Class Lecture: Movies

One of the most memorable discussions our class has had this six weeks is the one about movies. Movies were an iconic invention that first were invented in 1888 by Dickson. There was a short film that would be played (first moving picture), and the audience would peer into an peephole in a cabinet-like shape, and they see moving objects. The evolution of movies progressed rapidly, and by 1922, there were projection screens, movies with sound, as well as theaters dedicated to movies.

Movies "put the nails in the coffin" for magazines, in a sense, because the audience that was loyal to magazines began to slowly move more toward movies. After all, the audience could sit in the theater all day for a dime, the theater was air-conditioned and quiet, and there were more movies coming out than available magazines. People no longer had to wait for their news; radio was live and late-breaking (see my "Class Response:Radio"), and having something that you can both see and hear was much more emotionally stimulating.

Nowadays, movies still make billions and billions. However, the movie industry is not nearly as popular as it was when it first came about. That would be because of the rise of television (see "Class Response:Television"). Movies are still a very popular medium because of the need for cultural relevance and the overwhelming experience.

Blog Response:Nick Kopp

In my opinion, Nick's thoughts are not inaccurately based, and they offer good facts. Nick is on the right track, trying to use some of the journalistic vocabulary. Nick has shown real progression and growth in these few months as I've been around him, and has begun to show real interest in the journalism field.

Something as simple as following the Senate race between Alison Grimes and Mitch McConnell seems like an apparent necessity for a news medium to follow. This politics race has been nationally observed, with articles appearing on the Washington Post, and in the NPR hourly news podcasts. The local news outlet, at the very least, should have some trace of politics. However, in the study we conducted, there proved to be completely opposite trace of data.

I hadn't really thought about it before Nick blatantly pointed it out. I think Nick was spot-on. Way to go, Nick! Keep working to expand those vocabulary words!

Link:
http://kickkopp9.blogspot.com/2014/11/what-about-politics.html  

Blog Response: Nihkil Warrier

After reading Nihkil's piece about the UPS fiasco, I would have to say I am not as impressed as I would hope to be. I honestly expected more from Nihkil; he had many spelling errors, as well as misused referencing of the Principles and Yardsticks of journalism.

I would first like to point out that in one of his first paragraphs, Nihkil stated, "Mr.Gaza is breaking a major rule in the nine principles of journalism; He is making the interesting important...". While this is not a bad observation, it simply is not a Principle. The principle it replicates is the "make the important interesting". Nikhil does not go into much further depth about why this is such a journalistic wrongdoing.

However, while I was dissapointed, I give Nikhil kudos for trying and putting forth effort. Though points weren't exactly expressed in the clearest ways, the arguments made did show that he has reputable knowledge of the topic. Remember, there's always room for revision, Nikhil!

Link:
http://thewarrierproject.blogspot.com/2014/09/media-critque-j1.html?m=1

Blog Response:Olivia Dawson

After reading what Olivia had to say about Fox New's article, I am extremely impressed! I give Olivia props for paying attention to the journalistic vocabulary Mr.Miller has been using in class, as well as taking an abundant amount of interest in the journalism field.

I was genuinely impressed by the media critique, and the views she had of the article are very perceptive. I think she hit all the points: using the Principles and Yardsticks of journalism, seeing the article from all sides, and stating solutions to the articles lack of importance.

I applaud Olivia for seeing things from such a "journalist's eye". Nice piece, Olivia!

Link:
http://oliviadawsonjc.blogspot.com/2014/09/media-critique.html?m=1

Class Lecture: Records

Our Journalism class recently learned about something I'd always had an interesr in learning about: recordings.

tvThe first form of auditory mass media, records were just the start of such a critical form of mass communication (only still in group form at this point in time) that eventually came about. It was the set impression that radio followed, and while it had flaws, recordings were an extrodinary invention. If a loved one had their final words to say and they wanted to be remembered, records were a good way to do that.

Recordings were a good way to spread the emotional impact of music. One cannot simply connect on a deep level with sheet music; hearing music sung by someone, along with the instruments, was something relatively new. It's also something we still experience today.

The ability to record music was essential in the founding of radio, and was a quintessential piece that showed us where recording audio was headed in the United States.

Media Review: Courier-Journal

After an approximate 20-day study, I have figured out that the Courier-Journal is only capable of doing one thing: supplying its audience with miscellaneous fluff, poltics and irrelevant crimes.

The fact that the majority of stories is politics is not what is upsetting. After all, we are close to the election, and the audience needs to know where to place their opinions. The thing truly frustrating is the fact that the news is not proportional; there are no substantial news pieces on the CJ.

What is not politics is related to some performance, celebrity, or murderous crime. These things have no relevance to the audience, therefore, they do not belong on the news.

At least one good thing will come out of this illegitimate news: I will have inspiration toward the Media Critique to come.

Blog Response: Olivia Evans

YI recently read Olivia Evans' post on the radio lecture. I also found the lecture intriguing. It's almost surprising how something so seemingly small was such an essential piece of mass communication in the 1930s.

Radio had a rough start, but had nothing but smooth sailing after it had gained reputability. It's funny to imagine such a small piece of mass communication being so earnestly important to entertainment and the only late-breaking source of news might I add.

Olivia did a good job of reiterating what the lecture was about, and I was grateful for her touching bases on all of the content and refreshing my memory. I also agree that it's extremely fascinating that radio grew at such a massive rate.

