Ella Mays: Cute and Cunning

     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

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

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

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.*

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

A Response to the Eldritch Thesis: Karac's Blog

     Not only is the name interesting and eye catching (as I am a fan of the horror genre), but the blog itself is insightful, and makes very good points about local news organizations and their stories. I especially love Karac's review of the charter school story conducted by Wave 3 News. I agree when he supports Wave 3's usage of interview footage and feedback from those who were marginalized, or those treated as insignificant or periphery, in this recent push for charter schools. This follows the seventh basic yardstick of journalism, fairness, as stated by gradethenews.org. Wave 3 attempted, and succeeded, at getting all sides of the story, as said by Karac, in order to release fairness and unbiased opinions unto the viewers.
     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

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.

     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.com

Link to this post: http://controversialwaffles.blogspot.com/2014/10/a-blog-response-just-blog-created-by.html

The Big Cheese: TELEVISION

     In J1, we FINALLY learned about the huge competitor in the world of mass media, the big cheese of the 20th century that ultimately demassified magazines, radios, and (to a certain extent) the movie theater. It's the necessity that every American home is expected to have, whether it be impoverished working class or upper financially wealthy, that is supposedly left on for 7 hours at a time daily. We explored how this affected the American family, and how it made the entire nation somewhat lazier than they were before. Everything was on demand. Why go to the theater and pay for a ticket to see The Lone Ranger when you can sit at home in your pajamas for free and watch the newest episode that goes by the same name and follows the same story line with the same characters? What if you apply the same thesis to today's modern television? Why go see the next sad Hollywood attempt at a superhero remake when you can watch a series of your favorite episodes consecutively that, when compiled, takes more time to watch than a movie? This is all in the comfort of your home, with no additional costs. Food, entertainment, and gas do not require any additional payments.

    To contradict those negative views, we then talked about the positive offerings the television gave to news organizations and political elections. Although these things are true, and the main benefits are rather relevant and not completely based on exploitation of surrounding "fluff," I still must argue that the television is rather harmful to the human mind and body, both mentally and physically (even though I am an avid watcher of the television myself).

     To help the reader better understand this, I will use myself as an example. When I was in the third grade, I REALLY loved watching television. It was a serious problem. I would watch morning cartoons before school, afternoon specials while eating snacks or doing homework, evening newbies while eating dinner or coloring, and night time reruns while brushing my teeth, coloring (I loved coloring, too), or even reading. I came up with a rough estimate of how much television I actually watched in a day as an eight-year-old, and it totaled to about 8 hours (2 in the morning and six after school), a number above the adult average of 7. On the weekends, it was always more, of course. So, considering it was a full five day school week with a two day weekend break (on which I would watch television for about ten hours), I watched a total of 76 hours of television a week as a third grader.

        My mother realized this, but brushed it off due to my good grades. I was getting concerned for myself, though. I would often feel fatigued, and my legs were always aching from curling up on the couch in front of our flat screen. I didn't do any sports, and never hung out with friends because I was always afraid it would interfere with the nights' and mornings' new episodes that premiered on television. So, that year for Lent (a Catholic holiday where one gives up a loved item or hobby for forty days in honor of their God's death), I gave up television. I went from 76 to 0 in a day, and it...was...HARD. The first morning of my vow for the Lenten holiday was a struggle. My hands kept reaching for the remote, so I occupied both by eating a bowl of cereal one piece at a time with one hand and reading a book with the other. In the afternoons after school, I put one hand on the kitchen table and another on the book. My sisters would sometimes turn the TV in the next room. I remember walking in there to say hello just so I could glance at the beautiful, technicolor screen. Looking back on it now, you could say the symptoms I was experiencing were similar to those seen in recovering alcoholics and anorexia-afflicted persons. It was an agonizing experience during the first 20 days.

