In the opening line " Government assistance is a greater threat to the press than any new technology..." I completely agree.
Through out history things have changed and evolved in every aspect of life. In journalism there have been many changes. Information used to be handwritten, then the use of a type writer came about, there were paper boys that rode their bikes to deliver the papers. Now there are better computers, faster ways of presenting and distributing information and other forms of communication that didn't exist 50 years ago.
Murdoch says that " newspapers have prospered for one reason: trust." Which I agree. If people that read the paper do not trust what is being told or shown, they are going to stop reading it, plain and simple.
This article here, http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/apr/14/studentmediaawards, discusses that with the changes of journalism, the old rules still apply. Sources still need to be attributed, truth still needs to be told, legal issues, grammar ...etc.
In Murdoch's article, he is basically saying that with the emergence of e-books and online papers as well as the internet in general, journalism is going to change, but it is not going to be different. It has changed time after time and the concept is still the same, give the news that people want. Report on a story and tell people what is going on in today's society.
The government seems to be the "problem." He is saying that the government regulations have been making the way of spreading information difficult, where in the past it was not this hard. The government was never so involved in past, where today it most definitely is.
Murdoch also says that "technology now allows us to do this on a much greater scale." Meaning that we can reach billions of people in a number of minutes. Information can much easily be distributed nowadays.
I also agree with what he says that the digital age is not at fault. I think that it has probably even helped. People want things right away. People want to see pictures, they want video and all other things included in their news. They don't just want a piece of paper with 500 words telling what happened. People want to feel involved.
This is an interesting clip of Murdoch talking about how technology has changed media.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQSKRWXyFw8
In the ways that journalism has changed with the internet and new technology, the government also needs to adapt. News is more competitive now. The government needs to assist reporters and journalists as opposed to making it harder for them to gain access to information.
The government also wants to start charging for information online, which I believe is ridiculous. College students and other people with a lower income are not going to be able to pay for everything that they can get online. Since it is free, this is why people use the internet in order to gather most of their news and information.
Murdoch closes this article with this statement, "Whether the newspaper of the future is delivered with electrons or dead trees is utlimately not that important. What is most important is that the news industry remains free, independent, and competitive."
This is the article in which I have referred to: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107104574570191223415268.html
In addition I found this article from Harvard, which seems to state the opposite. It talks about how technology might make journalism go back to its roots. It might allow it to be the way that it once was, which I thought was very interesting.
http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reportsitem.aspx?id=101069
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Before Break
Why do professors insist in giving students so much work to do prior to Thanksgiving break? It really bothers me that they think that that is our only class that we have. While we are expected to get our work handed in on time and make sure that we do it thoroughly, the professors don't even get the assignments graded until a month later.
It seems that I am not the only one that thinks this,
http://crushcollege.com/how-to-survive-the-two-weeks-before-thanksgiving-break/
It seems that I am not the only one that thinks this,
http://crushcollege.com/how-to-survive-the-two-weeks-before-thanksgiving-break/
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
When Ordering, Speak English
According to new figures released by the Census Bureau, there are 255 million people in the United States over the age of five. Of these, 44.9 million (17.6%) do not speak English at home. This is absolutely appalling.
Granted America is said to be the “melting pot” of the world. What does this really mean? People can come here from other countries to live the “American Dream,” but not have to learn the English language?
Looking back to the 1800’s when immigrants came to America from hundreds of different countries; they were not able to speak English. They had to learn. They had to learn English in order to survive; so they did. Why is it that now, in 2009, people are coming from all over the world and they gain the same privileges as a U.S. citizen, but they are unable to communicate in daily life?
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, “If the 44.9 million U.S. residents who don't speak English at home were concentrated in the heartland, they would make up the entire population of all the states from Wisconsin to Idaho, down through Nevada to New Mexico and across to Arkansas. There are more people in the United States of America today who do not speak English at home than there are people, in Spain.”
Personally, as a U.S. citizen this is quite upsetting. My great grandparents as well as grandparents came to the United States from Italy. They did not know one lick of English, but they learned. In order to make a life for themselves and their families this is what had to be done.
