This may be a lot to ask, but I really want to see something other than crime or Trump/Clinton on WAVE3's website. After monitoring their online news for our current project, I've noticed that there have consistently mostly only been stories about crime and the election. Election coverage is certainly necessary and very important, I won't argue that. It's essential that people receive plenty of information on their choices for their next president. However, being somewhat knowledgable on news revenue and the principle of sensationalism in media, it is evident that WAVE, like most stations, is using the absurdity of this election to gain views on their site. The following video is simply a compilation of steps Clinton and Obama have taken to try to convince people against Trump. This isn't news. It's not breaking; all of the events in the video have taken place over a long period of time. Watching it almost feels like I'm watching a teaser for a new reality show.
As far as the abundance of crime goes, there is no limit. Crime stories make up the largest part of what they put on their website, most of them being either irrelevant or overly dramatized.
Saturday, October 22, 2016
Peer Review: Carmen
The following link is to her blog: http://tccab.blogspot.com
I read all of the posts pertaining to this six week's project on Carmen's blog, and found a general theme to be evident. She stuck to summarizing and then providing her brief thoughts and/or critiques to the conclusions made in class, and made sure to include some context of such conclusions in the real world. Certainly getting the job done, but perhaps only on the surface. Carmen is a very complex and interesting person, and I would have loved to hear some grit in her writing. I want to know exactly what she really thinks, because I have a feeling there is more than the polite answer provided in some cases. Did she like the lectures? Were they good, were they bad? From Carmen, I think a deeper analysis of our discussions would be something I would actually like to read. Maybe she doesn't have much of an opinion on our topics, which is fine. Again, she did the assignment well, I just wish some of her fire could shine though on her posts.
I read all of the posts pertaining to this six week's project on Carmen's blog, and found a general theme to be evident. She stuck to summarizing and then providing her brief thoughts and/or critiques to the conclusions made in class, and made sure to include some context of such conclusions in the real world. Certainly getting the job done, but perhaps only on the surface. Carmen is a very complex and interesting person, and I would have loved to hear some grit in her writing. I want to know exactly what she really thinks, because I have a feeling there is more than the polite answer provided in some cases. Did she like the lectures? Were they good, were they bad? From Carmen, I think a deeper analysis of our discussions would be something I would actually like to read. Maybe she doesn't have much of an opinion on our topics, which is fine. Again, she did the assignment well, I just wish some of her fire could shine though on her posts.
Class Response: Radio censorship
This week during our discussion about radio, the FCC was brought up. Mr. Miller spoke about how, because radio is public and accessible to everyone, it must be censored in some respects. As discussed, the FCC, or Federal Communications Commission, is a part of the government. Upon hearing this I immediately questioned its' possible violation of the first amendment; freedom of speech and of the press in particular. I brought this up in class and received the explanation that, because it's public, this is allowed. Also, the radio must be monitored in terms of how it is divided and the rights that go along with it. But I still feel like it is a bit off.
I understand that people don't want to turn on the radio and hear a bunch of vulgarity, but what separates indecency from expression? I feel as though, because radio stations are either independent or under an organized conglomerate, it should be up to the discretion of their leaders to decide what their policies are. Perhaps such policies themselves could be monitored, and if the stations violate anything laid out in their agreements an intervention of the FCC could justifiably take place.
I sincerely believe that radio should have the same rights applied to it as any of form of media, as stated in the constitution. There are no regulations of literature. Anyone can write anything and publish it, and by publishing it it becomes public. If stations were notoriously profane, people could simply not tune in. They could, instead, listen to a station that has agreed to be clean. There could even be a rating system similar to that of movies that could be broadcasted periodically. For example, every hour or so the stations would be obligation to make a statement such as, "Please note that 98.9 DJX is a 'R' station; listener discretion advised."
I do not know much about this topic, and am probably too under-educated to make this statement. But logically, I don't see much argument against it. Just because 50 Shades of Gray was published doesn't mean that everyone is subjected to reading it. However, radio is a cool media and requires less intention for people to consume it. A really dirty song could come on and a person could unknowably have its station on. But does this mean that profanity shouldn't be allowed? In my opinion, it doesn't.
I understand that people don't want to turn on the radio and hear a bunch of vulgarity, but what separates indecency from expression? I feel as though, because radio stations are either independent or under an organized conglomerate, it should be up to the discretion of their leaders to decide what their policies are. Perhaps such policies themselves could be monitored, and if the stations violate anything laid out in their agreements an intervention of the FCC could justifiably take place.
