If pertaining to Ella's critique on WLKY, I fully agree. Ella provides an intuitive look into the reality of WLKY's broadcast: CRIME (with a capital everything). Not only is she true when saying this, as my statistics also show that WLKY had a total of 60 crime news stories in the month of October, but she is right to assume that the staff got quite lazy with their daily job (as compared to the other news sources).
WDRB sported 45, a number somewhat better, yet still high. So high it is, in fact, that it, too, is the category with the highest amount of stories. The same goes for WHAS's 32, but not for WAVE, a local station bearing only 19 crime stories in the entire month.
Of the 10 headlines documented, 8 could be categorized under the "Crime" segment of core topics. Although core, they are shown in such a superfluous amount that the stories, in reality, begin to become peripheral. Too much of any section is in violation of the yardstick of "Enterprise," according to the gradethenews.org.
To resolve this, WLKY should, as described by the yardstick of "Enterprise," should passively reposed to and seek out relevant news stories so as to balance out their core and peripheral topics in a such a manner that it coincides with other great stations alike.
Check out this story: http://ellamays.blogspot.com/2014/11/crime-crime-more-crime.html
Check out this cunningly cute blog: http://ellamays.blogspot.com
Thursday, November 6, 2014
Response to Nyah Mattison: A Girl Who Makes Some Fantastic Points
Nyah's blog is not only organized well, but contains interesting and in-depth coverage and critiques of organizations I am able to notice in my everyday life...and I completely agree with her views.
I really love her critique of WAVE 3's website. I do agree that although news websites are certainly meant to have the majority of the "fluff" and other peripheral topics on it, I still do not believe that it should take up the majority of the website. A viewer has to be able to navigate the news easily if they wish to view certain core stories. With all of the fluff clogging the screen, it gets hard.
To expand on what she said, I also do agree that as modern day humans, we do not always have the time to journey to the distant "newsworthy" lands in the "deepest recesses" of a news website. We, as humans, usually do not want a linear broadcast that requires at leaf half of our attention (not to mention commercials...). For example, whenever I study for a current events quiz, I never watch the news. Instead, I simply scroll through the various websites we're given to study off of. It's easier, faster, and convenient, but can get hard if there is too much celebrity news blowing up my laptop and/or cell phone.
In short, as the amazing Nyah said, news should not block other stories from being viewed always. If a news organization is going to have fluff, it is best to put it on its website, but there is a limit, as there is with everything, and that limit should not be ignored.
Check out this post: http://nyahmattison.blogspot.com/2014/11/still-better-than-buzzfeed.html
Check out this blog: http://nyahmattison.blogspot.com
I really love her critique of WAVE 3's website. I do agree that although news websites are certainly meant to have the majority of the "fluff" and other peripheral topics on it, I still do not believe that it should take up the majority of the website. A viewer has to be able to navigate the news easily if they wish to view certain core stories. With all of the fluff clogging the screen, it gets hard.
To expand on what she said, I also do agree that as modern day humans, we do not always have the time to journey to the distant "newsworthy" lands in the "deepest recesses" of a news website. We, as humans, usually do not want a linear broadcast that requires at leaf half of our attention (not to mention commercials...). For example, whenever I study for a current events quiz, I never watch the news. Instead, I simply scroll through the various websites we're given to study off of. It's easier, faster, and convenient, but can get hard if there is too much celebrity news blowing up my laptop and/or cell phone.
In short, as the amazing Nyah said, news should not block other stories from being viewed always. If a news organization is going to have fluff, it is best to put it on its website, but there is a limit, as there is with everything, and that limit should not be ignored.
Check out this post: http://nyahmattison.blogspot.com/2014/11/still-better-than-buzzfeed.html
Check out this blog: http://nyahmattison.blogspot.com
Everybody Loves C-J...to an Extent
After viewing a local news source, the print and online version of the Courier-Journal, it was concluded that the Courier-Journal's "Human Interest" and "Business and Economy" stories way outnumbered the others in the print version, causing an unbalance of topics in its sections. Statistics, after the month of October (ending on the thirtieth), showed that the Courier-Journal had 67 stories that pertained to business an economy overall, while the "Human Interest" showed a whopping 60 stories to be found in one given month. Although these topics are considered more "core" than others, as said by gradethenews.org (seven yardsticks of journalism), this unbalancing number can be harmful to a paper's image, especially when it outnumbers it in such a large way. According to statistics taken, the Courier-Journal only had 21 stories pertaining to "Health, Consumer, and Environment," 8 for "War and Diplomacy," 31 for "Crime," 34 for "Politics and Government," and 5 for "Accidents and Disasters." As compared to other reviewed stations, too much ink was wasted printing on the above mentioned, over-viewed topics.