There is no reason why everything today should be printed one version English, one version Spanish. There is no reason when I make a call I should have to press 1 for English or 2 for Spanish. This is America; if you don’t speak English go back to your own country.
If you are from Mexico and you speak Spanish that’s fine, do it in the comfort of your home, when you are in a public place you should be able to speak English. If you are from China and you speak Chinese in the comfort of your home, that’s great, but in public you should be able to speak English.
On the flip side, if an American were to go live in Spain, they should learn Spanish. I find it to be rude and degrading that people from other countries come here and take advantage of our Freedom of Speech. Being bilingual is great and in many places today an advantage, but in America, English should be the first and main language that is spoken.
By now, we all know the controversial story with Joey Vento and his speak English sign. Vento is the owner of Geno’s Steaks, a popular tourist attraction in South Philadelphia. Last February, Vento placed a small sign in the window that read “This is America, when ordering speak English.”
Information from “The Philadelphia Inquirer,” said, Although the Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations filed a discrimination complaint against Geno’s (which the commission eventually lost), Vento said the sign was never meant to be offensive.
“This country is a melting pot, but what makes it work is the English language,” Vento told members of the commission.
How we react to this “speak English” sign says a lot about who we are and what we believe in. In other words, you should not only be permitted to speak in your native tongue, but you should do it with pride, and resist anyone or anything that tells you otherwise.
For more info, check out:
http://chalkandtalk.wordpress.com/2009/02/14/joey-vento-multicultural-ideology-and-the-%E2%80%98speak-english%E2%80%99-sign/
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=joey+vento+speak+english&search_type=&aq=f
Granted America is said to be the “melting pot” of the world. What does this really mean? People can come here from other countries to live the “American Dream,” but not have to learn the English language?
Looking back to the 1800’s when immigrants came to America from hundreds of different countries; they were not able to speak English. They had to learn. They had to learn English in order to survive; so they did. Why is it that now, in 2009, people are coming from all over the world and they gain the same privileges as a U.S. citizen, but they are unable to communicate in daily life?
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, “If the 44.9 million U.S. residents who don't speak English at home were concentrated in the heartland, they would make up the entire population of all the states from Wisconsin to Idaho, down through Nevada to New Mexico and across to Arkansas. There are more people in the United States of America today who do not speak English at home than there are people, in Spain.”
Personally, as a U.S. citizen this is quite upsetting. My great grandparents as well as grandparents came to the United States from Italy. They did not know one lick of English, but they learned. In order to make a life for themselves and their families this is what had to be done.
There is no reason why everything today should be printed one version English, one version Spanish. There is no reason when I make a call I should have to press 1 for English or 2 for Spanish. This is America; if you don’t speak English go back to your own country.
If you are from Mexico and you speak Spanish that’s fine, do it in the comfort of your home, when you are in a public place you should be able to speak English. If you are from China and you speak Chinese in the comfort of your home, that’s great, but in public you should be able to speak English.
On the flip side, if an American were to go live in Spain, they should learn Spanish. I find it to be rude and degrading that people from other countries come here and take advantage of our Freedom of Speech. Being bilingual is great and in many places today an advantage, but in America, English should be the first and main language that is spoken.
By now, we all know the controversial story with Joey Vento and his speak English sign. Vento is the owner of Geno’s Steaks, a popular tourist attraction in South Philadelphia. Last February, Vento placed a small sign in the window that read “This is America, when ordering speak English.”
Information from “The Philadelphia Inquirer,” said, Although the Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations filed a discrimination complaint against Geno’s (which the commission eventually lost), Vento said the sign was never meant to be offensive.
“This country is a melting pot, but what makes it work is the English language,” Vento told members of the commission.
How we react to this “speak English” sign says a lot about who we are and what we believe in. In other words, you should not only be permitted to speak in your native tongue, but you should do it with pride, and resist anyone or anything that tells you otherwise.
For more info, check out:
http://chalkandtalk.wordpress.com/2009/02/14/joey-vento-multicultural-ideology-and-the-%E2%80%98speak-english%E2%80%99-sign/
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=joey+vento+speak+english&search_type=&aq=f
Monday, October 26, 2009
College is Flying By...
