Response to Alex Cox's Blog

Alex keeps her posts short, simple, and easy to understand. I do wish that she would try to add more detail ti her posts because sometimes the lack of detail can be disappointing. One post that I liked was her post on television. While she could have elaborated on the pros and cons of television, I agree that television entices us to watch the next episode of a television series with it's use of cliffhangers. I enjoyed how she uses her television show preferences to start off the post. It left me wondering where she was going to go with her post. Overall, while I enjoyed her post, I was still disappointed by the lack of detail in her post.

Here's the link to Alex's post about television: http://newofnewsforyou.blogspot.com/2014/11/television.html

Response to Laurie Jonhatan's Blog

Laurie's blog posts this six weeks consisted of mostly her reports on WAVE and the one that I found myself agreeing with is her latest post titled "WAVE 3 News Coverage Overall". I do agree that crime stories were reported the most. I also agree that there were very little international stories, but considering it is a local television station, I'm not surprised. I appreciate how she used numbers and ratios in her posts to show exactly how the number of crime stories greatly outnumbered the number of any other stories. I also appreciated how she went back to her older television news logs to get examples of the types of stories WAVE reported on.

Here is the link to Laurie's post: http://dreaminreality14.blogspot.com/2014/11/wave-3-news-coverage-overall.html

Response to Kathryn Minor's Blog #2

Kathryn manages to communicate her ideas in short paragraphs, which make it easier for the reader to understand. One of her posts that I found interesting was her post about radios. She manages to summarize the class lecture and still add in her own opinion on radios. I did agree with her when she said that people use the radio for music rather than the news today. I also agree with her that radio allowed people to broadcast their opinions, which allowed us to hear how other people see things. One little thing that I somewhat disagree with is when she said that radio gave people news to talk about. While I do agree that people did get their news from radio, I believe that people have been talking about the news ever since newspapers were invented.

Here's the link to Kathryn's post on radio: http://kathrynminorblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/had-very-big-effect-on-both-society-and.html

Response to Emily Nolan's Blog #2

Emily's blog is very informative. Not only that, she also includes pictures that manage to drag my attention to her blog posts. One post that I really found interesting was her post about television. Not only did she provide evidence that supports her thesis that television was the huge competitor of mass media, she also used herself as an example. The fact that she used her former addiction to television as an example to support her thesis makes it more believable. Having a real life example makes understanding what she is trying to communicate easier. Also the way she uses italics and quotes helps emphasize how strong she feels about her thesis. She also ends her post with a call to action, as she urges the readers to go without television for a week. It is a simple, yet effective call to action seeing as I have been trying to avoid watching television all week.

Here's the link to her post about television: http://controversialwaffles.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-big-cheese-television.html

Recordings: The Beginning of an Era

Today I figured about what truly led us to have a growth in our technology. I believe that the earliest recording devices are what led us to advance our technology. The first recording technology was invented in 1877. It was the phonograph invented by Thomas Edison. As you can guess, the first recording device wasn't all that. It was very fragile and it could not be reproduced. Fortunately, Emile Berliner invented the gramophone in 1887. It was more durable than the phonograph. It was also reproducible and you could make electrical copies of your recordings. The gramophone was a huge jump from the phonograph. Then, Maxwell invented radios, speakers, and microphones in the 1920s. This had huge impacts on life back then. Musicians became more popular and culture was spread worldwide through music. From radios we then went to television and then the internet. To think that this may not have been possible without the phonograph. It's all about trial and error when it comes to technology. Edison tried to make a good recording device, but it wasn't that great. This led to Berliner to build upon Edison's mistakes and create the gramophone which led to the invention of modern media outlets.

