August 2011 Archives

When we watched the trailer for the documentary Page One, I think that's the title, it reminded me of a screening i had in a different communications class. I don't quite remember what it was called but it was pretty much about the crisis of finding work/keeping work for journalists and the effect of the declining consumers of newspaper on the journalists. I'm assuming that Page One was similar to the screening I had in my other class where the dilemma is on newspapers and its sustainability in our culture. It probably is giving a point of view of the people in Page One and what their thoughts are on the life of newspapers. I think having discussed about newspapers in another class helped me understand it more in depth when we discussed the articles in class.

The Johnson article was praising the news transitioning to the web, the author really liked this new growth media. I agree with him on this. I socialize, do research, check email, and communicate with family on my computer; even school work is done over the internet. So for articles from the newspaper to be posted on the web, it would be so much more convenient for constant computer users like myself. It would even help us to be updated with the world consistently and every minute. Johnson said that the information he got over the web has given him higher quality, more depth, and just more information. That's a good thing, we should like this new form of media; the web.

Someone in class I believe brought up that maybe journalists should stop pouting about the decline of usage of newspapers and move on and become excited for new life in news being on the web. In the Starr article, he talked about how newspapers have always relied on the power of pricing. Newspaper companies can still have that power. People can buy their newspapers online. If newspapers and journalists were all transitioned to online then it could be beneficial. Journalists could write longer articles and write more than just one article on more than just one topic. Technology is improving, so should people's adaptability. Adaptability is part of survival in this world.

When we spoke of the three dimensions of i Culture. The topic of privacy was raised and how technology has influenced what information we tend to put on websites such as Facebook and Twitter. Since most companies such as credit card companies , cell phone and banks these days tend to use online access to pay or look through a bill. Its hard to be so private through online access , so you cant really get rid of it but you can minimize what kind of information you put online such as social security bank accounts cell phone etc. In this day of age everything just seems to move away from the mailing etc and moving to the fast online transformers. Such as instead of waiting weeks for a paycheck to come through the mail you can instead get your money through direct deposit fast but with that you must put all the information need such as social security number to access direct to deposit. These days the question is What kind of information about yourself are you willing to give up online to be happy. For some that's a easy questions to answer for others one of the hardest.

Allison's presentation made me think a little more about the future of newspapers in this country. I was under the impression that the NYTimes and almost all other newpapers were in financial distress. IF, and that I think it is a big if, the NYT is doing better now, will they evolve into something other than a newspaper? Like MPR. MPR's main focus is radio, but on there website they now have written articles and I think they are starting to get into video also. If the Washington Post, NYT, and WSJ can develop a financial model that allows they to make money, it may be not because they are newspapers, but because they are sources of high quality news. How it is distributed could be of secondary importance. The news that they produce could be distributed in print, WWW, mobile, or ??? Just something to think about.

A final note on my comment about the financial situation of the NYT. I did a quick look through Yahoo, and the NYT is not profitable, and looking at a number of comments, their attempt to get paying subscriptions for online content is not going well.

This has been a very interesting class to be in. I've never been in a class that we were required to tweet and blog so that was a struggle for me. But back to the last day, everyone day very interesting topics for their final papers. I may have bombed my speech but I've really never been good at them. And it was also very fun to see how much knowledge we gained from this class. I know I will take away a understanding of what is going on in our media industry and how to avoid the pitfalls of these texts.

Sorry i missed class for personal reasons on Wednesday but my question would be this: How is it that a company like Tommy Hilfiger gone from being one of the most trediest clothing lines in the 90's to not being that popular, where a brand like Nike has almost dominated their area of clothing for the last decade?

The Wiki Leaks screening was very interesting to me. I had never heard of wiki links and was quite shocked when i heard what they were about and what they do. I still have some questions for how and who they find their information out,but it just goes to show that NOTHING is a secret now adays. One thing i was happy with however is that thet are using their advantage for good and not bad, and not taking to much avantage of the media power that they have developed over the years

The Blindside was a great movie and has alreaby been dubbed one of the best sports movies of all-time. Its heart felt movie starring sandra bullock and is based off the true live story of Baltimore Ravens starting Offensive Tackle Micheal Oher. The one way i could relate to it personally was the recruiting process. Its funny to see it in the movie, because some of those exact same coaches came to my house and tried to win me over the same way they did in the movie.
One way this movie relates to the media is how he got recruited. His fame spread over the internet as people began to take notice so did the college coaches. Rivals.com run by Tom Lemming is a website just for college football/basketball recruiting and it is a way for kids to get noticed by using online media.

