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?
December 2012 Archives
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.
This week was a pretty interesting discussion. I somehow feel some sort of loss and sense of nostalgia when thinking of our news going completely electronic. Even if I am not the type to wake up early in the morning and sip on a fresh cup of coffee while reading over the daily news, I did grow up seeing that scene played out. I did however love Sundays paper full of games and comics. Aside from the glamorous side of everything, what does this really mean. Because of the lower profits, these companies have had to cut a lot of their staff. This has meant a loss in some of our most important roles like the "watchdog." Going completely online we will lose the integrity of what the paper is, who posts what, and what information is being published. Where will we be in the next five, ten years? I guess we'll just have to wait in see.
Johnson clearly sees that the world is shifting to a more efficient way of spreading information. Now news can be transmitted in the blink of an eye for people to consume. The fall of print media is, in my opinion a good thing in terms of the amount of waste related to print media. The old practice is inefficient and kind of a waste. People are worried about all of the newspaper companies failing people losing their jobs and I do to, it will definitely hurt the economy. But I also think that media companies have seen this coming for a while. People are getting their news on their computers, their TVs, and especially on their mobile devices (tablets and smart phones). The problem with this is that there are many who cannot afford these expensive, high tech devices.
It could be said that there are many free resources available to them in order to get news such as libraries, but people who cannot afford high tech devices are not going will probably not want to have to go to a library for news. I think it can be said that most people have TVs and could get news from that, but TV news is not nearly as comprehensive as a newspaper. There is only a fraction of the important stories on TV news programs. So maybe there should be some kind of low cost device that can deliver news without the need for paper.
So with circulation down, newspaper companies cannot afford to spend the money needed on resources and reporters to fill a newspaper and still turn a profit. There must be some solution to the problem. I for one identify with Johnson's excitement over the accessibility of news for me, but I wonder what other what other consequences will come about if we continue to move away from print media.
This week's discussion about the debate between old and new media actually really made me think about where we'll be in the next 10 years. I mean you look back, as Johnson put it into perspective, at our "ecosystem" of journalism/media environment when the newspaper and magazines were our primary sources of information. So many people relied on the newspaper to be caught up with what was going on in the world. You compare that with modern day technology and the newspaper didn't even put a dent in what the World Wide Web begins to provide. It's endless--literally never ending. The Internet will never go away; such a monolithic advancement that it begs the question, "What's next?" What is really next? Don't we have it all already? Can't we "Google" anything to find an answer for everything? Even with other parts of technology, and I'll pick on Apple. As a consumer, what more would you really like to see your I-phone do? Make you dinner and tuck you in at night? Well there's about a million apps for recipes, and I'm sure there's another few hundred for bedtime stories. My tone in this post isn't upsetting or anything, it's just I don't really know what the future will hold in the next decade. I'm anxious to find out. How will greater advancements affect education? Will there even be a point to go to college in 20 years? Won't we be able to teach ourselves everything about anything?
In "Old Growth Media and the Future of News," Steven Johnson indicated that current mass media style makes printing products gradual declining. I thought it may be happen in the future. In fact, there are a lot of mass media devices such as smart phone, kindle, and the Internet today. A decade ago, we could not have mobile devices that allow us to connect web information. On the other hand, today's media strategies are based on the internet tactics, and many advertisements appear while using the Internet. It is really interesting to observe how media is going to transform in the future, but we also need to see the fields that is going to disappear by the development. Simple expectations from developing digital contents point out that reducing total amount of using ink, and losing people's job by the development. For example, book store, printing plant, and so on. However, advantages that media companies will achieve through technology improvements are really big: they do not need warehouse for books, they will never experience to go out of stock again, and consumers of media can get information much more easily and quickly. Actually, it is an obstacle for people who try to find their favorite books by the books' looking, but the advantages provide us so much compensation for that. Thus, digital media contents have so much advantages rather than printing medium. I think printing books declining is inevitable step for seeking efficiency, because it built more comfortable life for our epistemophilia.
When I read the article 'Old Growth Media and the Future of News', I awarded the world is changing and evolving constantly. It was very interesting topic.
