The article being discussed can be found here.
Trump has been losing support of evangelicals quickly after the leaking of the Access Hollywood tape. This article (collection of articles?) says "not all of us are like this!" when talking about the Trump phenomenon. While I think this is true, evangelicals lean overwhelmingly to the right, and some even could be considered far-right. While the article says they can't support him because of his comments on women, my question is, why is it all of a sudden you stop supporting Trump after he insults your wife, sister, or daughter? While this article tries to pin it on Trump's raging crusade for the Presidency, hurtling over practically weekly scandal leaks, I think it is also, to some degree, the fact that white women are being attacked now, not Muslims, African-Americans, or another racial or ethnic minority.
Monday, October 24, 2016
Response to Courier-Journal Article #1
The article being discussed can be found here.
This Courier-Journal article violated the yardstick of fairness because it is implicitly biased in favor of Sen. Rand Paul. While there was no specific mention of support, it is obvious the author of the article supports him. As this is a news story, it is not supposed to be an opinion piece. However, it certainly seems like an opinion that Rand Paul is a "small-government, liberty-loving, anti-interventionist". While the small government part is almost unarguably true, the other two are opinions that really shouldn't be used to describe the subject of the article. If I had written the article, I would have used "self-declared" before listing the aforementioned traits.
This Courier-Journal article violated the yardstick of fairness because it is implicitly biased in favor of Sen. Rand Paul. While there was no specific mention of support, it is obvious the author of the article supports him. As this is a news story, it is not supposed to be an opinion piece. However, it certainly seems like an opinion that Rand Paul is a "small-government, liberty-loving, anti-interventionist". While the small government part is almost unarguably true, the other two are opinions that really shouldn't be used to describe the subject of the article. If I had written the article, I would have used "self-declared" before listing the aforementioned traits.
Response to Lauren's Blog: News Media Critique #3
Lauren's post can be found here.
After reading Lauren's critique of the Courier-Journal, I really agree with what she is saying about the website design flaws. In the past, I had never really noticed that they immediately asked you to subscribe after clicking on their website. While I know newspapers are struggling now, I agree that it seems awfully forceful to say "Subscribe to us!" before the user even clicks on an article. I think this would be an important thing for them to change.
Great blog, Lauren!
After reading Lauren's critique of the Courier-Journal, I really agree with what she is saying about the website design flaws. In the past, I had never really noticed that they immediately asked you to subscribe after clicking on their website. While I know newspapers are struggling now, I agree that it seems awfully forceful to say "Subscribe to us!" before the user even clicks on an article. I think this would be an important thing for them to change.
Great blog, Lauren!
Response to WLKY Article #2
This WLKY Article can be found here.
I'm writing about this article because it seems to be biased against Sen. Tim Kaine, and is not in the editorials. The headline itself, "Vice Presidential Nominee Shrugs Off Threat By WikiLeaks" might not be so bad, but throughout the news article, it repeatedly uses the term "shrugged off". Using this term makes it seem like he is deliberately ignoring something that should be taken very seriously. However, it seems Sen. Kaine simply does not believe there is a threat. The author of this article also uses small phrases that don't seem biased in and of themselves, but the frequency of them is appalling. If it were truly a well written article, the author wouldn't repeatedly use the term "shrugged off", instead saying something along the lines of "Kaine sees threats as unfounded".
I'm writing about this article because it seems to be biased against Sen. Tim Kaine, and is not in the editorials. The headline itself, "Vice Presidential Nominee Shrugs Off Threat By WikiLeaks" might not be so bad, but throughout the news article, it repeatedly uses the term "shrugged off". Using this term makes it seem like he is deliberately ignoring something that should be taken very seriously. However, it seems Sen. Kaine simply does not believe there is a threat. The author of this article also uses small phrases that don't seem biased in and of themselves, but the frequency of them is appalling. If it were truly a well written article, the author wouldn't repeatedly use the term "shrugged off", instead saying something along the lines of "Kaine sees threats as unfounded".
Response to Maddie's Blog: The Effects of T.V.
Maddie's blog post can be found here.
