Haigh's Jour3101 Blog

I don't think there is any question that Digital Nation is a work of journalism. Even when looking at the basic tenets of traditional news, Digital Nation stands up to these criteria.
- There is impact. The world is changing to a much more digital, media-centered, technological reality. This is no passing phase or a simple fad. This program simply asks what, if any, are the consequences of that?
- There is immediacy. In terms of historical eras, this digital era is in its infancy. Exactly what direction is taken and how the course is navigated is yet to be determined. This makes the timing of the question incredibly relevant.
- There is conflict and emotion. The program certainly depicts a situation wherein excessive media usage may pose serious problematic issues to our society and culture. This also stirs emotions of unease and worry. Yet at the same time, the program looks to reflect a feeling of hope and opportunity.

Ultimately, while the program does hit on a number of those traditional news values, there is a question about pure objectivity not only throughout the programs narrative design, but also its editing (the choice to follow the segment on small children confusing reality with virtual reality by the segment on the Army's gaming centers was not, in my opinion, coincidental). But this is a complex issue; and total objectivity, while a noble goal, is not an ideal that can be wholly accomplished in any journalistic endeavor. While there are certainly critiques that can be levied against the program, in the end I believe that the program strikes a good position of raising issues without beating a perspective over the audience's heads.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A question posed to our 3101 class was whether this program does a good job of depicting our generation of college students. This is somewhat difficult for me to answer, as I am markedly older than the vast majority of my college peers. It is also somewhat difficult for me as I like to believe I am a bit more insulated from the effects of digital, and in particular mobile, media. My cell phone would be considered rudimentary even by 2004 standards. I don't own a television. I don't use social networking sites. In my New Media Culture course, on the first day the question was asked "how often do you use mobile media?" I was one of only two people in the class of over 100 who answered less than three times a day. The point, I suppose, is that I don't consider myself to be a typical 2010 college student; at least not by the measures of media usage.
But I think this position of nearness, yet not total inclusiveness, to the present college generation gives me a unique and credible vantage point for examining the demographic.
David Jones, an associate professor at MIT, stated in Digital Nation while talking about his students' use of mobile media, they're penchant for multitasking and the subsequent effects he saw on they're classroom performance: "It's not that they are dumb. It's not that they're not trying. I think they're trying in a way that is not as effective as it could be."
In my New Media Culture course we watched this program in its entirety over three class periods. After the first class we had mostly just finished up the portion of the program dealing with the MIT students, and some of the studies being done on multitasking. After the class was over, a girl in front of me was packing her things and talking to her friend, gloating "I multitasked through that whole class. And I even took notes." I found the irony too perfect: that the entire point of this segment (and indeed what David Jones was commenting on) was lost on her. And quite possibly, perhaps likely, because of the very thing that Jones and Digital Nation were describing as problematic. Nobody was saying that it is impossible for younger, more technologically savvy college students to multitask. What was being said was that this multitasking negatively affects the ability to perform the tasks being engaged in; just as the ability to grasp the major point in Digital Nation was negatively affected for my classmate. I would have loved to have seen her notes.

I don't think there is any question that Digital Nation is a work of journalism. Even when looking at the basic tenets of traditional news, Digital Nation stands up to these criteria.
- There is impact. The world is changing to a much more digital, media-centered, technological reality. This is no passing phase or a simple fad. This program simply asks, what, if any, are the consequences of that?
- There is immediacy. In terms of historical eras, this digital era is in its infancy. Exactly what direction is taken and how the course is navigated is yet to be determined. This makes the timing of the question incredibly relevant.
- There is conflict and emotion. The program certainly depicts a situation wherein excessive media usage may pose serious problematic issues to our society and culture. This also stirs emotions of unease and worry. Yet at the same time, the program looks to reflect a feeling of hope and opportunity.