     However, during the last 20 days, I noticed a huge change in my body and mind. I was reading a lot more, and spending time wisely with friends. My grades were getting even better than they were before because of my increased focus, and my unhealthy appetite ceased, as I was not always reaching for buttered popcorn while watching my favorite programs. Better yet, I was spending more time with my family, and becoming aware of reality in a way that quite intrigued me. To top it all off, I found that at the end of the forty days, on Easter, I found myself watching a lot less television than before. I cut my morning, afternoon, and evening viewing times so I could read, or play with school friends. I even joined a soccer team. My total vie
wing time was reduced by 59 hours a week. Then, I was only watching an hour of television after school, and five with family and friends on the weekend days, totaling to the dramatic reduction amount of about 17 hours a week.

     The point is, television can be harmful, especially when it makes us "lazier" in a sense. It can decrease our focus, ultimately lowering our work credentials and educational grades while increasing the pain in our lower back and legs, causing indigestion problems. To add on, the constant need for junk food while watching television programming and the increased amount of sedentary activity may lead to unhealthy weight gain. The entire idea of television is mesmerizing, but, when used excessively, damaging.

     This does not mean that I do not completely despise the television, however. I fully enjoy the programs, and feel that the journalism and political benefits are well-worth the cost of having one. In fact, I think investment in a television set is a fantastic idea for those who can afford it. I just urge readers to try going without television for a week, at the least, and see how it affects their daily lives. The main beneficiary may not only be the reader, but the reader's family, friends, health, and business, as well.

Movies and the Movie Theater: Extinction?

     The answer is simple to this growing conundrum: no. As we discussed in Journalism 1 class today, the concept of the movie theater is slowly growing less popular as years go by, and as newer technologies come to surpass it like online media (Netflix, Hulu, etc.), specialized movie channels with uninterrupted viewing (FX, Showtime, Starz, etc.), and the newer phenomena among young people, "streaming" websites, also known as "pirating" websites (Megaplus, VideoWeed, etc.). Ticket sales dropped by almost half in just ten years from the 40s to the 50s, around the time television sets became larger and cheaper for single income small families.

     Despite these growing threats to the movie theater, it still remains a rather popular place of culture to the group most targeted, those ages 12 to 24 (this could arguably be counted as the "demassification" of Hollywood to bring in more viewers, but probably not the overall demassification of physical movie theaters themselves). A few of the main reasons include the fact that movie theaters are dark places, with surround sound and (most of the time) little to no distractions. This is something very few can experience in their own home with a built-in home theater system. Another reason is because of the social experience and cultural relevance the theater-going experience gives viewers. Most people between the above ages meet to hang out with friends. Later, they engage in a type of social media that backs up their liking for a belonging in popular culture.

     For these reasons, I believe the extinction of movie theaters is not possible in the future. I remember (forgot who) that someone said the extinction of movie theaters was a possibility, but I must say that I disagree with that, as one can see above. 

     Ever since the projection was first invented and developed, the movie theater has been a social and cultural experience for friends and families of all ages. From the release of the Wizard of Oz in technicolor in 1939 around the beginning of WWII to Wreck-It Ralph and The Hunger Games in 2012, movies have been a social and cultural experience that have become traditions in the heart of American pop culture, and, arguably, other core countries' pop culture.

     Even in the future, if, per say, movie companies start using broad brand streaming to stream new movies before or at the same time they are released in theaters on television at home, I still would argue that theaters would not go "out of style." It's similar to the feeling of waiting in line for a Black Friday sale, or hauling an evergreen Christmas tree home tied to the top of a small car. I think that it is the feeling the brain feels, like it's been rewarded in some way for working so hard, that makes a certain person react to such harsh conditions they would usually not agree with, like getting up at one A.M. after an extremely huge dinner and about two hours of sleep, or driving through harsh winds for fifty miles at a time with a ten foot long tree haphazardly tied to the top of a questionable car (Chevy Chase as Clark Griswold, anyone?). These stimuli are caused by the brain's pleasure center, a part of the brain that provides the reward, a feeling of euphoria emanating from the brain down to the tip of the spine.

