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.
Wednesday, September 14, 2016
Media Critique
You can find the full article by the Washington Post here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/09/08/officer-threw-black-teen-like-a-childs-doll-during-parking-lot-encounter-lawsuit-claims/?utm_term=.cff29b79c488
While I was researching current events last Thursday I came across an article in the Washington Post that I immediately thought would be a good article to critique. The article is attached above.
The article is about a video clip from 2014 that was released showing a black teen being physically attacked by a police officer. It is a surveillance video, and it takes place in a parking lot. Upon reading the article, I was informed that the girl who was attacked was with her brother at the time of the attack. They both claimed to have been doing nothing warranting any sort of police interaction. The police officer can be seen pushing the girl against a car, throwing her to the ground, and shocking her with a stun gun. There is a lawsuit attached to this case, and the case is seems to have been mostly resolved. So my question is, why are we hearing about this now from a national news source?
First, this took place in 2014. Even if there were something that was worthy of national attention within this story, it happened over two years ago and is, at this point, irrelevant. However, I watched the video, and I was cringing the whole time. It certainly draws an emotional result from the viewer, and I was very quick to click on the video when I saw it in the first place. Though it is absolutely not okay how the police officer treated the girl, there was already a court case and a lawsuit.
To me, this story violates the fourth and first yardstick of journalism. The fourth yardstick "local relevance" states that news that is reported must matter to the audience it is reported to. Though this video could, perhaps, be used to gain leverage in the fight against police brutality and racism in America, it certainly does not affect the entire country directly. The only people that were truly affected by this happening were the people directly involved in the incident, perhaps the families and friends/coworkers of said people, and whoever got involved in the legal process following its occurrence. This is a very small group of people, which means this story is not justifiably national news.
I think that because it is a shocking and upsetting story, the Washington Post decided to report it. The key factor here, however, is that there is video. A video makes a story vastly more entertaining, and more people are willing to watch a clip than read a whole story.
It violates the first yardstick of journalism, newsworthiness, because it did/does not affect a lot of people for a long time. As stated previously, it only affected a small group of people. Also, I must stress again that this video is from 2014. It did not have the power to affect people for a long time when it happened, and it doesn't now. This is a small event, and though it was wrong and worthy of addressing, there is no prevalent long-term, nation-wide affect that stems from it.
This story could have justly been reported at the time of its occurrence by the local station of where it took place. If it had been (and I'm sure it was) reported in the town where actually happened, I don't think it would have violated the fourth yardstick of journalism. At the time it happened it would have been locally relevant because it was a very good example of unacceptable police behavior, which is worthy of coverage. I think it is important to make events like this one known. The article did connect this event to similar occurrences, such as the police shootings in Louisiana. But, that doesn't excuse it from the fact that this happened such a long time ago.
If it were have been a massive attack from the police onto citizens with a large amount of people hurt, then I could see it being nationally relevant. It would have been "newsworthy" (and not in violation of this yardstick) if there were the case. But, it wasn't.
The bottom line is that this story was not nationally relevant when it happened, and it definitely is not today.
While I was researching current events last Thursday I came across an article in the Washington Post that I immediately thought would be a good article to critique. The article is attached above.
The article is about a video clip from 2014 that was released showing a black teen being physically attacked by a police officer. It is a surveillance video, and it takes place in a parking lot. Upon reading the article, I was informed that the girl who was attacked was with her brother at the time of the attack. They both claimed to have been doing nothing warranting any sort of police interaction. The police officer can be seen pushing the girl against a car, throwing her to the ground, and shocking her with a stun gun. There is a lawsuit attached to this case, and the case is seems to have been mostly resolved. So my question is, why are we hearing about this now from a national news source?
First, this took place in 2014. Even if there were something that was worthy of national attention within this story, it happened over two years ago and is, at this point, irrelevant. However, I watched the video, and I was cringing the whole time. It certainly draws an emotional result from the viewer, and I was very quick to click on the video when I saw it in the first place. Though it is absolutely not okay how the police officer treated the girl, there was already a court case and a lawsuit.
To me, this story violates the fourth and first yardstick of journalism. The fourth yardstick "local relevance" states that news that is reported must matter to the audience it is reported to. Though this video could, perhaps, be used to gain leverage in the fight against police brutality and racism in America, it certainly does not affect the entire country directly. The only people that were truly affected by this happening were the people directly involved in the incident, perhaps the families and friends/coworkers of said people, and whoever got involved in the legal process following its occurrence. This is a very small group of people, which means this story is not justifiably national news.