I thought Maddie's posts shared some interesting insight into how TV has changed our everyday lives. I also agree with what she said about the cost of TV ads and how that affects our political world. Because the ads are so expensive to run, it makes it nearly impossible for political candidates to not accept corporate money. One of the main reasons Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign was so successful is because people know and understand money corrupts good people. The money donated by corporations is also a good way to see which industries a candidate has pandered to, because they don't just donate money to be nice. They want something in it for themselves.
Overall, I really like Maddie's blog, especially this post. It shows she understand and has developed opinions on TV's effects on our past and present. Great job, Maddie!
I thought Maddie's posts shared some interesting insight into how TV has changed our everyday lives. I also agree with what she said about the cost of TV ads and how that affects our political world. Because the ads are so expensive to run, it makes it nearly impossible for political candidates to not accept corporate money. One of the main reasons Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign was so successful is because people know and understand money corrupts good people. The money donated by corporations is also a good way to see which industries a candidate has pandered to, because they don't just donate money to be nice. They want something in it for themselves.
Overall, I really like Maddie's blog, especially this post. It shows she understand and has developed opinions on TV's effects on our past and present. Great job, Maddie!
Saturday, October 22, 2016
Response to WLKY Article #1
The article being discussed can be found here.
While this article gave me a good laugh, it wasn't newsworthy or very interesting. This seems more like something you'd tell your family over dinner, not publish on a major news outlet. Honestly, I was surprised someone mistook a wolf for a dog, as not only is their behavior different, but they often look different as well.
When the article said "He'd dig under or jump over the fence to play with the neighbors' German Shepherds, and when the owner installed a bigger barrier, the animal just chewed through it. Caught visiting next door, he didn't respond to treats and avoided eye contact." I thought it would have been a dead giveaway for them. However, it wasn't, apparently.
While I think this was a funny story, it wasn't newsworthy at all and shouldn't be on WLKY. It's not something most people need or want to know about, so there's no reason for it to be published.
While this article gave me a good laugh, it wasn't newsworthy or very interesting. This seems more like something you'd tell your family over dinner, not publish on a major news outlet. Honestly, I was surprised someone mistook a wolf for a dog, as not only is their behavior different, but they often look different as well.
When the article said "He'd dig under or jump over the fence to play with the neighbors' German Shepherds, and when the owner installed a bigger barrier, the animal just chewed through it. Caught visiting next door, he didn't respond to treats and avoided eye contact." I thought it would have been a dead giveaway for them. However, it wasn't, apparently.
While I think this was a funny story, it wasn't newsworthy at all and shouldn't be on WLKY. It's not something most people need or want to know about, so there's no reason for it to be published.
Friday, September 16, 2016
Class Response: Test Review
Jeopardy in class was a great way to review for our test. It helped me understand the topics even better than after doing regular studying. Even though it got a little competitive (red team for life), it was super helpful and I wish more classes did it.
The game also helped me better understand the ten elements and seven yardsticks of journalism. I had trouble remembering them before the test, but now I think they're pretty easy.
I hope Mr. Miller does more stuff like this with us in the future, because it really helps me internalize the information. When I'm under pressure, I'm very productive, so things like Kahoot and Jeopardy are fun to do.
I think I'll do well on this journalism test, thanks to Mr. Miller's lectures and his review game. Kudos to you, Mr. Miller.
The game also helped me better understand the ten elements and seven yardsticks of journalism. I had trouble remembering them before the test, but now I think they're pretty easy.
I hope Mr. Miller does more stuff like this with us in the future, because it really helps me internalize the information. When I'm under pressure, I'm very productive, so things like Kahoot and Jeopardy are fun to do.
I think I'll do well on this journalism test, thanks to Mr. Miller's lectures and his review game. Kudos to you, Mr. Miller.
Class Response: Elitism and Populism
In Mr. Miller's class, we learned about the elitist-populist binary model. This is a model used by the media to determine profitability and whether the medium will focus on what the people want or what the company wants.
Elitist media don't last long on their own. They usually get bought out by a conglomerate. The conglomerate then can decide whether if it's worth it to keep the medium alive, or if it would be better off closing up shop for that specific medium.
Populist media, however, are customer-focused. They print what's popular, not just what they want to print. A real world example would be People Magazine.