Television: The Cock of the Walk

While televisions may not have started out so popular, but they're certainly on top today. Televisions began as a luxury that only the wealthy could afford. Now, there are more people with television than indoor plumbing. Why is that? Well first of all think about what television brought us. Television had already done many things that many of the other media outlets had done. It could broadcast across long distances and it could report breaking news. So why did television become so popular? Well I think it was because television could show visual images. Imagine if the War of  the Worlds incident happened when televisions were prominent in households. The people back then would've instantly dismissed this as there was no visual of this. I believe that people will believe you if there is actual visual evidence. Another reason why television became popular is because all the celebrities were moving over to television since they weren't well known in the public eye. People only recognized their voices, but some radio celebrities were still unknown because their radio voices differ from their normal speaking voices. As a result, radio celebrities moved to television. most likely because they wanted recognition. This caused radio to demassify and television became the top media outlet during it's time.

WDRB aka The Local Crime Beat

WDRB doesn't report a diversity of stories on television. Crime makes up almost half of the television stories. While I think it is important for people to know about the crimes happening around the area I think WDRB should report more stories regarding politics and international news. When the big senate race was near, there were hardly any political stories regarding the senate race. Also matters of international news such as Ebola or ISIS were hardly reported on WDRB. Once Ebola cases were found in the U.S I think that WDRB could have done more than two stories. While I don't think Ebola will be huge epidemic here in the United States, some of the more paranoid people would want to know this stuff. I think that WDRB should have at least  reported on Ebola recoveries so it would stop all the paranoia over Ebola. You literally cannot cough at school anymore without people thinking you have Ebola. Also, stories of the Islamic States are hardly reported on WDRB. Yes, I understand that local tv news stations will report more local news. However, you have to consider the magnitude of the story when reporting on something. I would rather want more information on Ebola and ISIS than whether or not a house is up for sale

Movies Theaters: Down, but Not Out

Movies are motion pictures that are broadcast on televisions or in movie theatres. While you can wait for Netflix to have the movie you have been wanting to see, I believe that actually going to a movie theatre provides a better experience for you. One reason for this is because movie theatres are (generally) quiet and without distractions. When you watch a movie in a theatre the experience is overwhelming. The audience is enclosed in darkness and the visuals and the audio of the movie adds to that overwhelming experience. So unless you can get a big screen TV with surround sound, you can't recreate that experience in your home. Also movie theatres are a cultural need. A new movie comes out and everyone wants to be the first to watch it, so they line up outside of movie theatres for midnight screenings. This is because movies come out in theatres first so there's no choice, but to go to movie theatres if you want to be the first to watch it. Sure you can wait a couple of months for Netflix to get it, but the only point of it would be strictly for entertainment. People start talking about the movie the first few days it comes out. Once months have passed that movie is no longer relevant, so talking about said movie will no longer be relevant. Also movies have a set start and finish while televisions do not. Let me explain, movies are guaranteed to have an ending so the viewer knows that the movie will have a conclusion. Television shows however, can run pretty much forever as long as the show has the ratings and fanbase to back it up and during the shows continuation, it might lose a couple of fans. Let's take General Hospital as an example. The show began and 1963 and is still airing today with a total of 13,170 episodes as of October 24, 2014. I can guarantee you that between that time span of 51 years, the show has lost a couple of fans. I think this is because the audience grows tired of the same cast, the same setting, and the similar plots and trust me, General Hospital  is bound to have a couple of episodes that are exactly the same. Movies however, are a one time experience. There is only one of each movie. There is only one Singin' in the Rain, there is only one West Side Story, there is only one Ghost and the list can go on and on.

Radios: The Unity of the Community

History:

Today in J1 we learned about the history of radios. Back when radios were invented they were very popular. One big reason it was popular was because listening in on the radio was a communal experience. It allowed groups of people to get together and listen to your favorite show on the radio. Also, radios reported breaking news which was new back then since they could report on something that was happening at the moment. An example of this is the Hindenburg crash in 1937. Here's a link to a video with the radio broadcast:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Ad9tholMEM

Demassification:

After the Golden Age of radios, televisions began to emerge. At first they weren't that popular because only the rich could afford them, but as television sales began to rise, radios were on the edge of their glory because everything radios did, television did better. This led to more people watching television and less people listening to radios. Television conquered radios and radios have never again reached the top.