I think that because it is a shocking and upsetting story, the Washington Post decided to report it. The key factor here, however, is that there is video. A video makes a story vastly more entertaining, and more people are willing to watch a clip than read a whole story.
It violates the first yardstick of journalism, newsworthiness, because it did/does not affect a lot of people for a long time. As stated previously, it only affected a small group of people. Also, I must stress again that this video is from 2014. It did not have the power to affect people for a long time when it happened, and it doesn't now. This is a small event, and though it was wrong and worthy of addressing, there is no prevalent long-term, nation-wide affect that stems from it.
This story could have justly been reported at the time of its occurrence by the local station of where it took place. If it had been (and I'm sure it was) reported in the town where actually happened, I don't think it would have violated the fourth yardstick of journalism. At the time it happened it would have been locally relevant because it was a very good example of unacceptable police behavior, which is worthy of coverage. I think it is important to make events like this one known. The article did connect this event to similar occurrences, such as the police shootings in Louisiana. But, that doesn't excuse it from the fact that this happened such a long time ago.
If it were have been a massive attack from the police onto citizens with a large amount of people hurt, then I could see it being nationally relevant. It would have been "newsworthy" (and not in violation of this yardstick) if there were the case. But, it wasn't.
The bottom line is that this story was not nationally relevant when it happened, and it definitely is not today.
Saturday, September 10, 2016
Peer Review: Euan Dunn
Here is where you can check out Euan's blog: http://theinsightscoops.blogspot.com/
Though Euan's entire blog was very well done, I particularly enjoyed his first post regarding how Mr. Miller's class changed the way he viewed school, at least within his classroom. Euan discussed the general sentiment students tend to have towards school: it is a waste of time and an annoyance. I can certainly relate to this feeling. However, I can also relate to the sense of elated excitement towards school after receiving one of Miller's first lectures. Suddenly I was engaged in something that I probably would not take much time to learn about on my own, and I remained focused for the duration of the lecture which was also new to me. I, like Euan, look forward to more lectures and am very excited and impressed with the amount of knowledge I have attained in the short time I have had as a Journalism 1 student with Mr. Miller.
Aside from my personal view on the topic of Euan's blog post, it was very well written and it communicated his thoughts in a direct detailed way. The rest of his blog followed this trend as well. Nice work.
Though Euan's entire blog was very well done, I particularly enjoyed his first post regarding how Mr. Miller's class changed the way he viewed school, at least within his classroom. Euan discussed the general sentiment students tend to have towards school: it is a waste of time and an annoyance. I can certainly relate to this feeling. However, I can also relate to the sense of elated excitement towards school after receiving one of Miller's first lectures. Suddenly I was engaged in something that I probably would not take much time to learn about on my own, and I remained focused for the duration of the lecture which was also new to me. I, like Euan, look forward to more lectures and am very excited and impressed with the amount of knowledge I have attained in the short time I have had as a Journalism 1 student with Mr. Miller.
Aside from my personal view on the topic of Euan's blog post, it was very well written and it communicated his thoughts in a direct detailed way. The rest of his blog followed this trend as well. Nice work.
Peer Review: Sophia Goldberg
Here is where you can read Sophia's awesome writing: http://sophiawritessometimes.blogspot.com/
My friend Sophia's blog has a common theme: passion. As a fellow student, I know that it is hard to actually engage in an assignment and to put forth more effort than necessary, but from reading her writing I can tell that she did. She provided not just a summary of class discussions, but also how each one can be applied to life.
I really enjoyed her post about fact checking. I totally agree with her point that some news stations are forgetting that journalism is based upon facts, and are instead succumbing to the pressures to receive good ratings. She used the example of how people who argue that vaccines cause autism are receiving air time, even though their points are not true. But, they are attention grabbers...
I recommend Sophia's blog to those seeking an in-depth analysis of the topics we are coving in class. I admire the way she doesn't just list, but explain.
My friend Sophia's blog has a common theme: passion. As a fellow student, I know that it is hard to actually engage in an assignment and to put forth more effort than necessary, but from reading her writing I can tell that she did. She provided not just a summary of class discussions, but also how each one can be applied to life.