All other televised news stations except for WDRB have a significantly higher amount of accidents than the C-J, statistics show. Yet, even with this being so, the numbers are still not overly excessive and "tiring" for an entire month, with the highest being 16 (WLKY) and the lowest being 6 (WHAS). Another example of their folly is seen through the statistics of the other organizations watched. All had a significantly lower amount of "Human Interest" stories to show, with the highest being 27 in one month (WAVE) and the lowest being 11 (WHAS).
However, these statistics do not mean that the C-J is entirely at fault for only these underreported stories. They are also at fault for over reporting others, as well. This can be seen in the category of "Politics and Government." As shown above, the C-J had a large amount for one month (do keep in mind that this was the month before the senate elections, so it would have been overflowing with debates and campaigns). All other news stations kept their stories a little more balanced with the highest among being 20 (WLKY) and the lowest, 5 (WHAS). The C-J's 34 left it with a little more than it could handle. Some stories were just recaps of previous events, and did not satisfy in the context of "newsworthy." An example of this is seen through its headline story on the eighth of October, "Economy Top Issue for Voters," when other stations were reporting on more relevant topics like "Former Coach on Trial for Sexual Assault (WHAS)."
Overall, the Courier-Journal, through its misbalance of news stories, violated the principle of journalism, "Inclusive," as the business and consumer topics reported mainly favored those of Downtown Louisville. "Enterprise" has been violated, as well. To right this wrong, the C-J should consider spreading to a wider range of topics, rather than just reporting on topics, although core, in an overly excessive amount to obtain rom for other core topics like "Crime and Justice," "Major Accidents," and other core topics.
Check out the C-J story (digitized) mentioned here: http://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/2014/10/07/bluegrass-poll-look-issues-facing-us/16849901/
Check out the full online website here: http://www.courier-journal.com
All other televised news stations except for WDRB have a significantly higher amount of accidents than the C-J, statistics show. Yet, even with this being so, the numbers are still not overly excessive and "tiring" for an entire month, with the highest being 16 (WLKY) and the lowest being 6 (WHAS). Another example of their folly is seen through the statistics of the other organizations watched. All had a significantly lower amount of "Human Interest" stories to show, with the highest being 27 in one month (WAVE) and the lowest being 11 (WHAS).
However, these statistics do not mean that the C-J is entirely at fault for only these underreported stories. They are also at fault for over reporting others, as well. This can be seen in the category of "Politics and Government." As shown above, the C-J had a large amount for one month (do keep in mind that this was the month before the senate elections, so it would have been overflowing with debates and campaigns). All other news stations kept their stories a little more balanced with the highest among being 20 (WLKY) and the lowest, 5 (WHAS). The C-J's 34 left it with a little more than it could handle. Some stories were just recaps of previous events, and did not satisfy in the context of "newsworthy." An example of this is seen through its headline story on the eighth of October, "Economy Top Issue for Voters," when other stations were reporting on more relevant topics like "Former Coach on Trial for Sexual Assault (WHAS)."
Overall, the Courier-Journal, through its misbalance of news stories, violated the principle of journalism, "Inclusive," as the business and consumer topics reported mainly favored those of Downtown Louisville. "Enterprise" has been violated, as well. To right this wrong, the C-J should consider spreading to a wider range of topics, rather than just reporting on topics, although core, in an overly excessive amount to obtain rom for other core topics like "Crime and Justice," "Major Accidents," and other core topics.
Check out the C-J story (digitized) mentioned here: http://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/2014/10/07/bluegrass-poll-look-issues-facing-us/16849901/
Check out the full online website here: http://www.courier-journal.com
Thursday, October 30, 2014
WHAS: Why Just Traffic Problems?
(NOTICE: NOT for J1 Credit)
A recent calculation in Journalism I class at Manual High School revealed a new folly of WHAS11 News. On the 29th of October, during the 6 o' clock news block, WHAS's main lead story on their television broadcast channel was "UofL and SFU traffic problems," a local story that mainly included an overview of the traffic jam occurring downtown due to four major local events taking place, one being the Louisville vs. South Florida football game mentioned in the title. As a part of traffic and/or simple weather information usually shown before a cut to commercial break, it is surpassable and sometimes necessary. However, as a main story that goes on for over three minutes, it is a violation of the first basic yardstick of journalism, newsworthiness, as stated by gradethenews.org. As stated, it is considered a peripheral topic, and completely irrelevant, especially since other studied news channels/papers bore much more important recent topics taking place locally.
