Class Response: Media Conglomerates

 

   All of our media comes from a few select sources. This is bad for many different reasons, including a lack of diversity. In class, we talked about how media conglomerates limit diversity of content and perspective, but with lack of perspective also comes a lack of racial diversity, as well. The vast majority of companies in the media are headed and employed by white people. Because of this, media often glosses over the thoughts and opinions of people of color, poor people, and uneducated people. Every main media source is told through a white eye. And while I'm sure companies exist to cater to minorities, these people, a hefty portion of our population, should not be treated like a niche audience.

  All of this makes me think of a certain media conglomerate: Disney. Namely, Disney princesses. When one thinks of Disney princesses, the most common examples provided are usually Cinderella, Aurora, or Ariel. The remaining "brown," or, "racially diverse" princesses like Mulan or Tiana are often seen as after thoughts. What I'm trying to get to is that for an Indian girl, she has Jasmine. For every Native American girl, there is Pochahontas. But every girl can look up to Snow White. Why? Because in our culture, white is seen as "raceless." A white person is the "default" person. There is one princess for Black girls, but multiple white princesses that can be role models for any girl.

   Another major factor in this discussion is that white is often seen as the ideal beauty standard. This is why Tiana's lips are small and her nose is cute and tiny. We see whiteness as correct and beautiful, and i think that a huge part of our opinions are the predominantly white perspectivs the media throws at us.

Blog response: Kyra

theindependantperspective

I found most every blog that I looked at entertaining and thought provoking, but I also very much enjoyed Kyra's blog in particular, and her post about using different media to convey a message. (read it here:   http://theindependentperspective.blogspot.com/)

   I especially agree with her predisposed thoughts on the lecture. When I think of journalism, I think of writing in columns with small font and sporadic pictures. But journalism isn't just investigative writing. Sometimes, it isn't writing at all. I suppose I knew some of that going in to the lecture, but I left with a cool new sense of opportunity. Sort of like there were so many cool things I hadn't even thought about doing, like making a poster or a poem or a TV show. As long as they have a purpose of informing the public and conform to all of the elements and yardsticks, then it can be counted as journalism.

   This post also summed up what I learned from this class period very neatly into a couple of paragraphs. The post was well-written, thoughtful, and brief. I thoroughly enjoy Kyra's posts and blog.
  

  

Media Critique

   (Link to full article here: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/12/trump-moves-in-on-pennsylvania-avenue-with-luxury-hotel.html)

   So, Trump is making his headlines with a new hotel in Washington D.C. People are mad because he has ruined an old historic building and turned it into a luxury hotel in a city full of working-class Americans. Boo hoo. While many do agree that Trump's actions are ridiculous, this doesn't deserve to be front-page news, for a couple of reasons.

   The main reason that this story is utter baloney is that it's not relevant. Who is this exactly affecting? Maybe the old owners of the historic building, sure. Maybe even the wealthy population of Washington D.C. But this doesn't tell America anything it hasn't already heard from the hundreds of Trump-hating media outlets.

   In addition, this article is not inclusive of everyone. Most of the opinions in this article come from workers for Trump, family of Trump, or Trump himself. The only other side we see is someone we don't know talking about the historic significance of the building. where are the interviews of citizens? Immigrants? Of the people that this construction will actually affect? There is no mention of how this will actually affect citizens living there.

   In short, this article is irrelivant, uninclusive, and not a story worthy of national news.

Blog Response: Adrienne

AgsatoWrites

   When looking through blog titles, I came across Adrienne's page and found out that she made a response to one of my posts! Thanks Adrienne! (Link to her full blog here. Check it out, it's really cool! http://agsatowrites.blogspot.com/)

   When reading through, I really liked her media critique, both because of the writing, and the sheer idiocy of the article mentioned. I agree that the article is neither newsworthy, nor important, nor relevant. In short, the story cover a tiger who had a sore tooth and got surgery to fix it. Nothing more.

   I do agree that this story does not deserve to be published by such a large and widespread company, but i do think that "cutesy" journalism has its time and place. There are many websites that cater to niche audiences, like gossip, or sports or fashion news sites. This article would be completely acceptable if seen on "goodnewsnetwork.org," or, "positive.news." But on the Washington Post, users should not have to wade through useless information to find the "real news." The breaking news should be the only thing covered, in my opinion, to make becoming informed as fast and as easy as possible.