I really enjoyed her post about fact checking. I totally agree with her point that some news stations are forgetting that journalism is based upon facts, and are instead succumbing to the pressures to receive good ratings. She used the example of how people who argue that vaccines cause autism are receiving air time, even though their points are not true. But, they are attention grabbers...
I recommend Sophia's blog to those seeking an in-depth analysis of the topics we are coving in class. I admire the way she doesn't just list, but explain.
Watchdog
"Watchdog" is the 5th element of journalism. We discussed this in the first week of school when we went over the 10 Elements and 7 Yardsticks, but I thought I would return to the topic as I see it to be a very important standard of journalism.
To assume the role of "watchdog" as a journalist is to vow to provide a check against power. This includes keeping an eye out for corruptness in government, with large corporations, or individual people with a lot of power. The reason for its large importance is that they catch and report abuses of power. Because so much power is held within the "1%,"the government, etc., suspect actions are often very well hidden and are kept secret with money and power they have. Citizens deserve to be informed when such actions are taken, and this is where journalists come in. An entire subgenre of journalism has been created devoted to investigating power; it is rightfully called investigative journalism. These stories are heavily research and take a lot of effort, but are extremely important and are often the only way serious conspiracies to get out.
I see this standard of journalism to be of extremely high importance. I think that being a "watchdog" shows ultimate loyalty to the people, which is to me the most important standard journalists are expected to uphold.
To assume the role of "watchdog" as a journalist is to vow to provide a check against power. This includes keeping an eye out for corruptness in government, with large corporations, or individual people with a lot of power. The reason for its large importance is that they catch and report abuses of power. Because so much power is held within the "1%,"the government, etc., suspect actions are often very well hidden and are kept secret with money and power they have. Citizens deserve to be informed when such actions are taken, and this is where journalists come in. An entire subgenre of journalism has been created devoted to investigating power; it is rightfully called investigative journalism. These stories are heavily research and take a lot of effort, but are extremely important and are often the only way serious conspiracies to get out.
I see this standard of journalism to be of extremely high importance. I think that being a "watchdog" shows ultimate loyalty to the people, which is to me the most important standard journalists are expected to uphold.
Yellow Journalism
Yellow Journalism was essentially a form of journalism who's only purpose was to entertain the reader with things that were subjectively titillating. Yellow journalists did their best to dig up scandal, and when they did find something they blew it way out of proportion and exaggerated it. If they didn't find anything interesting enough to report, they weren't above practically making things up. They were often sensationalists.
This week our teacher Mr. Miller showed us the basic timeline of print journalism's history. He began with 3500 BCE, when the first printing press system was recorded. A major point on the timeline was in 1450 CE when Gutenberg created the first metal, movable type press that revolutionized the previous method of printing created by Bi Sheng in 1040 CE. Gutenberg's press created the first opportunity for mass communication, which was utilized to spread the Bible. We continued to learn about the important milestones in print journalism. Finally we arrived at the subject of yellow journalism, which was popularized during the penny press era. I chose this as my topic for this blog post because I think that this form of journalism is not dead, and is very much alive and well today.
The largest example of yellow journalism I can think of today are tabloids. They dig up dirt on celebrities and exaggerate it, often beyond anything that could reasonably be true. Or, they warn people of things that could cause them to gain weight or of things that could be harmful, regardless of the truth because they know people will want to read it. It is sensationalism.
The principle of yellow journalism could, I think, be very directly tied to certain TV. Stations such as ''E!" and "Oxygen" that focus only on gossip fit under the definition of yellow journalism very well. I think this comparison between yellow journalism from the 1800's to current mass media is important to understand because it demonstrates how very populist current media (especially TV) is becoming.
This week our teacher Mr. Miller showed us the basic timeline of print journalism's history. He began with 3500 BCE, when the first printing press system was recorded. A major point on the timeline was in 1450 CE when Gutenberg created the first metal, movable type press that revolutionized the previous method of printing created by Bi Sheng in 1040 CE. Gutenberg's press created the first opportunity for mass communication, which was utilized to spread the Bible. We continued to learn about the important milestones in print journalism. Finally we arrived at the subject of yellow journalism, which was popularized during the penny press era. I chose this as my topic for this blog post because I think that this form of journalism is not dead, and is very much alive and well today.