I can honestly remember the first day of college my freshman year. I know that I was wearing a green 'Italia' tee shirt and cut off jean shorts. It was like 100 degrees and so humid. Looking back now over the past 4 years it is crazy to me that I only have 21 weeks left of my college career.
Where has the time gone? It seems that every semester goes by quicker. It is already the ninth week of this semester and I feel like we just started. Being my senior year and getting ready to graduate this May, I must say that I have bittersweet feelings. I am ready to graduate and get into the "real world," however, I am nervous about not being able to find a job. With the economy today God only knows who will land a job after graduation.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Big Companies using Social Media
Enterprises and companies are now using Twitter, LinkedIn and other social media sites to draw in more customers as well as provide information and to persuade people. This article below gives a brief idea of what I am talking about,
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/social_media_for_business_who_is_doing_it.php
It is quite an interesting topic to think about.
The companies are targeting aspecific audience on the internet, they have ads, photos and videos that catch the person's eye. Some companies such as H&R Block even use FaceBook to post ads as well as advice to consumers.
Companies such as Starbucks even post online a suggestions area for customers to list things that the company could and should improve upon. It's pretty crazy to me that all of these changes are happening right now. I am excited and nervous to see how it will affect me in trying to get a job after graduation this May.
All of these online techiques have the same common goal. Draw in more customers. Some companies are better at it than others. I personally like the idea of a suggestion area where I can speak my mind and say how to make the product or service better. However, I am not a fan of surveys, unless they are short. I hate taking time to answer a long survey about something.
This website also had something to say about social media and companies,
http://www.socialmediaclub.org/2009/05/31/smcq12-how-are-companies-using-social-media-to-empower-their-workforce/comment-page-1/
It also has a short little audio clip.
Much of the future workplace is happening NOW. So the internet is a great way todo things in a timely manner. Technology has made our world as we know it today, much, much different.
NORG, print vs. online
It is thought that the NORG, newsgathering organization, is the next big thing in journalism. It is co-operative, fulfills the functions of a wire service aggregating coverage from small news-gathering entities.
this website is particularily interesting,
http://www.adlawbyrequest.com/2009/02/articles/in-the-courts/news-gathering-in-an-internet-age/
How does a NORG serve a democracy where not everyone has a computer, or access to the internet?
This seems to be a rather intriguing question. I would have to say that it is very hard to answer. Most of the older population still reads the newspaper for their information. If you really look at a newspaper now, there is a website listed to see the paper online, or for further information, which seems to be an attempt. Also, on TV they have listings to visit their website for more information or to post your comments or opinions. This is an attempt, but I don't think that it does a great job. It is difficult for NORG's to serve the public when not everyone has access to a computer. In today's day and age the younger population, almost all, have access to the internet whether it be via computer or cell phone.
I must also say that today's economy has a lot to do with this. It is expensive to buy a computer or labtop. Even though it is much, much cheaper than it used to be, people are not making as much money that they used to. Some people might not even have a job.
Younger people are more educated and know more about technology and the internet. They know what websites to go to, how to login to a computer, they know that most sites and information is free. I know personally, that I know how to access information online, whereas my grandfather doesn't even know how to turn a computer on.
This site, I found very, very interesting. It discusses print information, i.e. newspaper, compared to gathering information on the internet... http://www.shawnolson.net/a/1226/online-vs-print.html
It is also much cheaper to gather and view information online,
"It turns out that printed advertising, while essential for some markets, is becoming less effective as the consumer public learns to ignore ads. It’s no wonder that companies are seeking ways to maximize exposure while minimizing costs."
this website is particularily interesting,
http://www.adlawbyrequest.com/2009/02/articles/in-the-courts/news-gathering-in-an-internet-age/
How does a NORG serve a democracy where not everyone has a computer, or access to the internet?