     The brain does not feel the same pleasurable experience with an at home movie. The most rewarded movement was getting up to make popcorn in a microwave oven in pajamas, or maybe driving to a drugstore to buy a liter of a favored soda.

     For all of these reasons, I believe that the movie theater will be a lasting experience that even grandchildren of this generation will be familiar with. Humans may develop and change over time, but the nuclei in the pleasurable center of the brain will always be there, as it has always been since the beginning of time.

Check out more about the brain here: http://neuroscience.mssm.edu/nestler/brainRewardpathways.html

Radios, Television, and the Demise of the People

     To expand on the discussion concerning the history of recording, J1 learned about the history of the radio and the beginning of the television that overall brought the radio to its unfortunate demassification demise. However, rock n' roll and racism is not what I'm going to write about in this post.
     A new fact (to me) surfaced, despite my constant attention being on it multiple times throughout the week. Since television and radio signals are sent using air waves technically owned by the government, they, regardless of what the U.S. Constitution states, can technically control the speech that is thenceforth publicly issued from the television or radio. Although I have noticed the "covering up" of swear words and nudity through spontaneous beeps and small square black boxes or pixelated images, I have never thought about the actual manipulation of it all. I have always just figured these things were issued to protect the viewing rights of younger audiences while they were flipping through channels, when in reality, it is all the doing of the government and FCC.
     If this is true, then could not the government send subliminal (or not-so-subliminal) messages through daily recorded public programs and in between advertisements? Already, many television shows do so in the same manner, sometimes to both children and adults through many different means like verbal and visual clues, references, and, when called for, direct speech to the fourth wall audience. Some can be as simple as "be kind to other kids on the playground," or as complicated as "invest a quarter of your monthly earnings in this company while the stock market is thriving, then pull it out at this time to double your annual income." All are brought forth in simpler terms, however, in ways that audiences young and old can understand sublimely.
     An example of this already happening would be through the upcoming senate elections. Commercials are airing as often as time and space will allow on channels all across the United States. A good amount start out with simple "yes" or "no" questions anyone can answer like, "do you hate tax increases?" or "do you support this president?" They will then proceed to list off certain actions a candidate has taken, but they will refrain from naming the candidate until the end. This tactic is effective because the bias that already may have reached the viewer is not affected by names or faces until the very end, allowing more room for the viewer/possible voter to consider a certain action or decision to make.
     With the way the world is going at the moment, and based off of how the economy is holding up, I would say that later government tactics much like the harmless ones used in television and radio may be used later on. As mentioned in my previous post, change is inevitable (as can again be seen in the Catholic Church's recent decision to accept gay, unmarried, and divorced couples living together while receiving the host at mass services), so this is what the government may result to in the future. Already, many candidates use tactics like these through verbal speech, live, in front of endless amounts of people. This does not mean the government does not have potential to become something better, though, as there is always room for improvement, even in the best. Change may be inevitable for all, but it can go either way, which, some argue, is the best thing about it.

A Lesson in Recording and "Good" Music

     This discussion occurred back at the end of September, but I found it rather captivating and exciting, and not just because I prefer pre-21st century music to modern music today. What started out as a simple lesson on the history of recording and how it affected mass media evolved into a more relatable discussion about teens in the 1950s and their ultimate rebellion against the "big man" with their "sinful" rock n' roll sex music.

     During this discussion, new ideas of the age of rock music surfaced that I had not known before, leaving me with certain thoughts I wasn't quite sure were right or wrong. For starters, it was new information to me to know that rock music, when first released to the public, was considered "race music," or "black music," meaning that many associated the different sounds predominantly with African American persons. For this reason, many parents and/or guardians didn't approve of their child's listening to the music, and not just because it was the 50s and everyone was racist as heck to pretty much any difference among the human population.

     Another interesting fact that struck me was about the king himself, Elvis Presley. When first on the Ed Sullivan Show, cameramen were instructed to only film his upper half, as his dance moves were extremely controversial to many of the time. I think this restriction on a public show really emphasized the public's dislike and controversy related to rock n' roll music.