Today:

Well today radios are pretty much useless. By useless I don't mean completely useless. Radios are just more obscure and the purpose of them have diminished. Most people now use radios to listen to music on their way to work or to school. I don't think I've ever seen anyone sit next to a radio and wait for a certain broadcast. Sure there are some radio channels that don't play music, but most of them that I've seen are either religious channels or NPR. While I do think that radios can't compete with television, I do believe that radios are a necessity for traveling because radios are portable and most of them, if not, all of them are wireless. So overall I believe that the usefulness of radios have been reduced, but why wouldn't it? They're competing against television and the Internet.

Response to Emily Nolan's Blog

Out of all the blogs I have seen, Emily has one of the more lengthy blogs. One blog post that stuck out to me was her post about newspapers titled, "Why Do Newspapers Still Exist?". In the first half of the post, Emily basically regurgitated information from class. It's the second half of the post that intrigued me. Emily talked about how technological advances are changing the newspaper industry. I pretty much agreed to everything she said, except for the last paragraph. Emily ended her post by saying that in fifty years, newspapers will most likely be extinct. I completely disagree with Emily. I think that newspapers are going to be around for a long time. This reminds me of how people don't like kindles because people want to be able to physically turn the page. I think that a lot of people will agree with me when I say that it feels more traditional holding a newspaper in your hand rather than going to The Washington Post and clicking on the link to see today's newspaper online. To visit Emily's creatively titled blog click this link: http://controversialwaffles.blogspot.com/

Response to Kathryn Minor's Blog

Despite not having artistic ability in Paint, Kathyrn Minor has a thoughtful, organized, and incisive blog. One post that I particularly enjoyed was her post comparing newspapers, books, and magazines. It was creatively titled, "Let's Compare, Newspapers, Books, and Magazines". I liked the fact that she had headings and posted her response in a cause and effect fashion. While she doesn't go too deep into detail, she doesn't have to because everything is explained thoroughly without being wordy. You can check out her blog here: http://kathrynminorblog.blogspot.com/

School Teacher Wins $1 Million Dollars! How is this News?

A story about a school teacher in Maryland who won a million dollars on the popular game, Wheel of Fortune was posted today. Can somebody explain why this is news? This story was found on The Washington Post. There were a couple of the 9 principles and 7 yardsticks of journalism that were violated. First of all, Emily Yahr, the author of this story tried making the interesting important, something that shouldn't really be done especially on a news website such as The Washington Post. The yardsticks that were violated are newsworthiness and local relevancy. This story isn't really newsworthy because it doesn't affect a mass number of people. The money affects the teacher's friends and family, but pretty much nobody else. Local relevancy ties in with newsworthiness. It doesn't really affect anyone in Maryland, besides the winner's friends and family. Who cares if this teacher made Wheel of Fortune history? It will ever make it to an actual history textbook. Journalists are supposed to report stories about events that can change the lives of a mass number of people. Obviously, Ms. Yahr does not know that. Aside from the opinion pages (which can't really be critiqued) she has written multiple stories about non important subjects. Some other examples include Darrell Hammond is the new 'Saturday Night Live' Announcer, Kanye West stops concert, singles out audience members to stand up-except one is in a wheelchair, Chris Pratt to host 'Saturday Night Live' with (obviously) musical guest Ariana Grande, and many others. Ms. Yahr should stick to opinion articles instead of unimportant filler stories that have little effect on anyone. There is no way Ms. Yahr could improve upon an unimportant story about Wheel of Fortune. It should have not even been on a site such as The Washington Post. It seems more fit to be on Buzzfeed.

What Makes Magazines So Great?