I sincerely believe that radio should have the same rights applied to it as any of form of media, as stated in the constitution. There are no regulations of literature. Anyone can write anything and publish it, and by publishing it it becomes public. If stations were notoriously profane, people could simply not tune in. They could, instead, listen to a station that has agreed to be clean. There could even be a rating system similar to that of movies that could be broadcasted periodically. For example, every hour or so the stations would be obligation to make a statement such as, "Please note that 98.9 DJX is a 'R' station; listener discretion advised."
I do not know much about this topic, and am probably too under-educated to make this statement. But logically, I don't see much argument against it. Just because 50 Shades of Gray was published doesn't mean that everyone is subjected to reading it. However, radio is a cool media and requires less intention for people to consume it. A really dirty song could come on and a person could unknowably have its station on. But does this mean that profanity shouldn't be allowed? In my opinion, it doesn't.
Wednesday, October 19, 2016
Response to WAVE3: Mugshot Slideshows
The "mugshot slideshows" can be found here: http://www.wave3.com/category/281094/mugshot-slideshows
This morning as I was looking for something to comment about on the WAVE3 website, I came across something that really upset me. Under the "news" category, there is an entire section of the website dedicated to displaying people's mugshots. To me, this is unsavory. If these people have already been arrested and don't need to be found, why do they need to be broadcasted? I really think WAVE is simply using click bait. People like gossip, and mugshots appeal to them because of that, though I personally get no joy from seeing people's faces as they are incarcerated.
How will these people ever hope to build back their reputations after their mugshots are on a popular news website? What if a potential boss sees it? I suppose in some cases they would already have their criminal records, but not necessarily. I think it is cruel to use someone's misery as something to get other's attention. Perhaps this isn't quite that, but I do not think WAVE3 should be doing this.
This morning as I was looking for something to comment about on the WAVE3 website, I came across something that really upset me. Under the "news" category, there is an entire section of the website dedicated to displaying people's mugshots. To me, this is unsavory. If these people have already been arrested and don't need to be found, why do they need to be broadcasted? I really think WAVE is simply using click bait. People like gossip, and mugshots appeal to them because of that, though I personally get no joy from seeing people's faces as they are incarcerated.
How will these people ever hope to build back their reputations after their mugshots are on a popular news website? What if a potential boss sees it? I suppose in some cases they would already have their criminal records, but not necessarily. I think it is cruel to use someone's misery as something to get other's attention. Perhaps this isn't quite that, but I do not think WAVE3 should be doing this.
Monday, October 17, 2016
Response to WAVE 3: Why are celeb. deaths covered more?
Over the course of our research I have found this to be true: Stories that involve celebrities are inherently more likely to be covered and blown up on the news. This doesn't come without explanation, it is evident that many more people will likely tune in if a story concerns one of their favorite TV icons or actors. Obviously, a news station is a business and ratings are important. However, the ethics behind this truth are very twisted.
I've counted numerous stories where someone famous has been affected by something crime related and it is reported on WAVE, even if the crime is small and insignificant. For example, Tyson Gay's daughter was recently shot in Lexington. Though it did occur in Kentucky, WAVE 3 is a local station. More importantly, shootings occur all the time. Usually they receive one quick story, but sometimes not even. But WAVE has published as many as 8 stories on this event thus far. Why? Because it is about someone famous. One story would have been acceptable in my opinion, because it is more than just a shooting when you think about it. This girl could have been targeted because of her father's involvement in the Olympics (which is of world-wide importance), or even because of her being black. Both possibilities are controversial, and can be tied to other things of equal importance. But really, 4 stories is too much for one person getting killed.
Here is a link to the page where all of the current stories on Tyson Gay's daughter can be found: http://www.wave3.com/search?vendor=ez&qu=tyson+gay+daughter
I've counted numerous stories where someone famous has been affected by something crime related and it is reported on WAVE, even if the crime is small and insignificant. For example, Tyson Gay's daughter was recently shot in Lexington. Though it did occur in Kentucky, WAVE 3 is a local station. More importantly, shootings occur all the time. Usually they receive one quick story, but sometimes not even. But WAVE has published as many as 8 stories on this event thus far. Why? Because it is about someone famous. One story would have been acceptable in my opinion, because it is more than just a shooting when you think about it. This girl could have been targeted because of her father's involvement in the Olympics (which is of world-wide importance), or even because of her being black. Both possibilities are controversial, and can be tied to other things of equal importance. But really, 4 stories is too much for one person getting killed.
