Response to Nico's Blog

I think that Nico did a great job with his post about the internet. He used many examples of why the internet has affected us. He also mentioned the affect it has had on other forms of media. The thing I think was most interesting in his post was, "The internet is such a great source of communication, but could it actually be hurting local economies?" This is a quote from Nico. He did a great job overall but had a few elaboration flaws.

Nico used examples that described the affect of the internet on the people. We do not go to stores to buy a whole album anymore because we could just get the one song we like online for a much lower price. Also, we shop online more now. Instead of leaving to go to a store that may or may not have what you want, you can shop online and not even leave your house. The internet always has what you want, even if it takes longer to get to your house. These same examples affect the businesses. The record industry was affected by us shopping online and the stores are affected by us shopping online.

I think his thoughts on the economy effect of the internet was a great point. He mentioned that the economies of locals can be changed. When no one shops in the stores, they don't make money. They have to go to online sales to accommodate their customers. This changes the way companies market. While the internet is a great way to communicate with others, it can hurt businesses when people only shop online. My problem with this quote was that I had to assume this was the meaning behind what he meant. He gave no elaboration. I interpreted it to mean this but I may be wrong. In order to avoid this confusion; Nico should have explained his opinions.

The only thing that Nico really gave an explanation of was the affect on people and the effect on businesses. This was the main topic of his piece and that is okay but, it is only one small part of the internet and its spread/ invention. A more broad topic about the internet may have helped to avoid the assumptions. You could also better understand why the internet affects people and businesses.

Nico did a great job on his post. He focused on one main topic. A better choice may have been a general post about the internet lecture. He raised great questions about economy change. I think he wrote very well about the internet's effects on society.

Here is a link to his post: http://nicopagni19.blogspot.com/2013/11/internet-lecture-response.html

Response to Emma's Blog

Emma Bornshein recently made a post about a WAVE article about bus problems. They did not give any details because there were no bus problems. As she stated, the article could have been pertinent if it actually affected the people. The article did not affect people because even though citizens pay taxes to support the schools, the article was just saying that there wasn't any issues. In her critique, Emma did a great job of including all mistakes they made and also researching to find these mistakes. I found no issues with Emma's post because she was so thorough.

I think this was a great article. She was extremely inclusive in this piece. She found so many errors within the article that the average person would not have noticed. Just from reading the article, I only noticed a couple of the mistakes she pointed out. The main one was obvious, inclusiveness. The article was very one-sided and did not even cover the opinions of the parents. This surprised me because they were being talked about in the article. The students were also important. I wonder how they felt about being given a 'tag'? Was it helpful or did they think it was unnecessary? The article should have addressed these questions.

She did a lot of research to find out some of the mistakes from the article. One thing that she researched most was probably the Hawthorne Elementary new school day part. She must have looked hard to find out that other schools did the same thing a few years ago. "This would be a newsworthy fact if it was relevant but unfortunately, different schools have had similar procedures in place for years. In fact, on JCPS's 2009 online newsletter it explicitly states, "JCPS elementary students will receive a bracelet to be worn during the first week of school."" This is a quote from her post. This was from the archive of JCPS from 2009! It wasn't common knowledge of their front page. I think that that is a great version of researching.

Emma's post can be found at: http://barefootdance.blogspot.com/2013/09/media-critique-of-wave3-education.html  This post includes the links to both the critiqued article and the archive from 2009.

Critique of WLKY

WLKY has a very small news hole. They only have about twenty minutes for news after their commercials. Sports and weather take up about five to ten minutes of this time depending on the day. So in the end they have about fifteen to twenty minutes for news. It isn't easy to cover every

A small news hole can either cause the stories to be rushed or it can lead to the exclusion of some newsworthy stories. Neither of the effects are positive. Rushed stories can cause even more issues such as details being left out and people not knowing everything they need to know in order to comprehend the story. If the stories are not included at all, the people will know nothing of the issues and will have no way to be prepared. Of the two possible effects the rushed stories could be considered better but WLKY did not do this. WLKY excluded some major news stories because there wasn't enough room after the inordinate amount of crime stories, sports, weather, and commercials.

One story that wasn't shown in WLKY that was very important was on October 22. This issue was about the Ohio Bridge. It caused some lanes to be closed because of work. The reason this story should be included is because people need to know that if they are trying to cross the Ohio River. Of course with fewer lanes, there would be more traffic. If someone needed to get to work, they would need to leave early and be prepared for the situation. If the only source of news for a person was WLKY, they could be late to work. Obviously this is a dramatic version of the consequences of the exclusion, but it still should have been in the show because it was extremely newsworthy. This story can be found at http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20131102/NEWS01/311020074/-1/7days archives/Ohio-River-Bridges-Project-will-close-lanes which is the Courier-Journal's paper for that day. They had the story and included the impacts on different days for that week.