More can be found about the elitist-populist binary model here.
Elitist media don't last long on their own. They usually get bought out by a conglomerate. The conglomerate then can decide whether if it's worth it to keep the medium alive, or if it would be better off closing up shop for that specific medium.
Populist media, however, are customer-focused. They print what's popular, not just what they want to print. A real world example would be People Magazine.
More can be found about the elitist-populist binary model here.
Thursday, September 15, 2016
Class Response: Conglomeration
What do Disney, Time Warner, and NBCUniversal all have in common? They're all media conglomerates. But what is conglomeration?
In Mr. Miller's lesson, I learned about what conglomeration really is. It's different than a corporation because corporations are just one company and/or brand. However, conglomerates are sometimes referred to as "umbrella corporations". Some companies even choose to use the term in the place of conglomerate to make them sound less far-reaching. A real-world example is Alphabet, Inc., best known for being the owner of Google. They go by the term "umbrella corporation", although they act as a conglomerate in almost every way.
Conglomerates are often formed and reformed depending on financial situations. A good example is Time Warner. Despite its name, Time Warner actually does not own Time Warner Cable, and actually hasn't since 2009. It started in 2001, when Time Warner and America OnLine (AOL) merged to form AOL Time Warner. In 2009, the companies split, becoming Time Warner and AOL again (AOL is owned by Verizon as of 2016). Executive Jeff Bewkes says the merger was "the biggest mistake in corporate history". Time Warner also spun off their cable company, Time Warner Cable (TWC), for financial reasons. Now, TWC is owned by Charter.
Conglomerates are almost always populist as a whole. They care about profits more than anything else, which leads to the elimination of unpopular media. Only certain niche, elitist media survive.
In Mr. Miller's lesson, I learned about what conglomeration really is. It's different than a corporation because corporations are just one company and/or brand. However, conglomerates are sometimes referred to as "umbrella corporations". Some companies even choose to use the term in the place of conglomerate to make them sound less far-reaching. A real-world example is Alphabet, Inc., best known for being the owner of Google. They go by the term "umbrella corporation", although they act as a conglomerate in almost every way.
Conglomerates are often formed and reformed depending on financial situations. A good example is Time Warner. Despite its name, Time Warner actually does not own Time Warner Cable, and actually hasn't since 2009. It started in 2001, when Time Warner and America OnLine (AOL) merged to form AOL Time Warner. In 2009, the companies split, becoming Time Warner and AOL again (AOL is owned by Verizon as of 2016). Executive Jeff Bewkes says the merger was "the biggest mistake in corporate history". Time Warner also spun off their cable company, Time Warner Cable (TWC), for financial reasons. Now, TWC is owned by Charter.
Conglomerates are almost always populist as a whole. They care about profits more than anything else, which leads to the elimination of unpopular media. Only certain niche, elitist media survive.
Class Response: Hot and Cold Media
Before Mr. Miller's lecture, I honestly knew nothing about the hot and cool binary model, nor had I ever heard of the terms. Now, however, I think I understand the topic completely after taking notes and studying.
The difference between hot and cool media is simple. Hot media require full attention by the subject for them to successfully internalize the information being transmitted. Examples of this include books and magazines.
On the other hand, cool media allow information to be internalized without the decoder's full undivided attention. Examples of this type of medium include television, radio, and podcasts.
Hot and cool media are good for different things. I personally prefer cool media because I don't like being focused on one thing at a time; I like to feel like I am being as productive as possible. But everyone has their preferences, and each medium is good in its own way.
The difference between hot and cool media is simple. Hot media require full attention by the subject for them to successfully internalize the information being transmitted. Examples of this include books and magazines.
On the other hand, cool media allow information to be internalized without the decoder's full undivided attention. Examples of this type of medium include television, radio, and podcasts.
Hot and cool media are good for different things. I personally prefer cool media because I don't like being focused on one thing at a time; I like to feel like I am being as productive as possible. But everyone has their preferences, and each medium is good in its own way.
Peer Review (Evelyn Walford)
Evelyn's blog was very well designed and thought out. She made insightful posts about class topics and hot-button issues. I particularly liked her entry about the Washington Post article about police brutality towards people of color (post can be found here, article can be found here). She went in-depth on how racism is still alive in America today, and our work is not finished. I agree with this statement because America has little gun control, therefore America has more mass shootings per capita than any other Western country.
