Class Response #4 (Radio)

   Am I really the only person that still listens to the actual radio? Now that there's youtube, pandora, iTunes radio, 8tracks, and probably a lot more resources that I don't know about, most people don't listen to the radio. But, back in the day, it was a huge hit.

an early radio (wow amazing)

   Nikola Tesla invented the radio in 1892, but it first became extremely popular around 1924-1930. 1930 to 1939 was even considered the "golden era" of radios. Radios revolutionized live media, which was something people had never had before. Instead of going to get a newspaper, they could just flip on the news on the radio. It was better for people who couldn't read, and children too, because all you had to do was sit and listen.
   Radio was also the main source of entertainment during this time, with shows like The Lone Ranger and Popeye, and families would gather around their radio to watch their favorites together. But, it didn't last forever, and soon TV was going to take over.
  TV demassified radio not by taking their advertisers, like it did to magazines and newspaper, but by taking their talent. They offered the radio show people spots on TV, where they could not only be heard, but seen too.
  Now, Radio is basically only targeted at
niche audiences, and that's why the commercials are usually specified to whoever is guessed to be listening to that station

Class Response #3 (Movies)

   From the picture camera being invented in 1888, to The Jazz Singer in 1927, to The Breakfast Club in 1984, to Thor 2 today, movies have been a part of people's lives. I never really understood, before the class discussion, why people still went to movies, I always assumed that that was the way it was and the way it was going to stay. But, now that I know I have a better understanding of movies and the cultural impact they have on us.
   I hadn't really considered why it was deemed weird to go to a movie alone, but now I realize it's because a movie is considered a social thing within our culture, and we all want to go together as a group. Another thing is the immersive experience, with the gigantic screen, the surround sound, and (usually) no distractions.
   I never was one of those people that had to be at the movies the day they came out, or to wait in line for hours to get in, but I know some people that are hardcore moviegoers like that.
   So, another thing that ties in with the hardcore moviegoers is that they have to be first. And I don't mean like the day it comes out or maybe a couple days after, I mean like midnight premiere dressed up as Katniss Everdeen and shooting arrows in the theater first. It's a thing, you know? You get to tell everyone you were there, and you went to that midnight premiere with all your friends, you were first, and it was so awesome.
   So, in conclusion, I don't think that movies are going to go anywhere, despite the fact that they are now available on different websites for free, even youtube.

Classmates blogs (Skye Spalding)

   Skye's blog is all-around really great. In both of the news media critiques she's done (1 & 2) she gave really good examples of news stories that proved her points exactly (that they were not newsworthy or violated one of the yardsticks/principles). I really enjoy Skye's writing voice, because it's not too stiff or professional, which I personally enjoy. Her class response on television (here) was very well written, and it gave a lot of information without being too long or wordy. It was also exceptionally well-organized which my OCD side thanks her for. Skye really gets her point across in every one of her posts, and you're never left with the thought "what did I just read?", "what was she even talking about?", or  "why is she in this magnet?". So A+ for you Skye. You go, friend (everyone better read her blog. I'm watching you.)

Classmates blogs (Morgan Johnson)

I'm not even going to choose one post for this, because Morgan's blog is just great all around. She makes very valid points, it's well written, and some of the things she mentions I wouldn't have even thought of before. One such thing was when she mentioned that the Courier is taking up more space with headlines and pictures than with actual stories, which is something I never would've picked up on (it's the newspaper, there's words and pictures and I don't pay any attention to the size of said things, but now that she mentions it I can definitely see a difference). She expresses her views and opinions very well through writing, and I suggest that you all go read her blog for some thoughtful and insightful posts.