Another reason WLKY has a short amount of time in for their news is because they spend too much time on some stories that are irrelevant or not quite as important as they seem to be. The David Camm trial is one of these events. They had David Camm updates in six shows. In one of these shows there was three stories about David Camm. That is a total of eight Camm stories in one month. Another example of spending too much time on one story was a story on October 24. It was about a JCPS student who was bullied. This story is obviously important because bullying is a big issue and it will help to put it into perspective for some people. The reason I feel that this story had too much attention was because after commercials, weather, sports, and David Camm(x3) there was only six minutes and twelve seconds spent on news. That is very little time to do seven stories. They spent about two minutes on the story about bullying. That is one third of their news block. So they did six stories in about four minutes, this time does not include the tosses. This is the link to a very similar story to the one broadcast on television; although, it was slightly longer on the show: http://www.wlky.com/news/local-news/louisville-news/family-demands-jcps-protect-bullying-victim/-/9718340/22619022/-/bkma2mz/-/index.html

The short news hole causes many problems because the station will end up not being able to include every story. They may be shortened if they are included. The interruptions to the news hole are not nearly as important as the news stories that should be shown. The commercials are necessary for the station's income, but the sports and weather do not need to be as long as they are. A longer news hole is better for the people because they have a better opportunity to receive their news.

Response to Drew's Blog

Drew made a post about the popularity of different forms of mass media. I really like this discussion because he incorporated all types of media while focusing on the internet. He made generalization, then backed them up with facts from the class discussion. In order to convey his message, he said things about how long it may take something to get noticed but then the quick gain of popularity. This was a good way to convey his message.

I have one critique of this post. Within the post he had a lot of facts and support for his argument that didn't seem to flow. This sentence is an example, 'That [the increase of viewers] may seem like a big jump, but just 5 years later, there were over 500 million users, and a little over 10 years after that, 2.4 billion internet users.' This sentence seems to go on too long; however, that is a grammatical error not an informational flaw. The critique was the wordiness and unnecessary information. The reason I think this is not good is because it makes the reader confused and they have to go back and reread in order to discover what the original year was.

As a whole, I believe this post was very informational. It did a great job of showing the jumps between the years and popularity of the internet. It did use a lot information, but I that is easy to fix by just separating the years a little better. He made some great points and I think this is a very effective way to show the relationship between popularity and invention.

Here is a link to Drew's blog: http://alfrey99.blogspot.com/2013/10/class-talks.html

Response to Lauren's Blog

Lauren posted on her blog,http://laurenrose01.blogspot.com/2013/10/j1-movie-discussion.html , a critique of the class discussion on movies. I think that this is a great critique because she makes points on every aspect of movies. I think the way that she compared reality to their perspective was very good. She used the comparison of YouTube video's to the movies of that time. This makes it easier for the reader to connect to her point and understand her feelings.

My only problem with this piece is that she didn't explain each of her points very well. She mentioned every important point but didn't explain them. As a reader, I noticed that some of her sentences seemed unfinished. They were complete sentences but it seemed like there was more that could be said about the topic.

Overall, I think that Lauren did a great job on this even though she did leave out a couple of elaborations. These are easy fixes but not absolutely necessary to the understanding of the writing. Since it is still complete as is, I think she did a great job with her writing.

Response to Camille's Blog

Recently, Camille posted an article about an article from WDRB. The article was about a bus crash that had occurred that day. In Camille's opinion the article should never have been posted. I agree with Camille in this opinion. The article never stated a purpose and didn't even tell the reason for the crash. There was only two people on the bus, one boy and the driver, and neither was injured. She had a good interpretation of the article in this sense.

Although I agree with her opinions that were stated, she never said anything about the principles or yardsticks. She also didn't go into depth about what was missing from the article in order to make it newsworthy. I think she should have included the fact that the article was unnecessary fluff that needed to be changed to include more facts, pertinence to the people, or be deleted altogether. If she had done any of these things, I think that her critique would have been perfect and very true.

Here is a link to her article:
http://snazzysnazzgs.blogspot.com/2013/10/wdrb-local-news-j1-2.html

Television, Class Discussion

I thought the lecture about television was very interesting and very new to me. I never knew about the creation of television and how it became popular. Television changed so many aspects of daily life. It still affects some decisions we make everyday such as clothing and our views on specific topics.

Television is a big reason that people today are inactive. People are no longer having to leave their house and go outside to exercise. They can set up a TV in front of a treadmill and work out. When people do not feel obligated to leave, they do not choose to leave just to exercise. They would rather stay at home and watch TV whether they are exercising or simply sitting.

I think it was interesting to learn about how TV caused social issues to become important and relevant. Before television, gay people did not publicize their stand on relationships. However, when people began to be gay on television, it became okay and accepted, although still critiqued. People could be more open with their feelings after seeing something being done by someone famous.