   In short, good work Adrienne. Your response was very thorough and I had very little to additionally contribute. I agree with your perspective entirely! This story has no place in mainstage news.

Class Response: Forum

   In regards to the 10 elements of journalism, Forum refers to a safe, inclusive space for consumers to leaver their questions or concerns. Usually, it comes in the form of a chat room below an article in a website, or a mailing address to leave complaints. That's all well and good, but with the growing use of social media, is there even a need for an inserted forum anymore?

   NPR has recently turned their comments off. Because of NPR's size and notoriety, I expect other companies to follow suit. But why? Well, with sites like Twitter and Facebook, and even email, it's easier than ever to message a company with a complaint.  In addition, comments sections are known for the ignorant and insensitive trolls that lurk there. In fact, I would venture to say that most comments aren't constructive, and don't contribute anything positive at all.

   Not to say that social media is a perfect solution, they have their fair share of trolls as well. But in this day and age, it is the more popular and practical option to use social media than the provided forum. No we can add Forum to the list of things completely transformed by the existence of the internet.

   

Class Response: Demassification

   After our class discussion about demassification, it got me thinking. What will be the next medium to demassify? And how will that affect the media as a whole? 

   My initial thought was books. With the internet and other e-readers recently surfacing, it would be easy for books to vanish, right? Well, as I thought more about it I realized how unlikely that would be. Even if books became electronic, they would still exist regardless. Also, books are like the original medium, meaning that every other medium is loosely based on the book.  So it would be very unlikely for books to fade into oblivion. 

   Next I thought of radio. But to a certain extent, radio has already demassified. The only channels one can find are directed at a niche audience, and podcasts are already replacing many radio shows. These are two qualities of a demassified medium.

   Then I thought of television. And as i though about it more and more, i concluded that television is very likely to demassify in the near future. I believe that television is in the process of demassifying. In the beginning of television, there were very few channels. But now that we have cable, our hundreds of channels are all made by a few big companies, and are mostly directed at niche audiences. For example, there are kid's networks and cooking networks, Spanish networks and networks that play nothing but old reruns. Most people can only remember the channel numbers for a few networks, and rarely "channel surf" simply because there are so many of them. 

   In addition, many internet sites and independent companies are creating shows that can only be watched online. Now consumers are more and more willing to watch all of their favorite shows on their computer, and not buy a television at all. 

   So how will this affect media as a whole? I believe that more shows will be produces by companies based on the internet, and not many people will buy TVs in the near future. I believe that watching TV will become a pasttime that is more personal and not as social. This will affect older people that grew up with television and don't know how to switch to the internet. This will also affect poorer people that can't afford to buy a laptop and can't be informed about local news or pressing news such as weather or natural disasters. 

(Also, while researching for this post i came across this article: http://www.techhive.com/article/3001559/streaming-services/the-decline-of-the-cable-box-is-finally-happening.html)

   

Class Response: Mass Communication

   On August 19th, our journalism class has a lesson on mass communication and the five steps to spreading an idea. What  I found most interesting about this conversation is that we learned a very similar concept in my AP Human Geography (APHG) class at almost the same time. In Journalism 1 (J1), We started our conversation by talking about what mass communication is, but what I'm mainly interested in talking about is the mass communication process. The mass communication process is the system that ideas are spread by and it mainly describes how an idea is conveyed through a product such as a movie, TV show, newspaper, magazine, or a post on the internet.

   In APHG, the spread of an idea across a distance is called diffusion. Diffusion is different compared to mass communication because it refers to the spread of anything across any space, while mass communication must occur by a means that foregoes time and space, meaning that it can be accessed even if the creator of it is dead, or lives halfway across the world. Mass communication also requires no immediate feedback. But one thing that these two have in common is the ability to reach a mass audience.

   In addition to talking about the process, in J1 we also discussed filters and impediments, which are ways that an idea is not spread effectively. In APHG these are called barriers to diffusion and in my opinion, this is where the two concepts are the most alike. The three barriers to diffusion are physical, sociocultural, and psychological. These respectively correspond to he three filters that we've talked about in J1! Two of them even have the same name: physical and psychological. The only one that doesn't match up perfectly are sociocultural (APHG), and informational (J1). A sociocultural barrier is when a difference in culture or status prohibits the spread of an idea, but an informational filter is when one doesn't have enough information to understand a new idea or message. An example where both of thee are true would be a language gap.

   In short, APHG and J1 are more similar than I would have imagined and I expect there to be more crossovers similar to this in the future.