Ultimately, while the program does hit on a number of those traditional news values, there is a question about pure objectivity not only throughout the programs narrative design, but also its editing (the choice to follow the segment on small children confusing reality with virtual reality by the segment on the Army's gaming centers was not, in my opinion, coincidental). But this is a complex issue; and total objectivity, while a noble goal, is not an ideal that can be wholly accomplished in any journalistic endeavor. While there are certainly critiques that can be levied against the program, in the end I believe that the program strikes a good position of raising issues without beating a perspective over the audience's heads.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A question posed to our 3101 class was whether his program does a good job of depicting our generation of college students. This is somewhat difficult for me to answer, as I am markedly older than the vast majority of my college peers. It is also somewhat difficult for me as I like to believe I am a bit more insulated from the effects of digital, and in particular mobile, media. My cell phone would be considered rudimentary even by 2004 standards. I don't own a television. I don't use social networking sites. In my New Media Culture course, on the first day the question was asked "how often do you use mobile media?" I was one of only two people in the class of over 100 who answered less than 3 times a day. The point, I suppose, is that I don't consider myself to be a typical 2010 college student; at least not by the measures of media usage.
But I think this position of nearness, yet not total inclusiveness, to the present college generation gives me a unique and credible vantage point for examining the demographic.
David Jones, an associate professor at MIT, was quoted in Digital Nation talking about his students' use of mobile media, they're penchant for multitasking and the subsequent effects he saw on they're classroom performance: "It's not that they are dumb. It's not that they're not trying. I think they're trying in a way that is not as effective as it could be."
In my New Media Culture course we watched this program in its entirety over three class periods. After the first class we had mostly just finished up the portion of the program dealing with the MIT students, and some of the studies being done on multitasking. After the class was over, a girl in front of me was packing her things and talking to her friend, gloating "I multitasked through that whole class. And I even took notes." I found the irony too perfect; that the entire point of this segment (and indeed what David Jones was commenting on) was lost on her. And quite possibly, perhaps likely, because of the very thing that Jones and Digital Nation were describing as problematic. Nobody was saying that it is impossible for younger, more technologically savvy college students to multitask. What was being said was that this multitasking negatively affects the ability to perform the tasks being engaged in. Just as the ability to grasp the major point in Digital Nation was negatively affected for my classmate. I would have loved to have seen her notes.

I don't think there is any question that Digital Nation is a work of journalism. Even when looking at the basic tenets of traditional news, Digital Nation stands up to these criteria.
- There is impact. The world is changing to a much more digital, media-centered, technological reality. This is no passing phase or a simple fad. This program simply asks, what, if any, are the consequences of that?
- There is immediacy. In terms of historical eras, this digital era is in its infancy. Exactly what direction is taken and how the course is navigated is yet to be determined. This makes the timing of the question incredibly relevant.
- There is conflict and emotion. The program certainly depicts a situation wherein excessive media usage may pose serious problematic issues to our society and culture. This also stirs emotions of unease and worry. Yet at the same time, the program looks to reflect a feeling of hope and opportunity.

Ultimately, while the program does hit on a number of those traditional news values, there is a question about pure objectivity not only throughout the programs narrative design, but also its editing (the choice to follow the segment on small children confusing reality with virtual reality by the segment on the Army's gaming centers was not, in my opinion, coincidental). But this is a complex issue; and total objectivity, while a noble goal, is not an ideal that can be wholly accomplished in any journalistic endeavor. While there are certainly critiques that can be levied against the program, in the end I believe that the program strikes a good position of raising issues without beating a perspective over the audience's heads.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A question posed to our 3101 class was whether his program does a good job of depicting our generation of college students. This is somewhat difficult for me to answer, as I am markedly older than the vast majority of my college peers. It is also somewhat difficult for me as I like to believe I am a bit more insulated from the effects of digital, and in particular mobile, media. My cell phone would be considered rudimentary even by 2004 standards. I don't own a television. I don't use social networking sites. In my New Media Culture course, on the first day the question was asked "how often do you use mobile media?" I was one of only two people in the class of over 100 who answered less than 3 times a day. The point, I suppose, is that I don't consider myself to be a typical 2010 college student; at least not by the measures of media usage.
But I think this position of nearness, yet not total inclusiveness, to the present college generation gives me a unique and credible vantage point for examining the demographic.
David Jones, an associate professor at MIT, was quoted in Digital Nation talking about his students' use of mobile media, they're penchant for multitasking and the subsequent effects he saw on they're classroom performance: "It's not that they are dumb. It's not that they're not trying. I think they're trying in a way that is not as effective as it could be."
In my New Media Culture course we watched this program in its entirety over three class periods. After the first class we had mostly just finished up the portion of the program dealing with the MIT students, and some of the studies being done on multitasking. After the class was over, a girl in front of me was packing her things and talking to her friend, gloating "I multitasked through that whole class. And I even took notes." I found the irony too perfect; that the entire point of this segment (and indeed what David Jones was commenting on) was lost on her. And quite possibly, perhaps likely, because of the very thing that Jones and Digital Nation were describing as problematic. Nobody was saying that it is impossible for younger, more technologically savvy college students to multitask. What was being said was that this multitasking negatively affects the ability to perform the tasks being engaged in. Just as the ability to grasp the major point in Digital Nation was negatively affected for my classmate. I would have loved to have seen her notes.