Magazines are basically a mesh of newspapers and books. Magazines are generally cheaper than books, but more expensive than newspapers. Newspapers come out daily and books take many months to make while magazines are usually printed on a monthly or weekly basis. Books tend to be more entertaining while newspapers are informative, but magazines are both. The first magazine was invented in 1741 by Benjamin Franklin. It was called "General Magazine". Not a great name, but it's the first magazine ever made so give him a break. Magazines allow for more in depth investigative journalism. Newspapers couldn't do that because they only had one or two columns to write a story. Imagine going into detail about a story while still trying to get all the sides of the story. Newspaper stories have to be short and to the point. People read newspapers because they want to get their news fast. They don't have time to read detailed reports about current events. Magazines also allowed us to develop photojournalism. Magazines don't have as many time constraints as newspapers do so this gives journalists time to incorporate pictures into an article. Magazines can let you see the whole story while newspapers will only give you the most important pieces of information. One final thing that makes magazines great is that they're colorful and durable. Mr. Miller showed us his oldest newspapers last week and they were worn out. They began to fade because of how old they were. I guess it makes sense for newspapers to fade away. You can't go back to a newspaper from last year and expect it to be relevant one year later. I guess this is why newspapers aren't made from more durable materials. A magazine can sit on a table for a year and still look great. It most likely will still be relevant since magazines don't report on breaking news. Newspapers are fast paced and have to be short and to the point. Magazines are more steady and allow us to enjoy all the descriptions and information.

Newspapers Are Still Alive!

Last week in my journalism class we learned about the history of newspapers. Newspapers were definitely popular back when they began making newspapers, but over time they have became more and more obscure. Even though newspapers have declined, there are many reasons as to why a bunch of people still read them. One reason as to why people read newspapers is because they are portable. Yeah you can take a cell phone with you and read the news, but what happens if your phone dies or you have no internet connection? You can't read the news anymore that's what happens. Newspapers are low tech which redeems the newspaper. Another reason why people still read the newspaper is because it's traditional. The older people have been reading newspapers for a long time. For them to just stop reading newspapers all together goes against the tradition. Newspapers are also physical objects so you can see an entire page right in front of you. When on a phone you can only see what fits on your screen so you have to scroll around and find the story you want to read. The final reason why newspapers still exist is because they are nonlinear. You don't have to read the front page to know what's going on in the other pages. You can pretty much start and end wherever you want. As you can see, newspapers are very much alive and they aren't going anywhere for a long time.

Daycare Centers and Ms. McKim: The Second Disney?

Yesterday in my journalism class we talked about binary models and monopolies. Although I could right entire posts about the aforementioned things, the one thing that I found interesting was conglomeration. Conglomeration is basically when a large company buys all these smaller companies. Some examples of these large companies are Time Warner and Disney. Mr. Miller talked about how Disney strictly enforces their copyrights. Apparently painting Disney characters on the side of a building is a copyright violation. I honestly think it's ridiculous. I honestly see nothing wrong with painting Mickey Mouse on your daycare center wall. I guess Disney hates when people use their content in PUBLIC because it attracts people. In that case wasn't Disney Day during red white week last year a copyright violation? There was a large number of students last year who dressed up as all sorts of Disney characters in a PUBLIC school. For example, Ms. McKim, my science teacher from freshman year went all out and dressed up as Cruella de Vil. According to Disney, I was supposed to stalk her all the way home because Cruella de Vil is a Disney character and that attracts people. Well I didn't stalk her that night. It's all pretty much harmless. It's not like Ms. McKim or that daycare center be the second Disney. Obviously if people are using Disney characters for the sole purpose of making money off them then they should be punished. A parent doesn't send a child to a daycare just because Mickey Mouse is painted on the side of the building. This is harmless use of their characters so they shouldn't be punished by Disney. So as long as the characters are used in a harmless way then Disney shouldn't get angry with the people who use their content.

Third Party Email Ban

I think that the ban on third party emails in JCPS because kids might be emailing pornography is ridiculous. People will always find a way around the rules unless you ban the internet all together. I mean can you imagine how long it would even take to be emailing pornographic images. I have sent emails with image attachments in them to my teachers for projects a lot. You would have to look up the image, then save it to your computer, log into your email, put in the receiver's email address, wait for your attachment to load onto the email you're sending, and then finally send it. Do you know how long that would take? With the school's internet slow speed, doing all the aforementioned steps would take even longer! I believe the ban should be lifted because I'm pretty sure people have the common sense to not being looking up adult content in a classroom.