I was out of town for a conference for several days and I was unable to be in class for the screening of the Blindside, but I have seen it so the teacher and I worked it out where I could be kind of a discussion leader. It's been really hectic since I got back but I've finally found time to discuss it

I remember watching the NFL draft and Michael Oher was drafted to the Ravens, and my brother was telling me about him. He had pretty much came from nothing, had nothing, and nothing was his future. He was saved by the Tuohy family who took him in as their own. At the time it was a crazy thing for the southern white family to take a black boy into their own home. They helped him do better in school in order to go to college football. He ended up going to Ole Miss and excelling academically and athletically. His story would later be made into the movie, The Blindside.

Biggest theme I got out of this movie was family and love. Leanne Tuohy had such a big heart, and let's be honest, someone with that big of a heart is rare. She took in a complete stranger off the street into her own home where her family lives. She did so much for this kid to have a better life. She got him a tutor, she made sure her family welcomed him well, she talked to his real mother, she defended him against dangerous gangsters, and even got him a car to make him feel worthy (that last part may seem a little spoiling to us but we gotta see it from his point of view, his life was very hard and abnormal).

In Oher's case, he had to work really hard with a strong support system to get to the NFL. Some athletes have the privilege of being the son or daughter of an all-star, and others came from a normal upbringing where they went to school with friends all their life, had a loving family all their life, and simply joined their school sports team because they loved the sport and had some skills to follow it. The Superbowl is a huge event in America. Football is a very popular sport to watch in America. When people watch Sports Center on ESPN, they get highlights of the best players or remarkable stories. I can bet Oher's story that year he was drafted was at the top of that list. With new technology springing up these days, the exposure football gets nationwide is many and beyond. But with Oher's family upbringing, I am sure he is well grounded and just loving to play the blindside.

I wasn't sure if I needed to post questions if I was discussion leader and my questions would be asked for sure in class. But I will post them any ways for those not in class those days.

For Monday, the topic was the extinction of print newspaper. My question was if we lose newspapers for good in the future, would it be a good thing or bad thing for our culture? Do you think newspaper have a sustainability where they will still be here in 10-20 years, not as strong of course? Will this be due to the fact that they are the base of all the other new media, where else would these new media get their info?

Yesterday, the topic was on iculture and we discussed a lot about privacy. I forgot to make a comment. On the U of m Website, my friend needed to look up my email. She looked up my name, not only did it give my name and email, it gave my entire home address! I was really surprised and kind of felt violated. I had no idea this type of information was on our school system. It's kind of scary.

I thought that Andrejevic brought up some good points in his essay on the three dimensions of what he calls "iCulture." There has certainly been a trend recently toward much more interaction in media and a movement away from a more top-down delivery of content. Today's discussion also raised a lot of interesting ideas - especially whether we should be scared of this change, or whether we are simply paranoid. I tend to believe that most of us are not interested in being exploited, either openly or covertly, but that we also are not all that interested in the amount of "watchdog-ing" needed to maintain more online anonymity. Like I said in class, I do use my email everyday for personal and school and work communication, yet I never worry about who or what might be "reading" the messages. Andrejevic's point that all this "iMonitoring" is possible now due to interactive media is interesting, but my point is that it isn't the media isn't making us paranoid, its us. The more info we put out there, and the more we invite technology into our lives, our homes, and our computers, the more we are allowing ourselves to be researched and watched. Like some people in the class pointed out, if you don't want to be part of this, you have to stop participating. And that is really hard to do.

The video we watched in class on Monday about the founder of Wiki Leaks and the preview of the NY Times movie coming out soon brought up many different issues. Do we accept the fact that we should accept that certain things are not for public viewing or should the general public have access to anything at anytime?

For me personally I think there is somethings I would rather not know about but for the most part I am a big fan of full disclosure.

How has mass culture influence how we as a society view product markets such as Nike , Ralph Lauren, and how has that reached internationally across the world.

