http://jamiefightsbadjournalism.blogspot.com/
Jamie has created one of the best amateur blogs I've seen. I wasn't impressed by just one single post, I was impressed by the whole thing. Jamie puts together great titles followed by great in-depth articles about her topics. The page as a whole is eye-catching, and I love how the pictures tie everything together. Jamie puts a lot of insight into her posts and does everything she can to improve her blog. Kudos to you Jamie.
Thursday, September 26, 2013
Class Talks
One thing I learned about in Mr. Miller's class that interested me was demassification. At first, I thought it was similar to conglomeration, something a company chooses to do to improve their business. I soon learned that demassification isn't just for one company, its for a whole type of media, and its definitely not a choice. Demassification is breaking down a company to target niche audiences. This happens due to either loss of viewers, advertisers, or both. What really surprised me is what things have already demassified. Magazines for example, used to have everything. Now, there are certain ones for sports, clothing, shopping, etc. Then radio had to demassify due to television taking advertisers and viewers. Currently though, internet is forcing television to start demassifiying along with so many other things. The good thing is that many of these national medias are still successful through demassification. Some aren't (I'll miss you, Blockbuster), but meanwhile, it looks like radio will stay a while longer.
Class Talks
Conglomeration. Probably one of the most interesting things I've learned about all year. Conglomeration is when one larger company starts buying off smaller companies and then adds aspects of that company into its own system and revenue. It seems like such a technical and complicated term but it really is a huge aspect of business and is constantly making a difference around us.
You might be surprised by this map, but it is just a few examples of conglomeration. In class, Mr. Miller showed us a different map about conglomeration, but it was just as interesting. Disney owns ESPN. Time Warner owns the Atlanta Braves. General Electric owns banks.
Look at the food map though. Are you a Coke or Sprite person? Doesn't matter. Coke not only owns Sprite, but Minute Maid, Fanta, Monster, and Mello Yello. Welcome to Mars, home of M&Ms, Snickers, Twix, Skittles, and more. Study the map some more. You'll be surprised by how much conglomeration effects everyday things you do and eat.
Wednesday, September 25, 2013
Class Talks
In Mr. Miller's J1 class, I always love listening as Mr. Miller reads off the answers to the Current Events Quiz. This is partially because I want to know what I got right, but mostly because most of the answers are very interesting and can lead to great class discussions. For example: recently, the world found out about racist things going on in the University of Alabama. Mr. Miller explained how this was only discovered because of some investigative reporters at the university. I understood that journalism was a big part of the world, but the fact that a major university could get in trouble for racism due to journalism really surprised me. I'm impressed and it has really opened my eyes to how journalism really effects the real world.
Media Critique
The New York Times is usually a very reliable newspaper/website to use, mainly because people can generally find good news stories about relative topics written by good journalists. So who gave Robert Seitsema an article? This article, titled "Dog Ziggity: New Jersey’s Own Hot Dogs," is more of a short story than a news article. The article starts by explaining how most people view hot dogs as part of New York culture while they are mainly part of New Jersey culture. This article falls in line with, "Ex-Chief of Charity Charged With Stealing Millions" and "Kenya’s President Says Mall Attackers Are ‘Defeated’" both of which actually have relevance to the public. Articles should try to make the important interesting, but Robert did the opposite and tried to make the interesting important, and did a crummy job of that too.
Robert violated several Principles and Yardsticks of Journalism. To be exact, Robert violated the principle of verification as well as the yardsticks of explanation and newsworthiness. First, he violated the principle of verification. Verification is using credible sources and being unbiased in any way. Robert used no sources, just himself, to describe the hot dog styles of just New Jersey, possibly offending some New Yorkers.
Robert also violated the yardstick of explanation. He never really explained anything except the form of the hot dog. How is this important? Why does this matter? What was the whole point? These same questions can be asked to show how Robert violated one of the most important yardsticks, newsworthiness. This article has nothing that the majority of New York Times readers need to know. People read the New York Times to learn about world news and major crimes/arrests, not to learn about hot dogs from one state. One- fiftieth of the United States of America. It won't have a long-lasting effect on people and doesn't apply something that a lot of people will need to know.
Not only is this a bad job of the journalist, but also a bad job on The New York Times' part. This could have easily never have happened if the New York Times would stop and think about the article before putting it on the front page. Now, they are stuck looking silly with an article about hot dogs right next to articles about terrorist attacks and million dollar robberies. The New York Times needs to watch who they give front page articles to.
