As irrelevant as I thought it was, the most interesting story (in my opinion) that WDRB talked about was how in North Dakota, a women who was going by the name of Cheryl, was not going to pass out candy to kids who she thought were obese. Instead she was going to hand them a letter to give to their parents that basically told them how irresponsible it was of them to send their obese child out to scavenge free candy just because it was the norm.
Now once again I thought this story was no-where near newsworthy but I think that this story is just so messed up. This lady took it upon herself on a holiday that many kids look forward to, to spread her opinion on childhood obesity. While "Cheryl" thinks she's helping these overweight kids, she probably just worsened the situation. "Cheryl" trying to "look out" for these kids' health has premeditated to basically destroy some little chubby kid's confidence. Just imagine going trick or treating with your friends who all might just so happen to be smaller than you, and every single one of them gets candy but not you. You get a piece of paper telling you you're fat and shaming your parents. That's rude, cruel, and not okay.
Not only will this lady crush the confidence of these poor kids trying to enjoy their holiday but she can believe that she will have some LIVID parents at her door the next day.
(post on local news source)
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
Impacts of the Internet
Today while discussing the Internet, one fact that was brought up was that the internet has made underground cultures mostly disappear. This shocked me when I first heard it but as I thought about it I realized how true it was. With the internet the "underground" cultures aren't truly underground. Now that anyone can get on the internet, anyone can find these cultures. Artists nowadays could only want to have a small group of fans or want to be considered underground but if they posted any of their music/art on the internet and someone big in that industry finds it and likes it, they can be a pop star in weeks!
(comment on something we discussed in class)
(comment on something we discussed in class)
Hooray!
For the first time since starting the TV News project in J1, I was excited to watch the news and discuss it in class. Why was I excited you ask? Because I could finally watch the news and not have to hear anything about the David Camm trial. I found it refreshing that I didn't have to see the same film of David Camm, not have to hear about the trial of David Camm and not have to hear the name David Camm. In class when discussing the news for the first time in ever all the lead stories weren't about you know who. While that is the good news, the bad news is we still have to hear about the Gibson trial, but I can live with that. I'm just happy that for once in class we could discuss a different topic when talking about our stations.
(post on local news source)
(post on local news source)
Thursday, September 26, 2013
Magazine Innovations
Class Response Numero Cuatro
The other day in class we talked about magazines and their innovations. Three important innovations of the magazines were investigative reporting, personality profiles and photojournalism. I personally think that investigative reporting is the most important.
I feel investigative reporting is most important because it made not only newspaper journalist but also magazine journalist watch dogs. Journalistic watchdogs always keep power figures in society in check. They do this by keeping the power figures on their toes because they know that at any moment one of their scandals could be discovered and printed in the next issue. Besides telling the truth I think the most important part of journalism is being a watch dog so investigative journalism really gets that one.
The other day in class we talked about magazines and their innovations. Three important innovations of the magazines were investigative reporting, personality profiles and photojournalism. I personally think that investigative reporting is the most important.
I feel investigative reporting is most important because it made not only newspaper journalist but also magazine journalist watch dogs. Journalistic watchdogs always keep power figures in society in check. They do this by keeping the power figures on their toes because they know that at any moment one of their scandals could be discovered and printed in the next issue. Besides telling the truth I think the most important part of journalism is being a watch dog so investigative journalism really gets that one.
I mean, I guess I didn't want the whole story anyway.
Media Critique
It’s safe to say the writer of this article, Peter Baker completely blew the yardstick Fairness and the principle Independence out the water.
The article was about President Obama's response to the Republicans threatening to cut off the budget for Obamacare. But if you were reading this article you probably wouldn't really know that. Baker failed to give the whole story of this situation. He gave barely any background knowledge of it and he left you just to his interpretation of Obama's speech.
Baker’s rare use of full quotations of the President and only using bits and pieces of quotes added in with his very misleading diction led you to believe the whole time Obama was speaking he was insulting Republicans and that he was disgruntled.
For example Baker said “Mr. Obama, his voice laced with scorn, ridiculed Republicans for threatening to shut down the government or refusing to increase the debt ceiling to undercut the health care program, saying they had “put up every conceivable roadblock” and were “poisoning Obamacare” so they could then “claim it’s sick.” He cited some of their more flamboyant quotes in an attempt to portray them as extremists, including one racially charged comment. “.
Describing Obama’s voice as “laced with scorn” is a personal opinion. What could have been laced as scorn to one person, could be serious and concern to another. It wasn’t Baker’s place to describe Obama’s voice, it was his job to give you the story and possibly Obama’s full quote and to tell facts and facts only. Also saying that Obama "attempted to portray them as extremists" is another opinion. Obama never once said the Republicans were extremists, he told his opinion about them and if that led you to believe that he was hinting towards them being extremists you yourself must think they're extremist.
Baker also said: “Mr. Obama also singled out sponsors of a “cynical ad campaign” discouraging Americans from signing up for the new health care program by arguing that it would effectively put the government into the room when women undergo gynecological exams and men undergo colonoscopies.”.
Saying Obama “singled out” the sponsors gives you a very negative connotation. In modern terms it would make you think Obama “snitched” or “called out” the sponsors. But once again some people could describe it as “singled out” and to others it could be “pointed out” which would have a less negative connotation to it.
