Media's evolution is a very interesting topic, especially for the current age we're in now, the social media age. It is very interesting to see tv shows and web pages using social media to help drive their message more and more. I think it will be interesting to see what the next big thing is with the internet. We went from the internet to social media.... so what's next. Where will social media go, and will there be a new media technology? This is very important when looking at the world of journalism and where this field will go. With everyone acting as self-employed journalists with smart phones, it is interesting how journalist will be paid, or if they will be paid for that matter. Maybe news agencies will just use bloggers knowing that they don't have to pay them, and Americans aren't very concerned with the reliability of the content, but more so if the content is entertaining. I think it is interesting to see how news has turned into entertainment more and more over the years, and it makes me wonder is this the product of the ever-growing media in our world?
The discussion about reality tv and most notably "Jersey Shore" was a very interactive discussion in our class. I liked how we discussed the effect these shows have on our perception in distant culture. The fact that it is actually called "reality tv" allows other cultures to actually believe that is in fact reality tv. This is very harmful for other's perceptions of our society, as reality tv is correlated with "shock effects" and racy portrayals of how we interact. Also we discussed how it is harmful within our own culture, as the youth of today see "joe the plumber" being a tv star, and believe that they actually have the opportunity to do the same, when actually the numbers point otherwise. I used to believe reality tv was a fad, but after learning about how cheap it is to create and the ratings it generates there is no reason why it won't continue to exist at least for another decade.
I felt that Johnson's article about sports television was very interesting. I think the idea of sports television being "ideologically safe" is a great point. Most people find common grounds in the ares of sports. A simple act of watching the Superbowl or World Series is a prime example of an American tradition. Sports is a safe topic and most people don't get too worked up about sports. The media of sports is a great platform for new technologies. The online example showed how sports has evolved. Instead of having to watch a television program, people can just go online and figure see what they want to see. This new age way of consuming media has been seen in sports for quite some time. Prime time television shows are just catching up to sports media. This is great for advertisers and the consumer. Yes, the advertiser knows exactly what the consumer enjoys on the website. This is a lot of major information that is sold to advertisers but it also helps the consumers. Multiple times I have found great deals for sports gear that I would have never found unless an advertisment was put on my page. This use age of mulitiple platforms will keep sports media strong and thriving. People that follow their favorite teams are avid consumers and stay loyal to the programs. In today's world having a strong brand and following is essential to growth.
I thought that how Steven Johnson talked about today's mass media as ecosystem. He describes in this way because of how the information is circulated. Also, he discussed that it is really hard to predict the future of media which I found it very interesting. As technology has developed rapidly, our media is reflecting to change as well. In fact, the printed media has lost its power compared to before, because of new technology. People started to find that getting information from digital devices is much more convenience than from printed media. We can see that most of the major newspaper company started to focus on digital version of newspaper; people now follow the change to digital.
However, some people still prefer reading the newspaper in printed version over digital version, especially who is not growing up with the technology, such as my parents and my grandparents generation. They are used to read printed newspaper and not used to keep up with the technology like our generation.
I personally think that printed media will fade away in a way that less and less people would read it. Many of our generation and younger generation acknowledge that digital media is much more powerful than printed media. I feel like printed media cannot grow anymore or win over digital media. Like many people argue about the existence of printed media, I think that this topic will be really important because it influences a lot to the audience and whole industry of mass media.
I thought the idea of Media being an ecosystem to be very interesting. I wrote about how everyone kind of "feeds" off each other and how there is also a constant need to keep evolving/changing to stay relevant...or alive like an ecosystem. I found the article by Starr to be very intriguing. Everything is turning into a technological form whether its books to kindles, letters to emails etc. Newspaper companies are so accessible now via internet on computers or phones it seems ridiculous to buy a dollar Star Tribune. Like someone mentioned in class the older generations still enjoy sitting down and flipping through the newspaper where as today's tech savvy generation is able to pull up 5 different headlines in 10 seconds. Along with TMZ type shows replacing magazines, we are headed for a world full of electronic media.