     Perhaps the most interesting topic about this discussion, however, was the topic that appeared in my afterthoughts post-discssion. Looking back again at my notes really reminded me of how so many things can change over such small periods of time, and how the world can evolve from one common enemy to another. Today, rock n' roll, to the young adult, middle aged, and older generations who may have experienced or been told about the experience of emerging rock n' roll from parents/guardians, is considered a preferred genre as compared to many of today's popular hits. In fact, my father even encouraged me to listen to it from the time I was in kindergarten, when, on the way to or from school, he would play songs by the Rolling Stones, Whitesnake, or (my personal favorite) AC/DC. Yet, I wasn't allowed to listen to rap music, a controversial music today predominantly associated with those of African American descent, until I was in 8th grade (I don't know why I mourned the absence of it for so long before then...I really dislike modern music, and probably always will).

     Forty or fifty years from now, I think rap music will end up in the same place as rock n' roll, unfortunately. Although many songs, in my opinion, do not deserve such a high spot of honor like the one classic rock holds, I think that the transition of this genre from "race" music to "good" music is inevitable, and that by 2054 or 2064, we will have parents and grandparents downloading old rap songs by Nicki Minaj and Jay-Z on their holographic iPods, or whatever they'll have, encouraging them to listen to music that was considered controversial in their time. The entire concept of change is inevitable in any developing or developed society, and although scary, it is true and can be proven through previous experiences.

     The entirety of this post has really crushed my hopes for the future of music, so I think I'll go listen to some Black Crowes and Three Dog Night. Those were the days...

Response to: Olivia Evans

      Many different insightful posts adorn Olivia Evans's blog, but one that specifically caught my eye was her post on the two most important principles of journalism (in her opinion). I do agree that truth is the first and foremost most important and valuable principle of journalism, but I do not agree that loyalty follows it, despite the principles' beneficiary standards.

      Truth is a standard that all journalists must abide by. I think Olivia explains her reasoning well using both non-accusatory expressions of thought and thoughtful rhetorical questions, such as, "...how would we know what to believe, or what is [in] our best interest [without truth in journalism]?" (Evans Two Important Principles). It is at the core of mediums all across the nation, and should serve as it in such a way that the public can feel safe and protected from false reports.

      However, her reasoning on loyalty and how it goes hand in hand with truthfulness did not persuade me to the same degree. "This [loyalty] is because if journalist[s] are not loyal to the free citizens then everything they say could be untruthful or biased." Although this is true to a certain intensity, I do think that the third principle of journalism, verification, goes hand in hand much better with truth than truth does with loyalty. Providing trustworthy witnesses and professional, reliable accounts (a.k.a. views from neutral parties) much more ensures the security of the public that absorbs the modes of journalism that they choose to use, whether it be television, radio, print newspaper, or smart phone news alert applications than loyalty does. After all, without sources, facts are useless.
      So, although loyalty is a vital principle of journalism that is required in all mediums, it is not, in my opinion, one of the most important of the nine principles of journalism. Overall, I really found Olivia's blog riveting, thought-provoking, and persuasive. The posts are consistent, deliberate and attentive, but I would recommend running them through spellcheck, as a few of them contain minor grammar mistakes.

Check out a thought-provoking blog here: http://evansolivia.blogspot.com

Note: Pictures/article clips taken from http://evansolivia.blogspot.com, articles written and pictures taken by Olivia Evans

Response to: Alice Deters's Blog

      Not only does Alice's blog have an extremely easy-to-read and navigable site, but it also has very insightful explanations on vital facts of journalism. The in-depth descriptions of each topic we discussed in class very much well explain the most important parts of the discussions. If anyone outside of the Journalism and Communications magnet of duPont Manual High School were to read her blog posts, they would be well able to distinguish the exact matter of question that is originally being discussed. The informational writing is similar to that of a journalists'. For example, "another big difference between the magazine and the newspaper...was that magazines were a national medium, rather than [a] local. In fact, they were the first national medium, targeting a national audience. This increased the business of advertising (advertisers were suddenly reaching not 3,000 people, but 3 million people)" (Deeters Class Discussion: Magaines). These few sentences alone demonstrate the affect newspapers had on advertising and the medium, as well as what the medium is and the statistics of advertising.