While looking at the pros and cons of keeping the traditional newspapers verses evolving it, I have come to the conclusion that our society will need both. There is no doubt in my mind that the Internet database for news will greatly surpass that of print form. However, I feel that both are needed for the generational gap. When I look at my parents and grandparents, I see that they have grown up with print newspapers just as we have grown up with the Internet. When there is a slower learning curve for those not exposed to technical advancements, it seems unfair to take away the main source of media they are used to. Even though I believe this news form is far less efficient, being able to get some news is better than not getting any at all be it through lack of knowledge or desire to navigate the Internet form. Beyond just the generational difference, I think there is also the question on how many people actually have access to computers and Internet. For those who do not have the resources, time, or money to surf the web for important facts, it is impossible to keep up with the daily news. In addition, it is difficult for people just learning how to scope the net to distinguish reliable sources from phony ones. Despite these dilemmas for access to the web, the web itself can provide a much greater wealth of knowledge and diversity that can reach out to a much greater audience rather then just creating a few articles that appeal to someone, which is only able to reach out to a few thousand people in the first place.

Do you agree with the statement that producers have more information about conumers than before while consumers are unable to have control or knowledge of how the information is being used? why or why not?

Part of Andrejevic article discusses iMonitoring, which is kind of what Ox is talking about below. I know that this is not a new idea, but at what point do we lose all privacy? I one point I thought that it would get to the point that there would be so much info that if could not be sorted through, but I don't think that anymore. Computer programs are getting very good at categorizing information.

Do you know that there are ways to id people in photos? Like on facebook. So at some point, all though photos of you behaving badly on spring break we be searchable, just like google is now.

Is it just me, or does anyone else worry about getting all your news from apps or other electronic media that can closely track what you read? Or am I just being paranoid? Also, I do not use news aggregaters to pick my news stories. I don't want some computer algorithm to pick what I read, I worry about missing something that while would not necessarily fit my profile, but I would still find interesting.

In Andrejevic's article he mentions the introduction of nostalgia in the innovation of interactivity and how those in new advertising and media are doing so because new technology can lead to a loss of the sense of community. Do you feel Nike is making its customers feel more in touch with them, do to the interaction of the consumer in making a shoe? Has anyone every designed a shoe or item on the internet and bought it? Is this the future or a fad?
Ryan

Can someone PLEASE tell me what the looking up friends and others online is all about? Is it a security issue am? I can understand being on an online site looking up people for background checks and past history as far as housing, jobs, etc. go, but people you are acquainted with? Why even get in close with a person you fell compelled to look up? The whole thing just sounds creepy to me, get to know someone first before you have to look into them, especially if you keep them around you and your belongings.

The NEw Republic Article kind of baffled me when he mentioned the end of the political system itself. Huh? How? I mean Hasn't there always been an infinity with the government and sponsored newspapers (or anything else it governs)? There are things that could easily be done to get from underneath crushing foot of when writing a journalistic piece I used to think. But when I think more and more on it now what doesn't the government control? I feel bad for true journalists that feel they have folded under any type of pressure by all means but unfortunately news like everything else that is influential needs to be making profits, appeal to a certain public or crowd, and nothing that will start another world war? Freelance journalism? I'd assume that way you have your own umbrella to stand under.

I love sports and do watch them all the time, online even. The post post broadcasting technologies and ideals brought up in the article do help enhance the viewers overall experience when watching their favorite team. I do not use the technologies or even pay attention to all the hype behind the new commercial (frivolous) sports show that pop up everywhere I look so I cannot really give an opinion there other than as long as I get to see the actual game I am happy. Do people actually watch more sports after a HD purchase, sure they do! I am guessing if you spend that much on a new TV you are gonna get your money's worth eventually out of it! I was a little more shocked to hear about the networks (like CBS) actually owning and licensing out teams that are broadcasted. Did anyone else find that shocking? I really thought the sport teams genre (NCAA, NFL, NBA etc) payed for those spots. Wordy article so I could be completely confused here but I am OK with it because again all I care to do is catch the game nothing more nothing less :)