Link:
http://evansolivia.blogspot.com/?m=1

Class Lecture: Radio

Our journalism class recently discussed the topic of radio. Radio was an evolutionary piece of history, still present (but not as prominent) today. Being the first live, late-breaking medium, radio was the pioneer for modern techniques of spreading news. It gave inspiration and a lasting impression of what the seemingly endless possibilities in more recently distributed news.

Unfortunately, news started to demassify because of movies and television, and all talent and entertainment moved toward the visual representations of media. The ability for the audience to depict images in their head was lost to the image of actors. Radio is still extremely essential in the realm of music. Unfortunately, for my generation, the campfire skits and entertainment of such will never be a familiar aspect of entertainment.

Class Lecture: Television

Today's class topic consisted of television. I found the topic highly engaging, and the class discussion left me with food for thought. Television seems like just another aspect of life; it's something that our culture is submerged in. Therefore, it is almost expected of everyone to own one of these "marvelous" things. Television is something so common, we often don't think of it as a fairly new medium that changed our culture massively.

The people of America were abundantly more interactive with one another before the rise of television; just imagine living in a world where the local community center was your main means of entertainment. When television made it's peak, people around the country--around the globe, became less social with one another.

Styles, fads, and trends also were majorly influenced by those found on serial TV shows. Audiences felt almost as if the shows were realistic, and felt like duplicating the life of a star would bring some form of satisfaction. Things found on television would shortly be found in stores and shops around the country.

The thought of life without television is an odd but compelling one. The thought of people creating styles and trends without the inspiration of a TV is interesting, which is something I think the US is walking back toward today; the idea of individualism is becoming less of an abstract subject.

Just imagining the more social and vibrant interaction that happened before the dawn of television is enough to get one's mind depicting images of a completely different culture. The thought is strangely appealing. It was a very interesting topic.

Student Response: Olivia Dawson

I recently read Olivia's comment on the class lecture. Here are my thoughts:

I would agree that this lecture was nice. Something as simple as newspaper is not something we often think of; it has been around for so long that it's not something that we often think about. I definitely think that the older generation is the reason that newspaper is still around. It was a very interesting lecture, and I give Olivia credit for the feedback.

http://oliviadawsonjc.blogspot.com/

Student Response: Laurie Jonhattan

I recently read Laurie's post on Literacy. Here is my reaction:

I also found this lecture extremely interesting. I had wondered many times exactly where and how books started and eventually became such a vital essence to the modern world. 

This is not a question you can simply "Google" to get the answer. This question requires tons of research and even then, the result could be vague and unsatisfying.

Mr Miller did a great job of thoroughly explaining the absolute necessity of books. A world without books would be primitive, in-advanced and frankly, not something I would like to experience.

http://dreaminreality14.blogspot.com/

Magazines

Recently our class had a lecture on magazines. The lecture was fairly tolerable; in my opinion, it wasn't the most pleasant lecture to to sit through-- it was lengthy for the most part and completely descripritive.

The discussion was about the start of the magazine industry. Benjamin Franklin created the General Magazine. Even though the magazine couldn't hold, it brought forth the idea of an article that had more content and more photojournalism than that of a newspaper. It was revolutionizing in the journalism business.

The saga of magazine success was continued by the Saturday Evening Post. This magazine was more successful than the previous, and was a combination of many difderent subjects. The advantage of having more content and make it more unbiased. Therefore, there was a larger audience because it as cheaper and diverse.

The reason the lecture seemed a little bit flat was perhaps because personally the subject of magazines is not that  interesting. The lecturer himself was not to blame; he gave plenty of enthusiasm toward the subject. It was, however, a little less climactic after such a pleasant conversation about newspaper.

A Hodge-Podge of Stories

Recently, I took a look at the Time magazine website. Supposedly, the website is a reliable place for "Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News....", according to the slogan that can be found next to the name in the website tab. While browsing through the home page, one particular article stood out; it was labeled "This Hangover Cure Will Make You Richer". 

As if the title wasn't enough to tell that the article did not follow the very first Yardstick of journalism (newsworthiness) , I continued to read. Within the first paragraph, I noticed a major flaw. Journalists, with the exception of commentators and critics, do not use first-person pronouns. Insulted, I did not pursue the rest of the article: "What kind of news source is this?"

You simply cannot be the source of unprofessional articles such as this while trying to maintain the face of a "Breaking News" source. First of all, it's frankly quite confusing. Time is a "Goodwill" of stories; while not only housing all of the old, used articles that no one wants anymore, it also is the home of all of the strange pieces that everyone is questioning the relevance of. Relevance is yet another Yardstick of journalism.

Being such a hodge-podge of stories in a sense is also unfair to the sum of journalists who face real work everyday to meet deadlines with breaking, real news. You simply cannot post articles on the iPhone 6 a week after the rest of the media released the information. It is useless, to put it bluntly. It is also unacceptable for a "news" publication to fabricate their articles based off of other news publications which work, and sometimes risk their lives for a piece.

In conclusion, Time magazine is not a sound source of information as it claims, but rather a means of entertainment.  

 Sources:

• http://time.com/
• http://time.com/money/3340370/stop-drinking-save-money/

   

Today's Lecture 9/3/14

  I was very intrigued by the topic of today's class. The lecture today was about several different things, all interesting nonetheless, but I was very interested about "Horizontal/Vertical Monoply" concept. At first mention of "monopoly", I thought of the childhood board game. After a brief amount of time, I learned that I was not quite off in thinking so.

  Monopolies operate basically the same as the game. The bigger company has enough money to buy out the smaller ones. Just like in the game, where the player with more money gets to buy more properties.

  The lecture gave me a semi-different way of looking at the big, corporate businesses. I learned a lot about the strategies they use to monopolize and compete with other businesses.