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
Monday, November 11, 2013
Saturday, November 9, 2013
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.
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.
Sunday, November 3, 2013
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.
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)