Robert violated several Principles and Yardsticks of Journalism. To be exact, Robert violated the principle of verification as well as the yardsticks of explanation and newsworthiness. First, he violated the principle of verification. Verification is using credible sources and being unbiased in any way. Robert used no sources, just himself, to describe the hot dog styles of just New Jersey, possibly offending some New Yorkers.
Robert also violated the yardstick of explanation. He never really explained anything except the form of the hot dog. How is this important? Why does this matter? What was the whole point? These same questions can be asked to show how Robert violated one of the most important yardsticks, newsworthiness. This article has nothing that the majority of New York Times readers need to know. People read the New York Times to learn about world news and major crimes/arrests, not to learn about hot dogs from one state. One- fiftieth of the United States of America. It won't have a long-lasting effect on people and doesn't apply something that a lot of people will need to know.
Not only is this a bad job of the journalist, but also a bad job on The New York Times' part. This could have easily never have happened if the New York Times would stop and think about the article before putting it on the front page. Now, they are stuck looking silly with an article about hot dogs right next to articles about terrorist attacks and million dollar robberies. The New York Times needs to watch who they give front page articles to.
Tuesday, September 24, 2013
Other Blogs
http://blsj1.blogspot.com/
Wow Brigid. Your comments on the 9/11 video we watched were spot on. I never really thought about it the way you did until now, but you are right. The way the video was put together really helped get its message across. Photographers and photojournalists really played a huge part in conveying the tragedy of 9/11. One thing that Brigid said really summed it all up; "The fact that photographers were able to capture the second plane, poised to strike, was proof. It was not a horrifying nightmare that we could all wake up from. It was not an accident. The pictures all those photojournalists took that day were proof, and for that I'm grateful." Those photographers and photojournalists took a tragedy and turned it into a reality. They never get enough credit for that, so thank you to all the photographers that day, and thank you Brigid for bringing this to mind.
Wow Brigid. Your comments on the 9/11 video we watched were spot on. I never really thought about it the way you did until now, but you are right. The way the video was put together really helped get its message across. Photographers and photojournalists really played a huge part in conveying the tragedy of 9/11. One thing that Brigid said really summed it all up; "The fact that photographers were able to capture the second plane, poised to strike, was proof. It was not a horrifying nightmare that we could all wake up from. It was not an accident. The pictures all those photojournalists took that day were proof, and for that I'm grateful." Those photographers and photojournalists took a tragedy and turned it into a reality. They never get enough credit for that, so thank you to all the photographers that day, and thank you Brigid for bringing this to mind.
Class Talks
On Friday, we discussed recordings through history in Mr. Miller's J1 class. Recordings brought up music and we talked about how new music is viewed today and how new music was viewed before. It seems like now, people except new music much more than before.
Mr. Miller explained and played to us the song "Louise Louise" by the Kingsmen. It was so hard to understand that people thought the singer was speaking a different language and convincing kids to do illegal things and rebel. It is a song about a guy who goes on a boat and misses a girl.
This got me thinking about music in this generation. Some of this music is hard to understand, especially with the popularity of rap music, but music has been around long enough for people to realize that music is more for entertainment than conveying messages and for the most part, not dangerous. This and more trust being put into children is the reason why people are more accepting now than even a few decades ago.
This especially reminded me of a story I heard about the rapper, "Eminem." His daughter introduced him to her new boyfriend. The boy idolized Eminem and his music, but Eminem didn't appreciate that. He didn't want his daughter dating someone who grew up idolizing alcohol, drugs, and violence. Even though he raps about that kind of stuff, he still understood reality, and that's how far music has come along.
Mr. Miller explained and played to us the song "Louise Louise" by the Kingsmen. It was so hard to understand that people thought the singer was speaking a different language and convincing kids to do illegal things and rebel. It is a song about a guy who goes on a boat and misses a girl.
This got me thinking about music in this generation. Some of this music is hard to understand, especially with the popularity of rap music, but music has been around long enough for people to realize that music is more for entertainment than conveying messages and for the most part, not dangerous. This and more trust being put into children is the reason why people are more accepting now than even a few decades ago.
This especially reminded me of a story I heard about the rapper, "Eminem." His daughter introduced him to her new boyfriend. The boy idolized Eminem and his music, but Eminem didn't appreciate that. He didn't want his daughter dating someone who grew up idolizing alcohol, drugs, and violence. Even though he raps about that kind of stuff, he still understood reality, and that's how far music has come along.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)