      Also, I do agree that the magazine lecture explained the widespread affect it had on literacy, advertising, and communication. Mr. Miller provided well thought out examples and annotations that clearly explained the rise of the newspaper industry, and their eventual demise and demassification (ex: giving us, the students, names of popular magazines and the history of its inclination and declination to help us understand and interpret the affect of the magazine in a different time). However, I do think that in Alice's response posts she should further explain her reasoning for finding a certain matter interesting or agreeable, as the article is a responsive one. Other than that, I overall find this blog extremely informational and thoughtful.

Check it out here: http://aliced726.blogspot.com

Note: Article Clips taken from http://aliced726.blogspot.com, articles written by Alice Deters

Magazine History Dupes

      When I go to Barnes and Noble, Half-Priced Books, or any other notable bookstore in or outside of my hometown, the magazine aisle is always the last aisle I go through, and that's usually just for comic books. There is a reason for this: I loathe magazines. My whole life, I have just found them to be uninteresting garbage full of false celebrity updates and disgusting scandals, lengthy and boring irrelevant articles, or annoying full-page ads that take up about 40% of the physical magazine itself. However, I never really stopped to think about the first magazine, and whether or not it targeted a niche audience.
      That was true before I went to Journalism today. As it turns out, Benjamin Franklin actually invented the first magazine called General Magazine. Who would have thought? By 1821, about eighty years after the first magazine's publication, the concept of the "magazine" was already widely accepted by many people in the United States. In fact, the most popular magazine of the time was a weekly issue called the Saturday Evening Post. It targeted every type of audience imaginable, publishing recipes, fiction stories, words of wisdom, in depth interviews, large photographs, adult and children comics, and so much more! It didn't comply to a niche audience...until the television and radio came around, taking away a good majority of the advertisers financing the magazines. Long story short, the magazine, a.k.a. the very crucial concept that began the investigative reporting and photojournalism in news mediums today, was defamed by the 1970s. Hence, the crappy gossip magazines of the 21st century. Sigh.
      I found all of this extremely interesting. Never before had I looked into a subject that I hated so much, and turned it around with positive facts that completely changed the course of an event. Magazines, as mentioned above, influenced the newspaper, spread literacy, and provided a source of information that lasted longer than the daily paper. I kept sitting at the table thinking about why I had hated magazines so much! For this reason, I found this topic so interesting. If I could take something that I loathed with every last bone in my body (no exaggeration there), completely view it from a different angle, and end up liking it, then I had to be crazy. What if I tried this tactic out on other objects of discontent? Subjects and topics? Concepts, slangs, and meanings? Even people? It would be an interesting experiment to try, and wholly human, as many are often telling others to "step into another person's shoes; no one knows what their life is really like."
      So, yes, I changed my course of thinking today in Journalism. I feel kind of bad about accepting the one enemy I have hated this whole time, yet, at the same time, rather exhilarated about it alone. This lecture really opened me up to what magazines were like before the niche audiences were factored in, and how much of an impact a single little glossy book had on the United States. I guess I did underrate the magazine, but only as a single concept, and not as smaller, individual publishing companies.

Why Do Newspapers Still Exist?

      Today's lecture notes in Mr. Miller's Journalism I class were simply titled "Newspapers." Some topics discussed under this simplistic heading interested me, as I am a lover of new fun facts, but one really caught my attention, despite its quick, time-saving coverage towards the end of the class. It is something that I have always asked myself. Why do newspapers still exist? Mr. Miller gave us six solid examples for us to think about as we hurriedly rushed out of the room to make it to our next class. I fully agreed with all of them, and not just because I prefer print to digital myself, but his final   words, which I will explain after listing the examples, I must admit, I did not agree with.