When I watch the words 'ecosystem' I thought it's sounded like bio scientific issue. However after reading Johnson's article I knew why Johnson compared media journal ism to ecosystem, and why it is important in the media market. Today's media is in fact much closer to a real-world ecosystem in the way it circulates information than it is like the old industrial, top-down models of mass media. It's a much more diverse and interconnected world, a system of flows and feeds - completely different from an assembly line. I t's much more instructive to anticipate the future of investigative journalism by looking at the past of technology journalism. When ecologists go into the field to research natural ecosystems, they seek out the old-growth forests, the places where nature has had the longest amount of time to evolve and diversify and interconnect. They don't study the Brazilian rain forest by looking at a field that was clear-cut two years ago. I don't know how the media ecosystem will be evolved, and the social circumstance will develop as a better world, or not. However as Johnson expect, I just view the future as one of the optimists.
Please post your questions on Johnson, Steven. "Old Growth Media and the Future of News." Stevenberlinjohnson.com. 14 March 2009. Web. http://www.stevenberlinjohnson.com/2009/03/the-following-is-a-speech-i-gave-yesterday-at-the-south-by-southwest-interactive-festival-in-austiniif-you-happened-to-being.html and Starr, Paul. "Goodbye to the Age of Newspapers (Hello to a New Age of Corruption)" The New Republic. 4 March 2009. Web. http://www.tnr.com/article/goodbye-the-age-newspapers-hello-new-era-corruption?page=1%2C4
1. Why does Johnson describe the current media environment as a "ecosystem"? What do you think about his model for the future of journalism?
2. Why is "technology journalism" a useful case study, in Johnson's opinion, for understanding the future of news/journalism? Do you agree?
3. Why is Johnson optimistic about the new media news environment? What do you think about Johnson's optimism? Do you agree? Do you think he is overlooking anything important?
4. What are the 2 central limitations or problems with this new ecosystem that Johnson is concerned about? (That is, what are the complexities of questions of access and time, and why is it "going to get ugly"?)
5. How, in Starr's view, should newspapers function as a public good? What developments does he point to that interfere with this?
6. Why, for Starr, is it important to place the shifts in news media in the context of the "emerging framework of post-industrial society and politics"? What does he mean?
7. What are the developments in news (and in the business of news) that Starr calls "dire"? Why is he so concerned?
8. Starr closes with a note on the importance of newspapers for the functioning of democracy. What is his argument? Do you agree? Why/why not?
The discussion about the American reality TV show, Jersey Shore, was really interesting to me. Actually, the clip we watched in the class was the very first time to watch this show and it was somehow shocking to me because I will never see this kind of show if I was in my country. I believe that the media is so influential in a way that it reinforces the stereotypes about people and about country. Now that I have lived in the U.S. for few years, I understand how people in the U.S act and what kind of value they have. But what scares me the most is, I would have assumed that these kind of people that is represented in the show is real if I did not have a chance to live in the U.S. Media is one of the way to represent the country, and people get information about other countries from media, therefore, I think that they should be little bit more careful about how they act in the show.
Please post your discussion questions on Johnson's "Everything New is Old Again: Sport Television, Innovation, and Tradition for a Multi-Platform Era" below, using the following to guide your reading:
1. What does Johnson mean by "post-network"? Why does sports media present a paradox within the "post-network era"?
2. What does Johnson argue is unique about sports in the context of a shifting media environment? Do you agree? Could one make similar arguments about other categories of media content?
3. What does Johnson mean when she calls (following Robert McChesney), "ideologically safe"?
4. What makes sports programming "hybrid"? Why is this significant, for Johnson?
5. At the end of her essay, Johnson writes, "Arguably, sport and network television are particularly symbiotic US cultural institutions. They appear uniquely apolitical and are simultaneously our most visible indicators of whom and what are most valued within contemporary US culture (as seen in sponsor dollars, 'ideal' target audiences, scheduling practices and the featured sports themselves)" (Johnson 133-134). What does she mean? What are some examples of the seemingly apolitical nature of sport programming and the ways in which it has important political consequences when thinking about inequalities?