I found Wednesday's discussion about the future of news, specifically newspapers to be quite interesting. While this is a concept that has been covered in a lot of my Comm classes throughout college it's one that I always find interesting because I find myself torn between seeing technology and the internet as a force for good with journalism, but at the same time I find myself taken aback by it as well. While I like the idea that the internet allows for more niche targeting in journalism, I also feel like it would be better if news wasn't the specialized market that it has become. I have so much trouble watching and reading news in the first hours of breaking stories, because I feel like it is all the same and chances are that half of what is said will be retracted within hours anyways. I like the idea that was brought up in class about how because newspaper's aren't on a twenty-four hour news cycle that it gives more opportunities for better and more accurate reporting.
May 2013 Archives
This weeks discussions have specifically focused on how important the distribution of news is in our society. I feel like these ideas have been ignored in our past discussions, and that this topic holds relevance in how we view information. First, the way the information is distributed is important because we have never been in control of how we get the nations top stories. Major news sources like the New York Times, The Chicago Sun Times, Washington post, have a reputation for always being reliable. However, with new technological advances, there are constantly new ways of serving information in vehicles which appears reliable. Sources like the Huffington post is a common one that people use which has been noted to be reliable, yet sometimes delivers false sources or inconsistent information. i think that the future has some really interesting advances in store for us. we spoke about the fear which comes along with the advance of new technologies. The main fear being that valid and reliable information with be thrown out the window with the increasing amount of bloggers, vloggers, and more small scale industries which are growing more like Hulu, and Google. Google in specific are growing at such an increasing pace that people worry about what our news will look like in the future. Google is in the process of making glasses that will relay information, videos, pictures, text messages, and Facebook prompts into the lens of your glasses. With this technology, how can we even get away from all the surrounds us? My main concern in that we are constantly surrounded with so much information, updates, prompts, text messages. How do we even go about our lives without being influenced by everything else- Such as things that don't even pertain to us. i think that virtual messages are so ubiquitous that we're just running our lives based on other peoples input and ideas.
I am not the type of person who is into sports so learning about sports media and television has opened my perspective to how significant sports media play a key role to our society. Sports, such as football, like in the movie The Blind Side, represents a sport that is a part of the American Dream because it tells the life narrative of a boy who is "rescued" from a life of poverty and abandonment who finds a new family who just so happens to be white, upper-classed, and loving. Some examples of the American Dream in the movie are the acceptance to different universities, his ability to overcome bullying at school and in his neighborhood, and his improvement in school through tutoring. This movie won its award through investing in popular media, which only comes to show how important sports are in our culture. Not only that, sports media is nationwide social event where we gather around the table to watch and discuss. It has become almost natural that sports is one of the main topics many people talk about. Sports has becomes a widely known participation event where we can watch live sports, watch through cable t.v, radio, and the internet; sports has become the most dominate media in our system. One of closing questions during Monday's leading discussion asks "Where could sport media go from here?" and it's something I've been curious about this as well. Will sports remain as popular as it is today? Since we are able to access any type of media we basically want to, also relating this to Johnson's and Starr's article, how does this affect the our experience to accessing information we want?
I have always wonder why sports play such a big role in media. almost everything is surrounded by sports. I noticed that sport is symbolic for many people in this country and maybe that's why it is such an ideal way to sell to consumers. I feel that it also a sense of pride and doesn't bother anyone such as religion or politics. I think that with the advancing technology now a days it will change how people get their news. How people get news now a days with print news will definitely be reduce or eliminated in the near future because if the demand is not there anymore there is no need. The reliability of the news will effect the way that some people get the news because for those that are not able to have the technology they will depend on word of mouth. I use to read the newspaper a lot but since I bought a smart phone and pay for the Internet service I read it off my phone instead. I have to chose what sources I go to and read for the most accurate news but that doesn't bother me because its most convenient.