      The examples, first, are as follows: print newspapers are 1. portable and low tech (i.e., no wifi, battery, or expensive payment is required) 2. cheaper to buy than an iPad (per issue or issue subscription) 3. available to everyone 4. in correlation with tradition of older individuals 5. physical, so they can be shared 6. non-linear (i.e., you can "jump around"easily, whereas you don't have that option with a television or radio broadcast). All of these reasons, as mentioned before, are solid, factual, and completely true. In this year, they fully embody the reason for print journalism's ongoing existence. However, in contrast to Mr. Miller's view, I believe that forty or fifty years from now, it is possible that the print newspaper's extinction could be a real probability, a fact even. Already, most people born on or after 1980 have fully embraced the new emerging world of technological advances. Skills and experience with high-tech devices like these can prove to be a worthy asset on an application or résumé, not to mention a great way to stay in touch with former high school/college friends and current acquaintances. Then there are people born after 1998 who know almost nothing more than what they were born into. By then, most had been preparing for the "age of technology" that would soon sprout up quickly after the making of the first computer and, later, the first software program. All computers, laptops, tablets, and cellular telephones have done these past sixteen years, or so, have advanced. They've grown smaller or bigger, faster, easy-to-use or advanced, and cheaper, and that's all they will continue to do. I believe that after the "old" generation has almost completely died out, print journalism will begin to make its final demise, leading to the overall extinction of the physical newspaper. Almost no one of the "technologic" generation will want to see their newspaper on anything but a screen. It's convenient to see straight away, and gets information to the public much faster. Along with that, it saves a vast amount of trees. It's sad to admit, but it's true. 

      An example of this common demise would be the once-popular video rental chain, Blockbuster. Anyone could rent movies there at their own convenience for a low price, and return it whenever they felt the need to. However, when chains like Redbox and websites like Netflix started popping up across the world, Blockbuster was no longer needed. Other people had made a once convenient thing even more convenient, so there was no need to keep Blockbuster's doors open. Eventually, much to my sadness, I do envision this happening to the print journalism industry. 

      Why do newspapers still exist? Most likely because we are living in an age of people who still remember what it's like to read the daily print paper. Will they exist fifty years from now? I'm going to have to disagree with Mr. Miller, and end this with a "no."

The Washington Post: Inspirational Novel?!?!

      Recently on Sunday, September 7th, the Washington Post, a widely acclaimed newspaper, published a story titled "I'm a Warrior and Survivor" on the front page, despite its low degree of relevance. The article claims within itself that the story was written to commemorate the first anniversary of the Navy Yard shooting, but rather centers its main focus on a single woman who survived from supposedly fatal injuries in the chest and shoulder areas. Being a lengthy article, one would suspect much more of the tribute story that the original heading promised, but this is unfortunately not true. The article starts out with a tedious, over-exaggerated glimpse into the life of the targeted woman, Jennifer Bennett, and the "extreme pain" she is still facing head on in her everyday work and love life. Sympathy is stimulated throughout as the writer, reporter DeNeen L. Brown, slips in the insignificant sentences relating to this first topic, along with multiple banausic topics about Bennett's struggles in middle and high school, her own questionable theories about deities, and inspirational quotes. Also, there was a clear monotony with statements like "God left me here for a purpose," and "I have a determination not to give in." All of this added up to one long, boring article about the life of a normal woman who has "inspired co-workers with her recovery." Barely anything is stated about the facts and figurers of the Navy Yard shooting, causing confusion among those who wish to learn more about it. Monotonous statements about pain, the classic "never give up" statement, and deity existence topics are littered throughout the article among other unimportant facts and quotes about "moving on," and "loving yourself." The writer seemed to be playing with the audience's sympathetic sides with a bombardment of somber and petty statements, rather than stimulating their minds and causing them to think about more important issues facing our world today. To be quite frank, this article would have made a fantastic inspirational novel for women in their fifties, but not a grade-A professional news article published in a widely acclaimed news source. Commemorating events as sorrowful as this are great anesthetics for families who have lost loved ones, but not for a directed news audience looking for the latest update on Ukraine and Russia or the emerging threat, ISIS. This article is wholly in direct violation of the first basic yardstick of journalism (keeping articles written and published newsworthy). This story maintains an average lasting affect of about fifteen minutes, and affects almost no one within or outside of the United States. To avoid this sin next time, Brown should consider writing more about the actual event itself, rather than just one of the people targeted. Peppering small comments like Bennett's throughout the story would have been okay, in contrast to bombarding the readers with them. Also, as the story is not of the utmost importance at the moment, its front page spot should be revoked as larger, more significant stories start to pile in and flood headlines of other news sources across the world. Overall, this story is heavy hearted and sad, but not newsworthy. To conclude, copies of it describing similar instances should only be published in the future if certain requirements (as mentioned above) are met with professional standards intact, and organization correctly modified.