Also throughout the piece Baker took it into his power to interpret President Obama’s speech.
Baker said: ““These are billionaires several times over,” Mr. Obama said, evidently referring to the conservative political activists Charles and David Koch, without naming them.”
Now unless Baker tapped into Obama’s head is he really in the power to tell you who Obama was talking about? It is possible Obama was referring to the conservative activists Baker was talking about but if it wasn’t clearly said then it’s not a fact, it’s an inference.
But one thing Baker did make sure to do was cover Representative William O’Brien’s side of the story when he made a controversial statement comparing Obamacare to the Fugitive Slave Act. When Baker was confronted over his very racist statement, Baker added in O’Brien’s statement trying to justify his use for that comparison.
Even though Baker didn’t give false facts, he also didn’t give the whole truth either. He gave you the truth and worded it in a way to make you lean to one side. If Baker would’ve just given more background information to what the Republicans did or since he gave the opinions of other Republicans, gave some opinions of democrats this could have been a very informing article.
It’s very clear that Baker did a very one-sided job on this article and this is not a reliable source when trying to understand the whole story, but this would definitely attract Republicans.
News
Comment #2
I really agree with Sabrina when she said that populist/entertainment media has really taken over the "news" industry. I don't want to flat out say that journalist have given up promoting the truth because I believe the "journalists" she is referring to aren't really journalist, they're just someone with decent writing skills trying to make a buck off of exploiting other people's lives. I do agree though on her saying that the media tries to make the unimportant important. To me, good journalism is mostly going to be in the elitist, information news category. The news about celebrities lives, or interesting stories I don't really think fit the criteria for the yardstick "local relevance". Even though I would probably be more likely to watch the entertainment news, after I'm finished watching it I wouldn't feel like I gained anything from it, unlike watching elitist/information news.
http://sabrina-carlisle.blogspot.com/2013/09/review-models-of-mass-communication.html
I really agree with Sabrina when she said that populist/entertainment media has really taken over the "news" industry. I don't want to flat out say that journalist have given up promoting the truth because I believe the "journalists" she is referring to aren't really journalist, they're just someone with decent writing skills trying to make a buck off of exploiting other people's lives. I do agree though on her saying that the media tries to make the unimportant important. To me, good journalism is mostly going to be in the elitist, information news category. The news about celebrities lives, or interesting stories I don't really think fit the criteria for the yardstick "local relevance". Even though I would probably be more likely to watch the entertainment news, after I'm finished watching it I wouldn't feel like I gained anything from it, unlike watching elitist/information news.
http://sabrina-carlisle.blogspot.com/2013/09/review-models-of-mass-communication.html
Tuesday, September 24, 2013
That Darn Internet
Class Response Numero Tres
Newspapers, magazines, television, and radio all have one thing in common; they've been personally victimized by the Internet. When it comes to the demassification of these previous medias, they have all been brought down by the Internet, but hey what can you say... the Internet is pretty good. I think the one thing that kills these previous medias is that if you have the internet, you have all of them at once. Instead of buying the newspaper, a magazine, a television and a radio, you can buy one computer/smart phone/ tablet and you have it all in one hand. I personally believe none of these medias will ever become completely extinct because of their tradition in American society but I wouldn't be surprised if they were used less and less as time went on. Now with smartphones you can have all 4 in your pocket and I get why that would be hard to compete with.
Truthfully though I see benefit--for the audience-- when medias get demassified. When something gets demassified I feel like it has to chose a specialty. It can't just try to please any and everybody, it has to get a niche audience. I would much rather read a magazine or watch a television show or listen to a radio station that's targeted towards my liking. I honestly don't feel like having just a general media besides newspapers is necessary. I think the only mass communication that should be targeted for everyone is newspapers because the purpose of those is to inform everyone not to entertain you. But on the other hand magazines, t.v. shows and radios are now known more for entertainment and if everything was just a broad variety of everything I wouldn't want to keep listening or buying it.
Newspapers, magazines, television, and radio all have one thing in common; they've been personally victimized by the Internet. When it comes to the demassification of these previous medias, they have all been brought down by the Internet, but hey what can you say... the Internet is pretty good. I think the one thing that kills these previous medias is that if you have the internet, you have all of them at once. Instead of buying the newspaper, a magazine, a television and a radio, you can buy one computer/smart phone/ tablet and you have it all in one hand. I personally believe none of these medias will ever become completely extinct because of their tradition in American society but I wouldn't be surprised if they were used less and less as time went on. Now with smartphones you can have all 4 in your pocket and I get why that would be hard to compete with.
Truthfully though I see benefit--for the audience-- when medias get demassified. When something gets demassified I feel like it has to chose a specialty. It can't just try to please any and everybody, it has to get a niche audience. I would much rather read a magazine or watch a television show or listen to a radio station that's targeted towards my liking. I honestly don't feel like having just a general media besides newspapers is necessary. I think the only mass communication that should be targeted for everyone is newspapers because the purpose of those is to inform everyone not to entertain you. But on the other hand magazines, t.v. shows and radios are now known more for entertainment and if everything was just a broad variety of everything I wouldn't want to keep listening or buying it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)