Ox

I really enjoyed watching The Blind Side in class last week. I had seen it in theaters and enjoyed it then, but also felt like it was a "crowd pleaser." I was amazed when it was nominated for Best Picture, as it definitely did not fit the typical mold for a nomination. After watching the movie again, and attempting to re-analyze the film from a more critical standpoint, I can honestly see where a lot of people might have criticisms with the movie. It does seem to be just too perfect and oversimplified. It certainly perpetuates a lot of stereotypes and well-known tropes. Michael is born in the projects, abandoned by his father, has a drug-addicted mother, is shuttled from foster home to foster home, left to fend for himself and then rescued by an affluent, white family acting on their Christian duty. He succeeds due to his superior athletic abilities, and in spite of his inferior academic abilities. A lot of this seems to be created for the movie and its appeal to audiences. But, with a lot of the articles I've read and the great video clips posted by classmates below, I am struck by the thought that maybe we're just being too cynical. In the Vanity Fair interview, the book's author asserts that this story is true and that it was just too engrossing and amazing not to tell. I also found that the way the movie glanced over Michael's basketball talents and instead portrayed him as a kid only mildly interested in football made it appear as though the Tuohy's pushed him into sports. Perhaps there is some "Hollywood-izing" of the story, but perhaps it is just a miracle story like Michael Lewis and the Tuohy's and even Michael Oher himself believe. Either way, the movie does carry out some race/class/gender role ideologies and use the old rags to riches/orphan-savior story to do so. And I can see where some people are offended and sick of seeing these stories as the only ones presented in the media.

In Johnson's blog article/speech, he seemed to have a very positive view of how new media is "maturing" and enriching our experiences. I have to agree. While I know there is less of an audience for traditional print media (especially newspapers), there is now an ever-increasing audience that can be reached more directly through the web. I believe people are able to access more information and learn even more than once was possible. I especially like that he addressed the way new and old media are coming together (people blogging about news articles, live tweeting debates and speeches). Is this convergence? Do you share Johnson's positive view of this "new media"? Are there really any drawbacks to this growth of media sources and immediacy?

My overall felling about the movie we watched on friday was positive. Some people, I've heard, have had an issue with the story about a white family coming in and playing savior to a less fortunate black teen. I don't see a problem with it. It happens in real life. My father got a football scholarship to Syracuse partly because a white family in West Virginia went above and beyond to help him out here and there. Not to the extent that Michael Ore got helped but they were a tremendous help nonetheless.
The other thing is that this movie is a true story. So if Michael Ore really got helped out by this white family, who are we to criticize that? In no way does the movie imply that every black teen who gets helped out by white people will turn out as good as Ore did. This story is just what happened to him. This movie have been getting compared to "Precious" by some people, I guess. I don't see much similarity. Precious was in a much tougher situation, living with her real mother who was abusing her and holding her down in every way possible. At least Michael's mother was willing to step aside so that more capable people could do the job that she couldn't do. Precious wasn't involved in sports and really didn't have anything going for herself, thus her story had a much worse ending.
The Blind Side was meant to tell Michael Ore's story and make the audience feel good and be inspired, possibly, in the process. And I think it succeeded.

Howard Womack

Its no secret that online news has forced the traditionally printed newspapers to change their strategies. How do you believe this has affected the journalistic techniques? Is this similar to television's effect on newspapers?

I never had any interest in watching The Blind Side. The sentimentality of a film such as this, never really peaks my interest, because I feel like the audience is delivered the same old story over and over again. Even though the story is true, the dramatization and homogenization that takes place in order to turn a story like this into something the whole family can enjoy ends up simplify otherwise complicated issues such as race, class, and charity.

The article that Liora introduced us to before the screening pretty much mirrored my first impressions of this film during its original release. The Blind Side was released within days of PRECIOUS another film about an obese, illiterate African-American. I realize that these films are supposed to be empowering in some way, but I just don't see how The Blind Side is empowering. The moral of the story does not seem to be educate yourself and that power will lead you to success, the message is if you are a large African-American, sports might be your way out.

The main character didn't even have interest in football, but he was encouraged to compete in order to gain recoginition for the school. Too often films and music create an ideology that says the only way for ethnic children to rise out of the ghetto is through sports or entertainment, and this film encourages that.

If the newspapers are going away, how will the ads be delivered? Seriously, when the Sunday paper comes, most of my family looks more at the ads than the paper itself. Newspapers lost a lot of revenue because the For Sale/Want ads went to the internet (Craigslist), will the print ads for stores be one of the things that helps them survive?