It has also affected politics. Candidates can't win elections if they don't have TV advertising. People remember these ads whether good or bad so you are much more likely to be remembered if you have a commercial on television. Only rich people can finance this; consequently, only the rich may win. The common person won't win an election so their problems are often ignored or considered unreal.

Even though television changed many things, I feel that our perception of reality was the most important change. People believed whatever was on television. If it wasn't on TV, it wasn't real or true. Fashions seen on TV were followed. Social issues, such as the gay issue, also were affected by television and people's change of opinion. People only voiced their opinions if they would be accepted

Radio, In Class Discussion

I really liked the discussion on radio last week. I thought learning about the steps of how many people worked toward the invention of radio and how long it took was interesting. Many people worked on radio before it became what it is today. We think of radio in a different way now than we used to. When it was first invented it was used in different ways. People didn't keep radios in their homes.

When I learned about radio's being found in department stores at first, I was startled. I tried too imagine going to a store to listen to the radio. Also, it wouldn't be radio as I imagine it. Radio was used for commercials only in stores and not for private listening. They weren't found in homes. Also I wouldn't be able to listen to the radio in the car because the technology hadn't been invented. The primary place I listen to the radio is in the car. This seems to be the case for most people. Since you couldn't do this, it was popularized mainly in stores.

Radio could have live stories. They did news especially. I think the breaking news aspect of radio made people want it more. They enjoyed listening to stories as they happened. It helped people to learn what was happening more quickly. The people didn't need to wait to learn by word of mouth. Radio was the first live news medium.

Eventually television demassified radio and it had to go to niche audiences. After the invention of television, radio lost their mass audience. This is what caused the transition from general to niche audiences. Conglomeration affects radio because different areas may have the same broadcasts with the same reporters.

Even though I liked the topic of this discussion, I feel that it was a little rushed. We had so many distractions to the class and shortened blocks. These caused us to get behind and the lecture had less time and attention. Since it was rushed, I don't think we went as in depth as we have on some other topics. However, the lecture was still very informative.

Movies, In Class Discussion

Movies are a big influencer of life and perceptions. People were shocked by movies at first and this surprises me. The movie industry is still popular because of the experience of being in a theater. People stopped going to the movie theater when television was created.

The in-class movie discussion was very interesting and somewhat surprising. When watching TV I never really thought about how it was made. I guess I knew that it is made from pictures at first. When it is projected, it appears to be moving. Even though I already assumed this I was still surprised. The Lumineer Brothers' invention made it possible for movies to be projected. They did not, however, discover how to project with sound. All movies were silent until a new invention was created. I think Mr. Miller did an excellent job of communicating this message through the video clip because it really helped me. I am a visual learner so seeing the video clip by these brothers showed what their invention was.

The most shocking part of the discussion was when Mr. Miller told us that the video made people jump and be scared. I cannot imagine being scared of a movie because of the reality of it. I have grown up with television though so I have never known life without movies. The people in the theater who had never seen a movie before were probably thinking about the oddness of a picture moving. I can't really relate this to anything except maybe learning something new. Therefore, I cannot picture screaming at the reality of a movie.

Also in this lecture were reasons for going to the theater when there are so many other options. People continue to go to the theater because it is a social event, it is immersive, there is a genre variety, cultural influences, and the need to be the first to see it. These drive people to go to the theater and pay to see an expensive movie instead of waiting.

Movies were demassified by television when people decided to wait to watch movies on DVD or in another form. Also, people watched movies less after the invention of television. television was more available and it was believed to be more real than movies. Anything you saw on television was real but the stuff found in movies was only made up for entertainment reasons.
 
Movies are made through pictures. These pictures can be projected with or without sound. When moves were first developed, people were scared of them. Going to theater is a bigger experience than just watching a movie at home. Television is the biggest reason for the demassification of movies.

2ND SIX WEEKS

Response to Skye Spalding's Blog

     I really like the way Skye presented her views on the music lecture. She told her opinions very clearly about how she feels about music and the invention of it. She really likes music! I like the way she includes opinions on Mr. Miller's teaching style, and I agree. "He actually tells us information worth knowing and that we will actually use outside of school." I love this quote from Skye's blog, mainly because it is true and we are being prepared for the future instead of just remembering facts that we won't remember when we are older.