For example, WLKY's lead television story bore the title "murder investigation of Garland Avenue [Louisville]." It included multiple interviews of the victim, Terron Johnson's, family, justification for the rapid search, police estimations and ideas, and footage reels of the crime scene, as well as the neighborhood praying for peace through the act of singing and yelling to what is believed to be a Christian god. A vigil is described and briefly shown, as well.
On the same day, WDRB's lead story title conveyed the recent open fire police incident (local). "Police open fire-kill man after car crash" was a story that clearly described the incident, as told by multiple confirmed sources.
To conclude, not only did this story violate the yardstick of newsworthiness, but it also violated the seventh principle, make the important interesting, as said by PEJ, journalism.org. WDRB made an interesting topic many local Louisville citizens find interesting (the UofL football game), asked a few people if they would be attending it, and played a short film reel of the opposing team practicing, all in an attempt to make it important, when, in reality, it did not have a lasting impact, and did not inform the public of some form of danger that was worthy of a lead news story.
WDRB should have reported on other, more interesting topics, as there were others to choose from. If they really felt that the possible downtown traffic that might have been occurring the next day was relevant, then they should have fit it in before a commercial break, or later in the news block as a smaller, less significant part of the "newsworthy" news. Traffic reports are like weather-they are significant, but not, to journalism students, newsworthy. Yet, that does not mean that they should not be a part of the news. They should merely be a part of it, not the bulk of it (unless, of course, some major storm hits the locals of the town and affects or is about to affect them in some way majorly), or even the lead. Nice try, WHAS. Nice try.
See the WHAS video story here: http://www.whas11.com/media/cinematic/video/15991494/uofl-fsu-traffic-problems/
See the WLKY video and news story here: http://www.wlky.com/news/outraged-community-demands-justice-after-garland-ave-murder/29421434
*Unfortunately, the WDRB story could not be found online. Credit goes to Eric Vazquez and his sources from the WDRB group in DMHS's Journalism I class for verifying the newsworthiness of this story.*
A recent calculation in Journalism I class at Manual High School revealed a new folly of WHAS11 News. On the 29th of October, during the 6 o' clock news block, WHAS's main lead story on their television broadcast channel was "UofL and SFU traffic problems," a local story that mainly included an overview of the traffic jam occurring downtown due to four major local events taking place, one being the Louisville vs. South Florida football game mentioned in the title. As a part of traffic and/or simple weather information usually shown before a cut to commercial break, it is surpassable and sometimes necessary. However, as a main story that goes on for over three minutes, it is a violation of the first basic yardstick of journalism, newsworthiness, as stated by gradethenews.org. As stated, it is considered a peripheral topic, and completely irrelevant, especially since other studied news channels/papers bore much more important recent topics taking place locally.
For example, WLKY's lead television story bore the title "murder investigation of Garland Avenue [Louisville]." It included multiple interviews of the victim, Terron Johnson's, family, justification for the rapid search, police estimations and ideas, and footage reels of the crime scene, as well as the neighborhood praying for peace through the act of singing and yelling to what is believed to be a Christian god. A vigil is described and briefly shown, as well.
On the same day, WDRB's lead story title conveyed the recent open fire police incident (local). "Police open fire-kill man after car crash" was a story that clearly described the incident, as told by multiple confirmed sources.
To conclude, not only did this story violate the yardstick of newsworthiness, but it also violated the seventh principle, make the important interesting, as said by PEJ, journalism.org. WDRB made an interesting topic many local Louisville citizens find interesting (the UofL football game), asked a few people if they would be attending it, and played a short film reel of the opposing team practicing, all in an attempt to make it important, when, in reality, it did not have a lasting impact, and did not inform the public of some form of danger that was worthy of a lead news story.
WDRB should have reported on other, more interesting topics, as there were others to choose from. If they really felt that the possible downtown traffic that might have been occurring the next day was relevant, then they should have fit it in before a commercial break, or later in the news block as a smaller, less significant part of the "newsworthy" news. Traffic reports are like weather-they are significant, but not, to journalism students, newsworthy. Yet, that does not mean that they should not be a part of the news. They should merely be a part of it, not the bulk of it (unless, of course, some major storm hits the locals of the town and affects or is about to affect them in some way majorly), or even the lead. Nice try, WHAS. Nice try.