Here is a link to the page where all of the current stories on Tyson Gay's daughter can be found: http://www.wave3.com/search?vendor=ez&qu=tyson+gay+daughter
Peer Review: Maggie Gediman
Her full post can be found here: http://maple-leaf-mag.blogspot.com/2016/10/class-response-rise-and-fall-of-movies.html
Maggie's most recent post was on her response to our discussions of the rise and fall of movies, and I found it very interesting. She expressed that despite her being in the audience movies are catered for, she finds herself to be relatively indifferent towards them. Her own home would suffice in comparison to a theater, and because I know her, I'm betting a book would too.
I found her perspective (which was taken into much greater detail in her post) to be refreshing and perhaps relevant to the future of movies. While most people understandably argue that the internet is slowly taking over media and will become singularly dominant, I think there may be forces that challenge that, particularly the youth seeking more enrichment outside of the cyber world. My friends and I make it a point (much of the time) to put our phones away when we are together because we have found we enjoy our time much more. Many people I know discuss how having the internet at our fingertips has closed off our minds, and I think that there is a possibility for society too go in a totally different direction that most notably predicted.
I do not think there will ever be a day when the majority of people want to live free of modern technology (I reference the internet, mainly.) But, I think there is the potential for a movement come about that encourages people to be without internet to become wildly popular at some point within a certain group of people.
Maggie's most recent post was on her response to our discussions of the rise and fall of movies, and I found it very interesting. She expressed that despite her being in the audience movies are catered for, she finds herself to be relatively indifferent towards them. Her own home would suffice in comparison to a theater, and because I know her, I'm betting a book would too.
I found her perspective (which was taken into much greater detail in her post) to be refreshing and perhaps relevant to the future of movies. While most people understandably argue that the internet is slowly taking over media and will become singularly dominant, I think there may be forces that challenge that, particularly the youth seeking more enrichment outside of the cyber world. My friends and I make it a point (much of the time) to put our phones away when we are together because we have found we enjoy our time much more. Many people I know discuss how having the internet at our fingertips has closed off our minds, and I think that there is a possibility for society too go in a totally different direction that most notably predicted.
I do not think there will ever be a day when the majority of people want to live free of modern technology (I reference the internet, mainly.) But, I think there is the potential for a movement come about that encourages people to be without internet to become wildly popular at some point within a certain group of people.
Sunday, October 16, 2016
Class Response: "The camera that shows us reality still excludes it."
This week during a lecture about the major effects TV has had on our culture and society, I was struck by a particular thing Mr. Miller said.
"The camera that shows us reality still excludes it."
I immediately wrote this down; it perfectly encapsulated the largest revelation I have had thus far in Journalism 1. The theme of my extended thinking on the lectures we've had has been realizing how limited our perception of reality has become because of mass media. A wonderful visual Mr. Miller gave to support this was of Bush standing in front of a lush, beautiful place for a broadcasted message about how healthy the world is. What you could not see when viewing this broadcast was that right out side of the camera's range there was dead grass and litter and smog. I thought this really summed up the patterns I have seen in media, television in particular.
TV shows us an altered reality. For example, a romance film will show a boy grabbing a girls face in a crowded hallway and kissing her, then the scene ends and the movie goes to what the girl does afterschool. In theory this is a nice scene, but would it really ever happen in real life? I doubt it. What would happen after the kiss? Would they walk away? Would they run? I don't know, because I have never heard of this happening in real life. But, I still have an expectation in the back of mind that this will somehow happen to me at some point.
Interesting.
"The camera that shows us reality still excludes it."
I immediately wrote this down; it perfectly encapsulated the largest revelation I have had thus far in Journalism 1. The theme of my extended thinking on the lectures we've had has been realizing how limited our perception of reality has become because of mass media. A wonderful visual Mr. Miller gave to support this was of Bush standing in front of a lush, beautiful place for a broadcasted message about how healthy the world is. What you could not see when viewing this broadcast was that right out side of the camera's range there was dead grass and litter and smog. I thought this really summed up the patterns I have seen in media, television in particular.
TV shows us an altered reality. For example, a romance film will show a boy grabbing a girls face in a crowded hallway and kissing her, then the scene ends and the movie goes to what the girl does afterschool. In theory this is a nice scene, but would it really ever happen in real life? I doubt it. What would happen after the kiss? Would they walk away? Would they run? I don't know, because I have never heard of this happening in real life. But, I still have an expectation in the back of mind that this will somehow happen to me at some point.
Interesting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)