http://insertcleverwebaddresshere.blogspot.com/

Media Critique for Courier- Journal Article

     Published in Monday the twenty-third of September's edition of the Courier-Journal on page A8 was an article about Obama not accepting the current gun laws because they do not adequately protect the people. This article was written by Nedra Pickler and titled "Obama Won't Quit on Guns." It tells about a memorial event that was held for the relatives of those killed in the Washington Navy Yard shooting. This article includes many quotes and examples explaining how and why President Obama feels the rules must change. It also violates many of the principles and yardsticks: verification, local relevance, inclusive, context, and explanation.
     It lacks verification. Obama's side is the only opinion given. The author should have asked some people who attended the event about their opinion on Obama's views about the gun laws. They would have added more to the story and could have helped the reader to understand the importance of these laws. Since these other sources are not included, the event that is featured isn't really connected to citizens of Kentucky. The story of what happened is very important to the people since it raised these questions about gun laws and it was a tragic event.
     Local relevance is not fully included. Some of the article is very well written and tells about president Obama's proposed change in gun laws, which do affect people. Toward the end of the article the event Mr. Obama led is highlighted. As mentioned, it is not connected to the local people because it doesn't give any information except that the president held a memorial for the victims and family members of the shooting. In order to accomplish local relevance, the writer of this article should have included more ways that this event affects local people and what the effects of President Obama talking to these people may be.
     The article isn't inclusive. It doesn't communicate who, if anyone, opposes these laws and why people feel in that way. Quotes are given about Mr. Obama's campaign for these changes, but not any other officials views. To fix the problem of inclusiveness the author should talk to other important people who may have other feelings about the ideas.
     Context seems to be missing. Not enough sources are used to keep the topic relevant, and inclusive. Only the views of one person, President Obama, are given. They should fix this in the same way that verification, local relevance, and inclusive should be fixed.
     The explanation within this article is not high enough. This story only focuses on what happened and briefly on why. It never tells why it is significant to anyone besides the people within the article. This can be fixed by simply explaining in more detail why President Obama feels this way and why it is important to everyone.
     Overall, this article misses many of the key yardsticks and principles of journalism. It is noninclusive, not relevant to the local people, missing sources, and non-explanatory. All of the things that were not included within the article could have been easily added or fixed. With further review mistakes could have been prevented. The article does a great job of following some of the principles but still is missing many components that are necessary to good journalism.

Response to Olivia Loy's Blog

     I chose to review Olivia Loy's post about binary models. I think that she described it very well. I like the way examples are used and the article is written in a way that is easily understood. She gives her opinion about why certain mediums are more popular, "Most people prefer the cool model because it doesn't require all your attention. You could wash the dishes or, give your dog a bath while catching up on the news. Most people these days agree that television is more convenient for their busy lives." The way she explains this is very understandable. When reading this, you think about yourself doing this action. She also gives her opinion on the future of books. She does a very good job of explaining the binary models.

http://olivialoy.blogspot.com/

Conglomeration, In Class Discussion

      I think conglomeration can be a good or bad thing. It is positive because more money is raised and it is more efficient for one company to make all merchandise for a specific product. It is negative because of job loss, less competition, and less diversity of content. When there was multiple companies, there was many variety between products. After conglomeration the companies will most likely all take the same view on a topic. They do this because most people are not willing to critique their boss as they will be fired. Monopolies are a result of conglomeration. I think that horizontal monopolies are very bad because that company will not be criticized and some issues may not be included. If a company does not like a product, they do not have to promote it. This causes less diversity of content. Conglomeration can either help spread an idea or can make it seem less important.

Magazines, In Class Discussion

     Magazines became the first national medium because they were cheap and didn't have to be received immediately. They were so cheap because the Postal Act of 1879 made it only one cent per pound to ship magazines. I think this was both a good idea and a bad one because it helped people to get their news. However it is bad because newspapers lost even more viewers when magazines became popular. Magazines were shipped to more places because of the Postal Act of 1879. Since the news found in magazines would affect many people for a long time, people could receive it weeks after it was published and it would still be important news. This wasn't true about newspapers. Magazines cost very little adn reached a large audience.

Newspapers, In Class Discussion

     Newspapers are important because they are a good way to spread news quickly. They are written in the inverted pyramid style, which i think is very interesting. I never thought abut the things that affect the way news travels, such as cannonballs breaking telegrams. I think that this is very interesting and still hard to imagine because today this would never happen. When television became more popular newspapers lost advertisers and readers. Some people stopped reading the paper because it was becoming more expensive. Newspapers are still have an audience because they didn't demassify, they were credible, and it became tradition. Some people preferred newspapers over television and radio because you could skip through them and you didn't have to read every article. Newspapers are popular for many reasons and they were affected by factors that could have demassified them.

Printing Press, In Class Discussion

     I never realized how important the printing press is to society.  I was also shocked to learn about how many things would be different without it.  This made me think about how it would affect me personally. I love to read so my life would be very different. I would have different interests and would spend my time in other ways.  Television and magazines would not exist because people would be less educated and would not have the knowledge to invent them.  The printing press helped many other creations to be made. Magazines and newspapers would not be mass communication if it had not been invented.