBC's overall coverage of religion and ethics, and its ability to stand neutral and not offend its religiously diverse audience.  

As I've said before, the BBC provides worldwide coverage by placing BBC representatives around the globe to cover the latest news. Since there are so many different religions, the BBC has to be careful to not overly express interest in one religion, such as Christianity. Just because it is the most followed religion in the world does not mean every BBC reader is a Christian. I think the BBC did an excellent job of not bombarding its readers with coverage of the Easter holiday, by not including religious articles on its home screen slideshow. 

For those viewers who were interested in reading up on Holy Week, there was a Religion and Ethics page that could be access through the homepage. This page featured a number of stories relating to religion and ethics, but this week, most of the articles I found were focused on Easter. I found this page after looking at CNN's Belief Blog and thought to myself, if CNN covers religion, then the BBC must cover it too. It was rather simple to find, and in my opinion, provided more interesting content than CNN's blog. 

What I liked most about the BBC's coverage of Holy Week is that there were little traces of the Easter holiday dispersed in every section: news, world, travel, future, TV and magazine. I thought this was a good and fresh reminder for those who wanted to learn more about the holiday that comes around every spring. My two favorite Holy Week articles were, "Jesus tweets the Easter story" and "The Society of Jesus: Who are the Jesuits?" Both of these article were light-hearted and informational. I highly suggest reading them if you've gone to a Jesuit University for three years and, like me, still don't know what Jesuit means.  

Easter is a holiday that is celebrated by millions of people, which means it is crucial media outlets provides newsworthy and appropriate coverage of Holy Week. I think the BBC's coverage was tastefully done and appropriate for its diverse audience. I hope to see future religious holidays covered the same way. And just because I love tweeting for #loweclass, below I've included a tweet from Jesus' twitter for your enjoyment. 

If you have already made it to my bio page, you may remember I like history. Growing up, I was exposed to all sorts of history. My father had an odd obsession with Indians, Egyptians and Africa, while my mother would read up on King Henry VIII's six wives and live vicariously through biographies of French and Russian princesses. On family drives to Florida, my brothers and I would receive a 22-hour regurgitation of the History Channel programming we were forced to watch two days earlier. As a pre-teen, it was torturous. 

But, like they say, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. In recent years, I have developed a passion for learning about the past, which is why I was thrilled to see the BBC's website had an entire page devoted to BBC and British history. This is a feature I found completely unique to the BBC in comparison to other media outlets. 

What I most enjoy about the BBC's history page is that it gives its audience a better understanding of what it is, how it got to where it is now, and why it is important. I think it establishes a certain amount of credibility and reliability. If it has been around this long, you can likely bet it's not going anywhere, like Newsweek Magazine or The Marquette Tribune's page count (too soon, my fellow MU students?). It's also a great resource for new visitors who are looking to find out more about BBC culture. 

One of the best perks of living in a historically-rich country is that when it rained – which it often did – there were always museums to go to. After reading through a few articles on the history page, I learned more than I ever could at a museum. As the reader, I am given the choice of what I want to read, whereas in a museum, each display window or artwork has a description. The BBC's history page is a great resource if I am looking for a specific subject to read or if I am writing a research paper for history class. 

Now, I do realize that not everybody enjoys history. There are plenty of people who are content with getting a brief overview of the day's latest happenings without any added mumbo-jumbo. But, the history page does not get in the way for these, as I like to call them, newsies. The page is there as a resource for people who use the Internet as a learning tool – not just a social tool. It was refreshing to see a web page I feel comfortable getting lost on for hours and not feel guilty, like I do if I am on Facebook any longer than ten minutes. 

I suggest you take a look at the history page if you are at all interested in English or BBC history. Like I mentioned before, I wasn't able to find any other news outlet that provided such a page, and made it so coorful and intriguing. I know I will be visiting the BBC's website more often now that I know this page is so easily accessible. As a history-buff, I couldn't ask for anything more out of my news source. 

After a two week furlough, I am back to my media critic of the BBC for #loweclass. This week's focus? Video coverage. My review of the BBC's use of video? Mediocre. 

One of the first things that stood out to me was the BBC's lack of video on their home page. When I entered the website, I found an identical page to what I've been seeing all semester: white background, black text, an off-centered rolling headline, and subjects divided into columns. Although I agree it is important to keep a website clear and consistent, I've become bored of the page and its lack of enthusiasm. I found other websites, such as Yahoo or NBC to have a more intriguing and interactive home page because they pop with color, plays on font size to create emphasis, and offer video as a first option for their visitors.

I only found two videos on the home page and they were difficult to come across. Since the rolling headline has a play button, I figured one of the images would play a video, but instead it played an image slideshow. I looked for other play buttons, and eventually came across a smaller one that played a video titled, "F1 in numbers," which I soon learned was about car racing. I would have preferred to see a breaking news video.

To further my investigation, I hit the news tab and was relieved to find a horizontal scrolling bar of videos. About time! I liked that each video I clicked on only provided a few lines of text to describe the video. Many times, when I am watching a video I find my eyes automatically wander to the text, which is word-for-word what is being said in the video. I thought the BBC's lack of text accompanying the video was unique and effective in keeping its visitors dedicated to the story. This sets the BBC apart from other American news publications, and now that I know this I will be more likely to watch their videos in the future. 

During my time spent living in London, I learned the BBC is a conglomeration of media outlets. It includes television, radio, podcast, motion pictures, documentaries and online news. I think it is a great convenience for the BBC to offer links to each of these different media outlets on its website, especially for those who live outside the UK. Since I am a college student living in America, I do not get BBC television through my cable company. If I go online, there is a TV tab I can access that brings me to a live showing of their television programming. I found this to be an effective strategy by the BBC to reach a worldwide audience. 

When comparing the BBC's website to others, I also found the BBC keeps its advertising minimal. On Yahoo's home page I am constantly bombarded with pop-up video advertisements. Since I began critiquing the BBC, I have yet to be interrupted by an advertising video. It is nice to see a news source that is dedicated to telling the news rather than making a profit. It's another reason why I will always stay loyal to the BBC. 

After watching a few videos, I noticed most of the videos are not live. The broadcasters do a voice over to tell the story instead of going to an event while it is happening. I liked that there was a voice over because it was like watching a short movie, instead of watching the news. I felt like I got a better understanding of the situation because there were no weather or noise interruptions. It reminded me of the video I was assigned to do for #loweclass, and it gave me ideas for how I can improve my video editing for future assignments. 

During my critique I have gone back-and-forth on whether or not I like or dislike the BBC's use of video. I dislike that video is not readily available on the home page for its viewers, but I appreciate the quality of the videos because I think they are well done, and just the right amount of time. As a tech-lagger and writer, I don't know if I will ever resort to video or television to get my news, but I do appreciate when it is provided for me. With that in mind, I would say the BBC could use to incorporate more videos into its site.