USA Hockey published a story on their website yesterday outlining the hype leading up to the Sunday tilt between the U.S. and Canada in men's hockey. The article mentions that the excitement surrounding this game could surpass the gold medal match should the Canadians fail to get there, and also talks about how tickets originally sold for $50-140 are now being resold for 4-digit prices. The lead for this piece is not done in a traditional "straight news" format. Instead, that isn't offered until the second graf. I'll include the first two grafs here:
=====================================================================

That huge gust of wind that came blowing across the border on Thursday was not another Canadian cold front. It was a huge sigh of relief from Canadian hockey fans after Sidney Crosby's shootout goal lifted the home team over a spirited Swiss squad.

If the Canadians were looking past the same Swiss team that shut them out at the 2006 Torino Olympic Winter Games and focusing on Sunday's third and final preliminary round game against the Americans, they wouldn't be the only ones. It seems that everybody on both sides of the border has long since circled this game on the Olympic schedule.
=====================================================================
I like the decision to offer a bit of background before getting in to the "meat" of the story. It's kind of feature piece, so I think the decision works well. By offering that first graf, it is able to set up an idea that plays well in the lead (that the Canadian team, as well as all North American hockey fans, have been looking forward to Sunday's game since it was first announced). As far as the second graf, I wouldn't suggest any sort of changes. It does a good job of introducing the hype surrounding the U.S.-Canada game, as well as suggesting how much the players themselves are focusing on a game that will not have any direct impact on who wins medals in the 2010 Olympics (both the Americans and the Canadians would qualify out of the preliminary round regardless of who wins the game). But Sundays match-up was one with a lot of pride at stake, and a game that showcased one of the great rivalries in international sport. The lead adequately suggests as much.

About 30 minutes after the game ended, ESPN.com had a story on their website recapping the U.S. Men's Hockey team's upset victory over Team Canada. The game was one with an extraordinary amount of hype leading up to it, and resulted in one of the most significant American victories ever in the game of hockey. The last time the U.S. had beaten the Canadians in the Olympics was 1960 (in 1980, the two teams did not play each other). Here is the lead for ESPN's story -
=====================================================================
The United States pulled off its biggest Olympic hockey upset since the Miracle on Ice, stunning Canada 5-3 on Sunday to advance to the quarterfinals of an already mixed-up tournament.
=====================================================================
For the most part I think this is a fairly good lead. It hits the basic elements we have discussed in class, staying short and succinct while making good choices in what facets of the story should be raised to the forefront. Certainly, the U.S. beating the Canadians is a upset, and with the game being played in Vancouver even more so. The only issue I really have is the claim that the tournament is mixed-up, as the only real upset to date has been Slovakia squeaking past the Russians 2-1. I think it may have been better to bring up one of a couple other elements that help to put this game in context. It could have been discussed/mentioned that predictions for viewing of the game had half of all Canadians watching the game. Or, perhaps better, the U.S. Junior National Team's even more surprising upset victory over the Canadians in Saskatoon earlier this winter to win the World Junior Championship game could have been referenced. This victory today adds salt to an already deep gash inflicted by the Americans in the World Junior's to not just Canadian hockey, but the Canadian public. Over one third of all Canadians watched that championship game, and the Canadians had not lost the World Junior Championship in over 6 years. The Canadian pride in their hockey team and hatred of the American team runs extremely deep, and this plays a very large role in story of what occurred in Vancouver earlier tonight. Certainly, it wouldn't have been possible to mention all of this while keeping the lead a suitable length. But I think it could have been easily mentioned or introduced and then developed later in the story.

The Star Tribune reported Friday that $75,000 will be paid to the victim of a police brutality case. The suspect was apprehended while breaking into an automobile in a downtown Minneapolis parking ramp. The victim was kicked, stomped on, and tazed excessively. The incident was caught by parking ramp cameras, as well as cameras from the squad car and the tazer. Frederick Goetz, the plaintiff's attorney, applauded department leaders for their stance against police brutality, but also urged "a top-to bottom culture change."