Note: Pictures/article clips taken from washingtonpost.com, photographed by Sarah L. Voisin, written by DeNeen L. Brown

What?!?! Gutenberg Didn't Invent the Printing Press?!?!

    Today in Journalism I class with Mr. Miller, we discussed the origins of the printing press. When we first began, I was thinking in my head the entire time, "yup, he's going to say Gutenberg. I learned this in fifth grade. I know this...I know that...," and so on. However, the first printing press we discussed was founded in 3500 B.C. by Mesopotamians. The printing press is as old as that? This really caught me by surprise. All of a sudden, the monotonous topic that I had been discussing in history class since elementary school became fifty times more interesting. Every history textbook I have ever cracked open has always said the same thing, whether it be one specializing in world or U.S. history.
   This caught me off guard a little bit, too. In AP Human Geography, we had just discussed how the "American Dream" is nothing like what people of foreign ethnicities imagine it to be. It's not even what we imagine it to be. Mr. Krause gave us some examples to work off of: Christopher Columbus, George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. They were three men whose adventures are taught to children even in the lowest levels of schools like pre-kindergarten through second grade. All of these men are portrayed as "great." One "founded" the United States, another "saved" it from the British, and the last "ended" slavery. While all of these events are related to these men, the adventures and workings of their hands were different from what we are taught as young children. Of course, you can't tell children everything Columbus actually did. It'd be too much of an atrocity to teach to such young children, not to mention inappropriate and awkward.
      Anyway, back to the printing press. I just think it's interesting how education has gone to such great lengths to cut these parts of history out of textbooks. Why can't they just add in the little parts before? I think it's because Gutenberg was really the first man to make an efficient press, as Mr. Miller discussed with us in this insightful lecture. The other presses were clever attempts, but not quite as useful. Still, it's amazing how this one man could change the course of history, especially in medieval times. He basically started religious revolts, popularized literacy, and encouraged freedom of speech. It's amazing. Now that I think about it, I can get why textbook writers/editors feel the need to write out the other attempts at a printing press. Still, though, a little sentence before Gutenberg's glory stating that attempts were made before his success would be helpful. The Mesopotamians of 3500 B.C. may have died, but I think they still deserve the credit. Without them, there might not have been a printing press for another thousand years. Okay, that may be a little far fetched, but anything can happen if history is altered (ex: Back to the Future).
   I found this lecture both insightful and interesting. I hope that there will be more like this in the future. Who knows what else I've been wrong about?!?!