This seems to be a rather intriguing question. I would have to say that it is very hard to answer. Most of the older population still reads the newspaper for their information. If you really look at a newspaper now, there is a website listed to see the paper online, or for further information, which seems to be an attempt. Also, on TV they have listings to visit their website for more information or to post your comments or opinions. This is an attempt, but I don't think that it does a great job. It is difficult for NORG's to serve the public when not everyone has access to a computer. In today's day and age the younger population, almost all, have access to the internet whether it be via computer or cell phone.
I must also say that today's economy has a lot to do with this. It is expensive to buy a computer or labtop. Even though it is much, much cheaper than it used to be, people are not making as much money that they used to. Some people might not even have a job.
Younger people are more educated and know more about technology and the internet. They know what websites to go to, how to login to a computer, they know that most sites and information is free. I know personally, that I know how to access information online, whereas my grandfather doesn't even know how to turn a computer on.
This site, I found very, very interesting. It discusses print information, i.e. newspaper, compared to gathering information on the internet... http://www.shawnolson.net/a/1226/online-vs-print.html
It is also much cheaper to gather and view information online,
"It turns out that printed advertising, while essential for some markets, is becoming less effective as the consumer public learns to ignore ads. It’s no wonder that companies are seeking ways to maximize exposure while minimizing costs."
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Podcast Reaction
I listened to a podcast about the Philadelphia Philles. This is a podcast with speaker Rich Baxter. I love the way that he talks and goes on about the Phils. He only podcasts about the Phillies, which it awesome.
I especially liked the beginning. It was actual sound from the broadcasters and live sounds from the game. "That game" being Oct. 1st when they clinched the NL East. The sound in the beginning is what really drew me into listening, and made me want to listen more. It was the sounds of the stadium, the bats, the loud and vocal announcers from the game.
After the beginning 2 minutes, Rich was joined by his friend from South Jersey who also wanted to chime in with his thoughts on the Phillies. They talked at a good pace, good vocals, and upbeat. It was very interesting to listen to in that respect.
On the other side of the ball, no pun intended, the content was, and always is, interesting to me. Briefly talking about the Phils in 1980 in the World Series, and then again in 1983, to then winning last year and the different series last year. They then began to bring it "up-to-date." Talking about how fun the Phils are to watch, how good the players are, the different teams in the division and the competition.
Overall, I enjoyed this podcast, and rather than just listening to ten minutes, I listened to the entire thing. I love sports, especially Philly sports. A lot of the things that the guys were talking about I could relate to and picture in my head since I had seen the games and most of the plays that they were talking about. This podcast was interesting in both the technical aspect in that it was easy on the ears, and it was interesting to hear what other people think and how they feel about my team. The content of course, was interesting and very intriguing. I love listening to anything about my Phillies!
Here is the link if you would like to listen to the podcast,
http://www.fightinphillies.com/2009/10/phillies-talk-podcast-phillies-win-nl.html
I especially liked the beginning. It was actual sound from the broadcasters and live sounds from the game. "That game" being Oct. 1st when they clinched the NL East. The sound in the beginning is what really drew me into listening, and made me want to listen more. It was the sounds of the stadium, the bats, the loud and vocal announcers from the game.
After the beginning 2 minutes, Rich was joined by his friend from South Jersey who also wanted to chime in with his thoughts on the Phillies. They talked at a good pace, good vocals, and upbeat. It was very interesting to listen to in that respect.
On the other side of the ball, no pun intended, the content was, and always is, interesting to me. Briefly talking about the Phils in 1980 in the World Series, and then again in 1983, to then winning last year and the different series last year. They then began to bring it "up-to-date." Talking about how fun the Phils are to watch, how good the players are, the different teams in the division and the competition.
Overall, I enjoyed this podcast, and rather than just listening to ten minutes, I listened to the entire thing. I love sports, especially Philly sports. A lot of the things that the guys were talking about I could relate to and picture in my head since I had seen the games and most of the plays that they were talking about. This podcast was interesting in both the technical aspect in that it was easy on the ears, and it was interesting to hear what other people think and how they feel about my team. The content of course, was interesting and very intriguing. I love listening to anything about my Phillies!
Here is the link if you would like to listen to the podcast,
http://www.fightinphillies.com/2009/10/phillies-talk-podcast-phillies-win-nl.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