I liked this week especially becasue I thought it was easy for all of us to relate to it. On Monday we were talking about sportscasting and how that creates more and more bias because they dont show women's sports on TV. Well I understand that is becasue they dont bring int he viewers, but i think that is because media has set us up our entire lives to belive that male sports are what are intersting to watch and thats why we all enjoy them so much. I think its sad for female athletes who want to go profesionally but there isnt enough emand to keep these sports a float (unless its the olympics, or beach volleyball). It just reinforces that men are the dominate ones in our society and that they are the ones we should be focused on.
On wednesday we talked about the future of media especially in relation to news reporting and whether or not it is good or bad. I personally think that I can better side with Johnsons more accepting and positivety about the transition to cyber news and technologys. I think we live in an age where smartphones, ipads and computers are such a big part of our everyday lives that it makes sense to move news reporting to those sources, so that it is more convienent for us. However, I can see Starr's arguements as well in that becasue we are so fascinated by these new technologies I dont want the news to become more and more watered down to the point where we no longer get good undercover news and reporting. Its a double-edged sword in a way becasue we want out news to be more and more accesablie, but as it does there are more oppotunites for these "citizen puiblishing" opportunites that make it harder to decide waht is real, and what is done by some random blogger. Overall, with this leap to online news reporting I think we all just need to become more aware readers and not take anything on the internet at face value.
For this final week of readings, I enjoyed talking about sports broadcasting and the future of newspapers. When I watch sports on television and listen to them on the radio, I never really thought about how their broadcast made an impact to media sources and advertisers. It makes sense that sports bring in some of the highest revenues in the media, as they are a place in which people from all walks of life can share common ground. One thing I thought of after class is how sports bring that "homeness" feel to individuals. In Minnesota, I can turn on the TV on a Sunday afternoon in October and automatically know a Vikings game will be playing. This makes Minnesotans feel at home and a sense of security. However, what about individuals, such as myself, who cheer for different teams? What effect does this have on us? I think the evolution of online streaming of sports, cable sports packages, and sports bars help these viewers feel "at home." With new technology, we are now able to cheer on our favorite teams even when they are in different states and in some cases different countries. Media has brought that feeling of belonging to people, no matter the location they are in. As for newspapers, the evolution of this print text is continually changing. I think there will always be a rise in online videos, articles, etc. to get the news out; however, I can never see print newspapers as becoming extinct. I think they have so much history and there are enough people in society who enjoy reading them. It will be interesting to see what new additions or subtractions they might have, and how readily available they will become. Overall, this week's readings focused on two important topics for discussion and have overall been evolved and shaped in recent years by their impact with technological advancements.
I completely agree with this Matt. I do not see what is so wrong with the transition to new age media. Newspapers are getting old, along with local media coverage. Local media coverage is not always the best, and unless you live in New York, but i believe they should embrace the transition.
This week I was again only able to attend Wednesday. On Wednesday we discussed the future of media, specifically print media, and whether or not we are heading towards a future that is good for said media. Johnson's article discussed the possibilities of the many outlets of print media, and that the newspaper is simply evolving, allowing many people to connect faster, more efficiently, and all around better. Starr argued that this media progression is in fact ruining media, and could eventually lead to corrupt government and corrupt media.
I definitely can see both sides of the argument. On one hand I know that with more people participating in what we called "citizen publishing", the media itself can be changed dramatically. It has two sides of course: The first is that, yes, corruption and mistakes can occur. The people are not trained to write or report, so the stories they write or comment on could be worded poorly, as to be misunderstood, or they could also intentionally write misleading things which is also not good. The other side of this is that we as a people could get more up to date information faster.
The amount of people on this planet who carry a smartphone is increasing every day. The camera function is key for America and other countries around the globe to get accurate information quickly. With internet also on the phone, information is literally shared with everyone instantly. I have to side with Johnson on this argument by saying that the possibilities are endless and we as a people just need to be more aware of what we are reading on the web and even in print. In the end, "citizen publishing" will help everyone become more informed.