Monopolies, Mickey Mouse, and Maximum Ride

    In Journalism I class today, we continued a discussion on binary models in mass media. We went a little bit more in depth into the content-distribution model, the information-entertaiment model and the horizontal/vertical monopoly model. However, what really caught my attention in our discussion of these topics was conglomeration (when one larger thing absorbs a plethora of smaller things). Mr. Miller had a map that connected larger companies to smaller, yet still popular and important, companies that they owned. Apparently, Disney owns ESPN and ABC, while Time Warner is in charge of Cartoon Network, Cinemax, and a sizable amount of other assets that I had never even heard of until today. I interact with these programs and overhear conversations my peers are engaging in about them, yet I still didn't know who owned them until this lecture! Also unbeknownst to me was the fact that Disney can shut down or take control of any business who is flaunting their copyrighted characters for publicity, even if it is just this old, rundown daycare in the West End (or my little sisters' pediatrician who happens to LOVE disney decal in her office waiting rooms...watch out, doctor!).
   What really struck me as interesting, though, was Mr. Miller's analogy to the ocean. He explained how all of these larger companies are like great white sharks. They each have loads of cash that they can use at their disposal, powerful monopolies, and audience admiration. They won't attack each other, but they will attack smaller businesses (or the smaller "fish") that attempt to overtake them using some new software or providing a similar item of better quality. They have the power to overtake and destroy these small businesses, that being said if the owners do not accept their extremely generous offers first.
      All of this got me thinking. It reminded me of the Maximum Ride book series by James Patterson. In it, one company called Itex takes over the majority of the world's manufacturing companies. They distribute all items from diapers to microwaveable pizzas to books and DVDs. It's a long story, but the shortest version is that they try to take over the world using these smaller businesses. This scared me when I first read it a few years back, but now it causes me to think more about today's society. Is this what is destined to happen? Will Disney buy out every company on the face of this earth, including its fellow white shark businesses, and take over the world? Will Amazon do it? Will Time Warner do it? Is it even a possibility? These are all questions that were stirred by such an interesting lecture, guided by one map hanging over Mr. Miller's door. To answer my own questions, I believe that for the time being, it is not possible that one company will dominate the majority of the world's manufacturing companies. In the future, I see small possibilities sprinkled here and there, but I don't see any plans for world domination. Maximum Ride did deal with evil corporate scientists who I do not depict in a high standing position of a large company like Itex. So, until they come along, we should be safe (I hope).

The Courier-Journal: The Place Where Proofreading and Newsworthiness Go to Die

    The article "Can Real Women Rock the Trends?," featured in the Courier-Journal's online "news" section, not only objectified women with their fashion choices (i.e., women of smaller sizes shouldn't wear junior clothes just because they can), but also favored those who specifically specialized in the fashion industry. Of the women interviewed, none had a description anywhere near "working house mother" or "single lawyer." All had experience in the fashion industry, not to mention the money to pay for the rather pricey garments. One of them (who will remain anonymous for personal reasons) was even forced by her manager to participate in the article for the publicity of their business. "They [Courier-Journal representatives] came...and asked for an employee to do it [pose for a picture] and my manager told me I had to do it," she explains with a roll of her eyes.
     On top of all of that, a clear grammatical error showed through towards the end of the frankly short article ("to flashy" should be "too flashy"). While scanning through other articles, another simple grammatical error was revealed in the most recent story about the JBS slaughterhouse violations. Clearly, the Courier-Journal has violated basic laws of journalism that all journalists, print or broadcast, should abide by. Publishing this, and other unimportant stories like the Bradgelina wedding and the Maroon 5 concert at the KFC Yum Center are a clear violation of the first basic yardstick of journalism, according to gradethenews.org. Nothing about these articles are newsworthy. The Courier-Journal should stop publishing biased fashion articles and celebrity updates, and start writing more about important issues, like the ceasefire in Gaza or the JBS slaughterhouse violations (or, if anything, stop publishing those stories under the "news" heading of the website on the front page). Stuff like that is what affects people's lives on a long term basis, not unattainable clothing choices and celebrity weddings. As stated in the seventh principle of journalism, "make the important interesting, not the interesting important."

Note: Pictures/article clips taken from courier-journal.com, pictures taken by Matt Stone, article written by Christine Fellingham