I think that Johnson brought up a great point in whats more important in the future of news. I think there was a point brought up in class that was things will get phased out over time because there is a new and better way to do something. I don't think that the news paper will get phased out as quick as some speculate. There is a digital divide. If they switched to all news being only accessible by internet then my grandma just wouldn't know the news. As well as people that dont have enough money or time to go to the library to access the internet. I have a tablet and laptop and I still would prefer to read a real book and a real magazine versus e version of the media. The concern that some businesses would go out of business as a result to this shift doesn't seem valid. It seems more likely that businesses will adapt with the change or new ones will pop up. At one time computers were so expensive that they weren't accessible by anyone except the elite class. Over time they have shifted to be more affordable and accessible in places like libraries and schools. If they continue on the trend of becoming more accessible will they eventually replace the paper and be accessible to people that dont have time to go to the libarary? Will the internet be more accessible to rural places where a paper seems more of a tangible way to communicate?
The future of media is a really interesting topic to debate right now I think. I am glad this topic came up for discussion in class (though it seems almost unavoidable given the themes of the class). It really seems as if there are two staunchly different schools of thought when it comes to future media; those who are excited for the advancements to come and those who believe the quality of journalism will decline due to the accessibility of a general platform of information. The internet has changed everything from business, to personal connections, to the way we even think. I read a study that said people today think 10% faster, multitask almost twice as much, and speak faster than we did even twenty years ago. That says a lot about how we will dissect information and also poses the question of what type of information will we find important and what does this mean for the future? I don't have a strong enough understanding of the human mind and its evolution practices to give a strong opinion as to how media will evolve, but I can say with confidence that it will happen very soon. The world will be a completely different place ten years from now. I would guess that there will be a greater difference between 2012 and 2022 than there was from 2002 to 2012. I could see a move towards niche-news media, though I think the idea of a 'front page' will always remain, as people are looking for the most important information to stay in the loop. This will lead to an exposure to various topics and hopefully encourage people to pursue a broad range of information on their own.
We got into another very intriguing discussion in class about what the future of news will be. One reason why i find this topic interesting is because the future is something that we cannot escape from, in the sense that something will change, and it will be interesting to see that change when it happens. In fact some change is happening right in front of our eyes now with the development of so many different internet outlets for news. That is another reason why i think this topic is very relevant because we will probably see this change within our lifetimes, it is not a process that will take hundreds of years because by then we will have new technologies.
This is definitely a very complex issue because both sides of this argument have valid points. I think that the best way to proceed would be to take both sides and combine them and have a strong print media as well as a strong online media. I do not see why this would be out of the question and i could see print media boosting internet ratings so to speak and vice versa. i think that with both printed and online newspapers people get the best of both worlds.
It's crazy to look back and see the advancement of technology, and how we receive information about the world around us. I cannot imagine a world without a physical copy of a book or a newspaper, that I can hold and touch. Newspapers are slowly starting to become obsolete with these advancing technologies. We can now just grab our mobile devices and read the news instantly at the touch of a button by using different apps. I'm not sure if I'm completely comfortable with this shift from paper to digital. In my opinion I like to have that physical copy with me, it is not often that I like to sit and read something lengthy on the internet. But at the same time, new generations might not be interested in dealing with a book, or a newspaper, as they have only been exposed to these new devices that make it much faster and simpler to find information.
The topic of fading out of newspaper is picking up by lots of people these days in the U.S. since younger generation no longer consume news as the older generation, to whom reading newspaper every morning with a pot of coffee seems so normal and routine. So the shift behavior from reading a physical print newspaper to paperless online news threats traditional printing paper and the way of news production.
I feel it kinda true to me from what I see in this two and half years experiences in the U.S. News stand is not available everywhere, at least in twin cities. The way that people can grab a paper on their way to walk is not so easy. And due to the more intense work schedule, sitting in front of table in workdays for breakfast, and read a paper in the same time seems challanging.
But whether the traditional news production is dying or not is questionable, and I see different actions done by traditional print media, such as New York Times are now bringing some of their contents online for free while keep some other contents to charge. By doing so, they can attract readers who are used to "free news" by explording them unvoluntaryly to online ads.