I'm making a generalized connection between Victoria E. Johnson's idea of "post-network-era" with Paul Starr's demonstration of the newspaper industry fading. Being that technology has advanced so much in the last few decades that the general public is able to look up news stories online, gaining immediate information from multiple platforms. This is problematic for traditionally printed newspapers because they too receive information about breaking news, but report it a day or so after the real time updates. With that said, the real time news stories that are available to the public through means of alternative connections have a higher probability of being reported inaccurately. For example, during the Boston bombing manhunt, several news corporations were giving updates to the public that were wrong and later had to retract their original statements as the story developed. This is troublesome because the public is receiving the incorrect information and engaging in "water-cooler talk," therefore spreading the false information they heard/read through social media networks or online news sources.
An advantage to reading traditional newspapers is the extra time that is elapsed, creates opportunities for journalists to locate correct information and report more accurate details to the public. I think this is important for the public to realize so that they too share information at the office that has been fact checked like traditional newspapers. The instant updates are great, but create problems that may be wrong which was proved during the Boston bombing manhunt. News stations released pixely pictures of the possible bombers which led to people making assumptions that innocent people who looked similar to the unclear image were the wanted men.
The traditional newspaper may fade out and become digital, but this does not excuse journalists from reporting the wrong information. The news is a public good after all, and should be reported with as much accurate, and correct detail as possible.
This week's class discussions made me think a lot about the ever changing upgrades in the realm of how media is distributed. Monday's article made me take a look at how sports news has shifted in a sense of how news is delivered to the followers of sports. While I personally don't follow sports at all, it was interesting to read how the with the inception of large networks that show important sporting games, the viewers as well as the producers of such games quickly became more in the loop of sports. It was also interesting to read how the technology changes quickly changed the face of sports. 50 years ago it would be hard to imagine the changes in the way sports media has shaped up today. From today's articles, Johnson interesting thoughts on the ways media travels through many branches in order to get to the majority of people. I found his piece to be interesting because of the whole idea of the 'ecosystem' he talked about a lot. This idea had me think about all of the news stories that are published and the influx of stories that are generated from that main news story. Both of those stories as well as Starr's article all made me think about the shift of how news will be consumed in the future. The life of print newspaper could possibly be dying for good but the information to be gained by smaller sources is on the rise.
One take away that I find really interesting and important from this week's readings is Starr's point about newspapers serving as market intermediaries by connecting large amounts of sellers with buyers in a local sense, and how shifts in the delivery media toward online news sources will ultimately have negative impacts on the newspaper's ability to be a center for discourse sourrounding democracy. Because there needed to be broad readership to serve the advertising interests of a diverse advertiser base, the newspaper needed to appeal more than a few groups, and ultimately drove content that would be interesting women, immigrants, the working class, etc. Starr notes that this lead to more analytical coverage of political affairs, and the newspaper's role as public forum, which had positive effects on democracy.
As the local advertising potential and the potential return on investment shrinks by way the disappearance of print newspapers, the traditional economic model shifts so that only the advertisers who can afford expensive online ad space will be represented, thus providing less income overall for the newspaper to cover news in an in-depth fashion, causing concern over the role in corporate business in control of the media, and the effects this could have on democracy.
This weeks discussion dealt with news, media, newspaper an sports television. Johnson's article about sports and the impact on television using live time as well as other forms of media. You do not just have to watch a football game on TV anymore. You are able to check scores and see games right from you handheld devices if you need too. Also with TiVo you no longer have to sit and wait through commercials you can start watching the game a little later then when it started and fast forward through all the commercials. We also discussed two articles about new paper media and the changes that has happened with social media and internet sites making newspapers almost unnecessary. More often than not if you want to find out what is going on in the world open up your face book page and your likely to find out about a major even like the Boston bombing that happened just a few weeks ago. Personally I found out about the incident through social media and was finding out that a lot of things I saw were untrue or false reports. Shortly after I found out about the bombings I started seeing conspiracy theories surrounding the event, it hadn't even been more than a few hours and there were already conspiracies. I think newspapers helps eliminate some of the possible mistakes and false stories because its a slower news process. The reporters gather ALL the facts and then print the story versus having minute by minute updates of what may or may not have happened. You also won't find a major news paper reporting a story on the conspiracy theory of the government being behind a catastrophic event.