I applaud Evelyn for making a great blog (it's informational and aesthetically pleasing) and I think she'll be a great journalism student.
(Evelyn's blog can be found here)
I applaud Evelyn for making a great blog (it's informational and aesthetically pleasing) and I think she'll be a great journalism student.
(Evelyn's blog can be found here)
Tuesday, September 13, 2016
Peer Review (Maggie Gediman)
This is a peer review of Maggie Gediman's post about demassification. The post can be found at http://bit.ly/2cE81KN.
Maggie did a class response to Mr. Miller's lesson about demassification. Demassification occurs when newer forms of mass communication arise, or existing forms become popularized. An example of this occurring in the real world was the invention of the radio in 1895. While the radio didn't immediately spread like a contagion throughout the world, it did within a few decades as they became more widely available. After the radio was present in most American households, it started to outpace newspapers, magazines, and books as the most efficient means to receive information. This was partly because it was a way to gain information as soon as it is transmitted, and it is also in part because the radio is a cool medium, so it was easier to multitask while decoding information.
I think Maggie did a great job explaining this concept thoroughly, while also making it easy for someone who doesn't already have previous knowledge to understand it. I liked how she gave multiple examples of demassification and her prediction that the internet will soon outpace the television. I feel after reading here entry that I understand demassification better than I did before.
Maggie did a class response to Mr. Miller's lesson about demassification. Demassification occurs when newer forms of mass communication arise, or existing forms become popularized. An example of this occurring in the real world was the invention of the radio in 1895. While the radio didn't immediately spread like a contagion throughout the world, it did within a few decades as they became more widely available. After the radio was present in most American households, it started to outpace newspapers, magazines, and books as the most efficient means to receive information. This was partly because it was a way to gain information as soon as it is transmitted, and it is also in part because the radio is a cool medium, so it was easier to multitask while decoding information.
I think Maggie did a great job explaining this concept thoroughly, while also making it easy for someone who doesn't already have previous knowledge to understand it. I liked how she gave multiple examples of demassification and her prediction that the internet will soon outpace the television. I feel after reading here entry that I understand demassification better than I did before.
Criticism of the Mainstream Media
Hello, I'm Andrew Meiners, and welcome to my blog, Duelin' Banjos! My launch post will be about a media criticism of the mainstream media.
The mainstream media (MSM), including CNN, NBC, FOX, and CBS, play a huge role in the political system. Over the past year, these outlets have shown almost exclusively coverage of Clinton and Trump, far before either candidate had won their respective nominations. Anti-establishment populists like Bernie Sanders were rarely covered, and when they were, it was usually negative.
The MSM has also prioritized unimportant political news above important news about disasters in order to get more views. They failed to meet the "newsworthiness" aspect of journalism, as listed in the seven yardsticks. For example, CNN one time had a segment about how Donald Trump ate fried chicken with a fork. Meanwhile, on scroll was a story about a terrorist organization using poisonous gas to kill over thirty people.
The downside to populist media is they prioritize news that will grab attention but do not show important news that people need to know, but don't necessarily want to hear. I believe they should do a better job in balanced media, and tell us news we need to hear, not just what we want to hear.
The mainstream media (MSM), including CNN, NBC, FOX, and CBS, play a huge role in the political system. Over the past year, these outlets have shown almost exclusively coverage of Clinton and Trump, far before either candidate had won their respective nominations. Anti-establishment populists like Bernie Sanders were rarely covered, and when they were, it was usually negative.
The MSM has also prioritized unimportant political news above important news about disasters in order to get more views. They failed to meet the "newsworthiness" aspect of journalism, as listed in the seven yardsticks. For example, CNN one time had a segment about how Donald Trump ate fried chicken with a fork. Meanwhile, on scroll was a story about a terrorist organization using poisonous gas to kill over thirty people.
The downside to populist media is they prioritize news that will grab attention but do not show important news that people need to know, but don't necessarily want to hear. I believe they should do a better job in balanced media, and tell us news we need to hear, not just what we want to hear.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)