David Camm fan club (a.k.a local news stations)

   During the 10 weeks that we followed the news, there was a trial going on of a man named David Camm. And we heard every possible piece of information they could possibly scrounge up on it. Why? Who knows. Was the story newsworthy? Not to the extent that they covered it.
   I can understand them updating us on the trial when the verdict was reached, but did we really need daily updates on the subject? This clearly violates the principle of make the important interesting, because this isn't really important to anyone's life besides the families of those directly involved.
   This also violates the yardstick of newsworthiness, because as I said before, it doesn't affect anyone really, and especially not for any significant amount of time.
   As for my news station, they were the worst about it, even setting up an entire twitter account dedicated to updates on the trial. David Camm was our lead story three out of ten times (which means that it was our lead story 30% of the time, which is ridiculous).
   I think local news has a lot to work on when it comes to newsworthiness and making the important interesting, and this is just one example of it. Is the David Camm trial really that important? No, but TV news made it out to be the trial to end all others.
   Also, it wasn't just WAVE. The other stations covered David Camm just as much, or at least close to as much as WAVE did.

Wave 3 (did you even try)

   During the news study, I followed WAVE 3, and the news on that station was actually a lot worse than I expected. My mom has always watched this station for news, and so when I started watching it I expected it to be a good station in general. But, unfortunately, I came to the conclusion that it is most definitely not. There was an average of 8 stories per show. Eight. And you'd think that because there were only eight that they would do more in-depth and newsworthy stories, but they weren't really. A lot of their time was taken up with sports and weather, and there were always a ton of commercials too. Every other news source (besides WHAS) had more stories than us per show/issue for the Courier.
   Before doing this project I had no idea that local TV news was as bad as it is. I knew Mr. Miller talked about it, but I hadn't really taken any time to actually think about the news I saw every morning before school. On average, about 40% of the show was crime, which is clearly violating the principle of inclusiveness.
   Why do they think crime is so much more important than other things happening in the world? We may never know.
   Besides not including other varieties of stories besides crime, they also did not do nearly enough reporting on the national and international scale. There were four national stories in the entire ten weeks we followed it, and there were no international. I do realize that this is a local news station, but I believe that national and international news should have a place there too. I don't know about others, but I want to know what is happening in my country and in the world.
   If they couldn't find any newsworthy local stories, why not report on something thats happening nationally? I'm sure most people would rather hear about our government than David Camm again...and again...and again.

Class Response #2 (The Internet)

   Ah, the internet, where I spend 75% of my time. Before we talked about the internet all I really knew about it was that I spend too much time on it, procrastinating what I really should be doing. But, as always, Mr. Miller's lecture enlightened me to a whole new world of knowledge.
   Although the internet hasn't demassified any other forms of media yet, I believe it will start to soon, as we have seen its affect on other industries, regardless of demassification. Why pay for cable when you can stream all your favorite shows? (either legally, using things such as Netflix and Hula, or illegally). Why pay for music when you can download your favorite album for free? The internet is eventually going to demassify all other forms of media, since most everything is now available digitally.
   About 1/3 of Americans get their news from the internet too. The internet has in-depth stories like newspaper, or you could on YouTube and watch a news type show on there. The news on the internet is free (as long as you don't pay for an online newspaper subscription) and it's easier to get to too (just sit down in front of your computer).
   Internet also has made people very interconnected with social networking. Social networking can be a great way to keep in touch with old friends and family that lives far away, or to meet new people that share a common interest, but it can also be a not-so-good thing. Recently, people that are hiring for jobs have started checking out their potential employees social networking sites, and if they don't feel like you are a positive reflection on their company, or you aren't the kind of person they want working there, they won't hire you. Whatever you put on the internet will be there pretty much forever. Once you put it there it can be saved, retweeted, revined, reblogged, or whatever. You can delete it, but it probably isn't really going to be gone. Social networking has also made it so that there isn't really such a thing as a complete stranger anymore. You may not have met someone, but you could have heard of them through a mutual friend on Facebook, seen their picture on your friend's instagram, or seen something that was retweeted from them. It's actually pretty weird to me.
   The last thing I'm going to touch on is the lack of an underground culture in our society (something I find just a tad bit depressing to be honest). In the 60s there were the hippies, (the 70s were some awkward mix of hippie and punk and androgyny), in the 80s there were punks, in the 90s there were grungers, and what is there now? That's right. Nothing. There is no underground culture because everything is so easy to find on the internet. Even if I song isn't popular and doesn't get radio play it probably has a million hits on YouTube.
   The internet is mostly a great thing, I mean, what would we do without it? Book Research? ...ew.