The largest example of yellow journalism I can think of today are tabloids. They dig up dirt on celebrities and exaggerate it, often beyond anything that could reasonably be true. Or, they warn people of things that could cause them to gain weight or of things that could be harmful, regardless of the truth because they know people will want to read it. It is sensationalism.
The principle of yellow journalism could, I think, be very directly tied to certain TV. Stations such as ''E!" and "Oxygen" that focus only on gossip fit under the definition of yellow journalism very well. I think this comparison between yellow journalism from the 1800's to current mass media is important to understand because it demonstrates how very populist current media (especially TV) is becoming.
Monday, September 5, 2016
Monopolies
This week a portion of our lecture was centered on the existence of monopolies within the media, and about what they are in general. We discussed the difference between horizontal and vertical monopolies, which was presented in a way that I understood very easily. Though the discussion was brief (depending on who you ask), I had a significant take away from learning about monopolies. It made me realize that as objective or democratic as TV stations or programs make themselves out to be, in most cases there is always someone who is influencing them in a major way. There could be, for example, a scandal going on with an executive at CBS. None of the news stations owned by CBS would air that story because they wouldn't want to piss off their bosses, to put it simply. This could either fall under the category of consequences of conglomeration or of monopolies, but either way this example and idea adds to my view that really no major television networks are completely objective. This is an underlying principle that has been forming within myself throughout my time in our classroom. We were given a reading by Jerry Mander called "Arguments for the Elimination of Television." He expanded the idea that no TV is totally democratic to argue that it should be removed completely. Though I do not think this is feasible or right, many of his points opened my eyes to my current view on television. I now question the news I am fed, and make more of an effort to seek information from many perspectives and sources. I think this is essential to try to get a somewhat accurate depiction of what is going on in the world, and I think it is important for people to realize that even by not having an opinion, you have one. Overall, my whole experience as a student of journalism has been extremely influential in my perspective of media thus far. The discussion on monopolies we took part in lit a fuse of curiosity about fairness and what is truly ethical in media.
Sunday, August 28, 2016
Infotainment
This week, during a lecture on binary models, we came to the topic of the phenomenon known as infotainment. Defined as a fusion between information and entertainment driven media, our discussion quickly became focused on infotainment as it was a new concept to myself and many of my classmates. After examining the topic I came to the realization that a much larger amount of TV that I was aware is infotainment, which our teacher Mr. Miller stressed throughout the class. Suddenly the countless programs I had watched with my grandfather on the History Channel or Discovery lost their merit, on the account that the information that was presented was neither important or that informative in the first place. Whilst watching a show on Pompeii, Big Foot or UFOs I was thinking, "Wow. Instead of watching something meaningless, I am spending my time learning!" And in a way, I was. But was it beneficial to me in the way I thought it was? Probably not. The topics that are so heavily focused on in infotainment channels are, more often than not, only focused on because they are entertaining. It is understandable that, as a company, these channels do need good ratings. However, I worry that soon all TV will be totally centered around the viewers enjoyment. I think that as a very influential media, TV has the responsibility of keeping the people educated and well informed, which is where elitist media comes in. My concern is that TV is on the verge of becoming completely populist. The problem with this is that there would be a constant stream of pointless messages being broad casted to the public, void of an ethical purpose. I imagine this society as dumbed down, uncultured, and dull. Though, yes, a cute video of a cat is objectively nice to watch, if everyone just sat and watched cat videos all day where would we be? I think that media that is important is very inspiring. If there were mostly, for example, programs about students engineering new technology or about activism, perhaps TV could inspire people to become active in their communities and in the world. Especially because many people receive the majority of their media from television, there is a huge level of responsibility within TV. I believe it has the potential to either drive the world to productivity and success, or to laziness. For awhile there was a respectable balance between the two, but I think the scale is currently not shifting in our favor.
The week's discussion about infotainment opened my eyes to a new perspective towards media, and I now feel a heightened sense of responsibility as a journalism student to learn how to help push the world forward through media, not capitalize on what people think is fun to watch.
The week's discussion about infotainment opened my eyes to a new perspective towards media, and I now feel a heightened sense of responsibility as a journalism student to learn how to help push the world forward through media, not capitalize on what people think is fun to watch.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)