See the WHAS video story here: http://www.whas11.com/media/cinematic/video/15991494/uofl-fsu-traffic-problems/
See the WLKY video and news story here: http://www.wlky.com/news/outraged-community-demands-justice-after-garland-ave-murder/29421434
*Unfortunately, the WDRB story could not be found online. Credit goes to Eric Vazquez and his sources from the WDRB group in DMHS's Journalism I class for verifying the newsworthiness of this story.*
Wednesday, October 29, 2014
WDRB: Celebrities Love Them
(NOTICE: NOT for J1 Credit)
In the month of October, the Journalism 1 class at Manual High School monitored five different local news stations in order to assess the data based off of various items pertaining to location and type of news. After many days of reading, watching, and recording, there came to be a certain pattern among an individual organization, WDRB, a local news station on the television and online. It was seen that WDRB has a large amount of celebrity, fluff, and other news on their television news station, as compared to WAVE, WLKY, and WHAS. Totalities revealed that the total number of "fluff" news stories on WDRB equaled to 21 stories in all, as compared to WHAS's smaller 8, WAVE's tiny 7, and WLKY's measly 2 (as of the 30th of October, 2014).
As always, celebrity, fluff, and other irrelevant stories on television news and online news websites are acceptable if shown and/or posted in moderation, as entertainment is sought in today's "lazy" society. However, WDRB's number is beyond the average, with as many as 4 fluff stories on an individual hourly news block (as seen by data released around 6:00 at night each time data was recorded). Stories as numerous as these cause distractions for the viewer, and show unprofessionalism in the organization. With so much fluff clogging the screens, one cannot simply view the news for intended purposes, sometimes resulting in the migration to another, more reliable news organization.
WDRB's fluff is in direct violation of the first basic yardstick of journalism, newsworthiness, according to gradethenews.org, and should not be seen as a correct or proper way to format a television news program. To fix this, WDRB should consider adding a little less fluff, but a little more real news on their 6:00 news block. If celebrity news is something that simply cannot be cut out of the daily news due to popularity concerns, then, at the very least, WDRB should post them on their online website, as more celebrity and fluff stories are sometimes acceptable considering that the viewers can share the stories on online social media websites, possibly leading to a multitude of more viewers later on.
Although a little fluff is sometimes essential to a news organization's popularity, too much is never a good thing. WDRB had a little too much in the month of October considering the multiple rape trials, Ebola cases, and political happenings, but, as always, there is room to change.
Check out the website (WDRB) here: http://www.wdrb.com
WHAS: http://www.whas11.com
WAVE: http://www.wave3.com
WLKY: http://www.wlky.com
In the month of October, the Journalism 1 class at Manual High School monitored five different local news stations in order to assess the data based off of various items pertaining to location and type of news. After many days of reading, watching, and recording, there came to be a certain pattern among an individual organization, WDRB, a local news station on the television and online. It was seen that WDRB has a large amount of celebrity, fluff, and other news on their television news station, as compared to WAVE, WLKY, and WHAS. Totalities revealed that the total number of "fluff" news stories on WDRB equaled to 21 stories in all, as compared to WHAS's smaller 8, WAVE's tiny 7, and WLKY's measly 2 (as of the 30th of October, 2014).
As always, celebrity, fluff, and other irrelevant stories on television news and online news websites are acceptable if shown and/or posted in moderation, as entertainment is sought in today's "lazy" society. However, WDRB's number is beyond the average, with as many as 4 fluff stories on an individual hourly news block (as seen by data released around 6:00 at night each time data was recorded). Stories as numerous as these cause distractions for the viewer, and show unprofessionalism in the organization. With so much fluff clogging the screens, one cannot simply view the news for intended purposes, sometimes resulting in the migration to another, more reliable news organization.
WDRB's fluff is in direct violation of the first basic yardstick of journalism, newsworthiness, according to gradethenews.org, and should not be seen as a correct or proper way to format a television news program. To fix this, WDRB should consider adding a little less fluff, but a little more real news on their 6:00 news block. If celebrity news is something that simply cannot be cut out of the daily news due to popularity concerns, then, at the very least, WDRB should post them on their online website, as more celebrity and fluff stories are sometimes acceptable considering that the viewers can share the stories on online social media websites, possibly leading to a multitude of more viewers later on.
Although a little fluff is sometimes essential to a news organization's popularity, too much is never a good thing. WDRB had a little too much in the month of October considering the multiple rape trials, Ebola cases, and political happenings, but, as always, there is room to change.