This story has news values of immediacy, proximity, and relevance. The case was settled by the city council on Friday, the same day the story was published on the Star tribune's website. The Star Tribune is a Twin Cities' paper, and the story appeasrs on Minneapolis news. Given that the case was settled by the Minneapolis City Council, this gives it proximity. And the story has relevance. The $75,000 to be paid to the victim, as well as the estimated $50,000 to be paid for legal fees, is a significnt amount of money for the city to pay especially during these economic times. The citizenry of Minneapolis surely consider this a relevant issue.

The lead for this story is somewhat longer than what we have previously discussed in class, but did a good job of setting the groundwork for the story and of drawing the reader in. The lead answers questions of who, what, where and why. The city and the man beaten are the who, a settlement of $75,000 the what, Minneapolis and a parking garage the where, and the suspect being unnecessarily beaten the why. Again, this lead is slightly longer, but works well none-the-less.

This past Friday two faculty members and one staff member of the University of Alabama-Huntsville were shot and killed. A biology professor, Amy Bishop, is being held in connection to the shootings. The shooting occurred as Shelby Hall, home of the Biological Sciences program at UAH. Apparently, Bishop was being denied tenure, something she felt was "very unfair," according to a business associate of Bishops.

I'm not sure if you are looking for news values as the previous blog assignment or if we are to discuss the lead for these articles, so I will offer both.

The news values are of course obvious. It was immediate, with this story being published the day of the shooting. It displays conflict, as the issue of tenure was a contentious one. There is emotion, as is the case any time shooting occur and particularly shootings in an academic setting. And there is some degree of novelty. It is uncommon for such a minor dispute to result in such drastic actions, especially from a person of such position.

The lead answers who, what, when and where. 3 members of the school are the subject, and they were shot. It happened Friday, and it occurred at UAH. The why and the how were not included in the lead, but they were discussed later on in the story. This can be explained in that the "how" question is not nearly as pertinent as some of the other elements, and the "why" could not be summarized sufficiently to include in the lead sentence (it is also [or was at the time of publishing this story] somewhat speculative). The lead follows the rules of brevity we discussed in class, keeping a word count of 32.

The Associated Press reported Tuesday that a drunken man stole an ambulance from a Wisconsin ski area with a patient inside.

Toyota announced Sunday that 311,000 Priuses from the 2010 model were being recalled. The announcement follows a previous recall of over 8 million other models that had issues with gas pedals getting stuck while depressed against floor mats. The Prius recalls are over an issue with the braking system. Toyota claims the issue appears to arise when the regenerative braking system (designed for hybrid vehicles to improve fuel efficiency) switched over to the conventional braking system. Toyota is also investigating two other hybrid models that use the same dual-system braking.

This story has immediacy in that the announcement came today. It also has immediacy in relation to the announcement this past week about the other recalls of 2010 Toyota models. The story has relevance in regard to the popularity of Toyota automobiles in the United States. This relevance is not only apparent for owners of the actual models being recalled, but also for individuals who may be considering buying a car in the near future as Toyota had built a reputation on quality and reliability that has been soundly shaken by these recalls. This reputation of a common car company also gives the story the value of prominence. Lastly, the recall story displays the emotional news value. It is a fearful thought to consider that your automobile may continue to accelerate after releasing the gas pedal or that it would be unable to stop when needed. Considering how many people in this country own and operate motor vehicles, that emotion of fear is easily plucked with this type of news.

On Feb. 5 U.S. College Hockey Online (USCHO) reported the death of Brendan Burke, 21, a student manager for the University of Miami Redhawks men's hockey team. Burke, the son of former University of Maine Black Bear goaltender and current Toronto Maple Leaf GM Bryan Burke, was killed in a car accident on Friday. An 18-year-old passenger in Burk's car was also killed. The cause of the collision was reported to be wintry conditions along a stretch of U.S. 35, just north of Economy, Ind. Neither Bryan Burke nor the Miami Redhawk Athletic Department made comment, although USA Hockey released a statement offering their collective prayers to the Burke family. Lastly, the story touched briefly on Burke's recent decision to publicly come out as homosexual.

This story embodies a number of the news values discussed in Jour 3101. Immediacy was displayed, as the accident occurred this weekend. It also has relevance to the audience, as USCHO is an online community for those interested in and involved with college hockey. It also develops a sense of novelty by choosing to focus on Burke's decision to acknowledge his sexual orientationand the response by his family and the University of Miami hockey family. This decision is certainly interesting, as the area of men's sports in general and hockey in particular is one that has not been well known for its tolerance of homosexual orientation. That may be painting an overly generalized picture, but the attitude toward what is perceived as a non-traditional orientation has been one colored with feelings of uncertainty within the landscape of men's hockey.