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