Check out the website (WDRB) here: http://www.wdrb.com
WHAS: http://www.whas11.com
WAVE: http://www.wave3.com
WLKY: http://www.wlky.com
A Response to the Eldritch Thesis: Karac's Blog
I also very much like his story about the real crisis surrounding Ebola: fear. Like with the Louisville Purge stories released about a month back, the news is most definitely blowing the news of Ebola way out of proportion. Karac's usage of helpful links that express and back up the facts stating that the disease can only be passed through the bodily fluids of someone currently experiencing the symptoms is clever and helpful, and further emphasizes his point. In all ways, I believe he is correct in saying that a good amount of news stories have been encompassing the Ebola crisis, as it is easy to write/talk about in such a way that many without the knowledge Karac presents in his post could easily be scared, leading to an encouragement of watching the news out of want for more information, or the "secret" to staying physically well. In fact, to respond to this, there is a higher chance that one will be attacked by a shark, as opposed to the Ebola virus. If that's not convincing enough, one has a higher chance of getting struck by lightning than getting attacked by a shark, ultimately leading to a very small fraction of a risk associated with the Ebola virus.Overall, I very much enjoyed Karac's insightful posts and captivating points. Check it out!
Check out this eldritch blog here: http://eldritchhatanti-thesis.blogspot.com
Link to this response post: http://controversialwaffles.blogspot.com/2014/10/a-response-to-eldritch-thesis-karacs.html
Monday, October 27, 2014
A Blog Response: "Just a Blog," Created by Eric Vazquez
Other than some grammar mistakes that can be fixed to a feasible extent, Eric's blog is well laid out and explained without mentioning the simple, yet intriguing, title. His convenient explanations are understandable for the reader, and help them to easily grasp the topic he is discussing at hand. I especially like the radio class discussion review, a post that is organized into three different sections as a serviceability to those who are not enlightened on the subject. Including a video link to the Hindenburg blimp crash recording, first broadcasted on the radio to a live audience, really adds to the authenticity and uniqueness of the post.
However, despite my liking for the blog, I must disagree with his thoughts on the radio being "today...pretty much useless." I am rather unclear on his argument for the radio. Whether or not he supports or disagrees with the technologic advancements and usages of today of the radio is beyond what I can see from the last controversial paragraph on the radio post.
For those who do not wish to receive a daily medium through a radio station will instead choose to listen to a type of music of their choice, completely free (at the time of receiving, not at the time of purchase of the car/signal) while behind the wheel. Some may argue that Pandora, a popular radio app that personalizes stations based on one's views, is a more effective mean of receiving complimentary music. It is not so, however, as listening to a radio station many are associated with in a town, city, state, or even country causes the same feeling of belonging in pop culture that takes its roots in the invention of the magazine that the radio superseded. The listening of DJs and celebrity news is a part of pop culture just as much movies are today, as discussed in Eric's movie theater response post. This feeling of belonging in pop culture is not offered by Pandora.
Overall, I very much enjoyed reading Eric's blog. Check it out here: http://evazquer.blogspot.com
Link to this post: http://controversialwaffles.blogspot.com/2014/10/a-blog-response-just-blog-created-by.html
However, despite my liking for the blog, I must disagree with his thoughts on the radio being "today...pretty much useless." I am rather unclear on his argument for the radio. Whether or not he supports or disagrees with the technologic advancements and usages of today of the radio is beyond what I can see from the last controversial paragraph on the radio post.
His saying in the beginning of the post, though, emphasizes his disagreement. Although the television is more widely used in the modern homes of Americans today, I still see the radio as a device that is just as important as any other technology the average American can relate to. The pragmatic way in which we use and approach the radio is seen as a daily routine that cannot be replaced in the lives of listeners today. Since one cannot operate a moving vehicle while watching a television broadcast, they are left with a radio broadcast to receive their news, as it is a cold device that does not require one's full attention, unlike the television (in the case of the moving car).
For those who do not wish to receive a daily medium through a radio station will instead choose to listen to a type of music of their choice, completely free (at the time of receiving, not at the time of purchase of the car/signal) while behind the wheel. Some may argue that Pandora, a popular radio app that personalizes stations based on one's views, is a more effective mean of receiving complimentary music. It is not so, however, as listening to a radio station many are associated with in a town, city, state, or even country causes the same feeling of belonging in pop culture that takes its roots in the invention of the magazine that the radio superseded. The listening of DJs and celebrity news is a part of pop culture just as much movies are today, as discussed in Eric's movie theater response post. This feeling of belonging in pop culture is not offered by Pandora. Overall, I very much enjoyed reading Eric's blog. Check it out here: http://evazquer.blogspot.comLink to this post: http://controversialwaffles.blogspot.com/2014/10/a-blog-response-just-blog-created-by.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)