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...