While I don't always agree with 20th Century Fox's methods of marketing its films or how the film portion of its corporation operates in general, I must say that for once I find myself in agreement with media mogul, Rupert Murdoch's, prediction that newspapers will have to evolve and adapt to new technology if they want to survive. Essentially, he believes that an online subscription fee is the right plan of action for newspapers to adopt rather than allowing the government to step in and help the industry. You can read the full article here.
Though this idea has some merit, however, I believe the only way this practice will work is if all the other major news organizations adopt this same business practice within the same period of time. Otherwise, Fox News will suffer by being the first organization to implement this business model because people will simply turn to the other popular new organizations and continue to get the news for free. In turn, the other news organizations will also continue to suffer due to people receiving free news from them.
So, Murdoch can spend all the money he wants advertising how great Fox News is, but until other news organizations follow this practice I don't see this being profitable for the corporation.
Eventually, I believe all the major news organizations will adopt this business practice and people WILL pay for it. In the same way people pay for audio quality songs on iTunes, I believe people will pay for quality and credible news stories. But this largely depends on news organizations finding innovative ways to appeal to their readers in order to keep them coming back for more. If a news organization cannot find ways to attract readers then it deserves to go out of business. It's just that simple.
I also agree with Murdoch's belief that the government should not take over or "bailout" the newspapers. If an organization or company needs help that badly, then it's obvious that either people no longer want it around or it made some terrible mistakes and it deserves to go away. Certain banks and certain car companies SHOULD NOT be operating right now. But we all know how that turned out.
So while I agree with most of what Rupert Murdoch is saying, I'm still not a huge fan of his news corporation. A word of advice Mr. Murdoch: I would not mention that newspapers should "stand up to the rich and powerful" if I was in your shoes. Last time I checked you weren't exactly living on food stamps.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Podcast
Hey everone,
Here is the link to a Podcast I created for my Internet Communications class: Reel Chat With Cullen The Critic.
I made this podcast over a month ago so the current movie stories I discuss within the podcast are not so current anymore. Otherwise, I hope you enjoy it.
Here is the link to a Podcast I created for my Internet Communications class: Reel Chat With Cullen The Critic.
I made this podcast over a month ago so the current movie stories I discuss within the podcast are not so current anymore. Otherwise, I hope you enjoy it.
Monday, November 16, 2009
A Blogger's Code of Ethics
When someone thinks about citizen journalism the term "blogger" often comes to mind. If you enjoy reporting about current events whether they are on a local, national or global level, but you are not employed by a news organization, chances are you are a blogger since it is the easiest way to spread your thoughts and ideas to a massive audience.
Professional journalists have a Code of Ethics they must abide by. However, most bloggers are not employed by a company or organization to post blog entries and therefore they do not have an established set of guidelines for how they should report information. But bloggers SHOULD have specific standards for what they publish the same way reporters do.
Cyberjournalist.net created a Blogger's Code of Ethics by modifying the Journalist's Code of Ethics in order to provide serious, professional bloggers with a set of rules to follow for online reporting. Clearly, blogging is not just for Myspacers complaining about their day anymore.
If you can get fired from your job for what you say on Facebook then bloggers should be held accountable for what they report online.
Five Ways Facebook Can Get You Fired
Even though the Internet gives people numerous ways to express their thoughts and ideas, one must always remember that the web does not give you a free pass to talk about whatever you desire. Simply put, if bloggers want to be considered journalists then they should uphold the same standards as journalists who are employed by news organizations.
Professional journalists have a Code of Ethics they must abide by. However, most bloggers are not employed by a company or organization to post blog entries and therefore they do not have an established set of guidelines for how they should report information. But bloggers SHOULD have specific standards for what they publish the same way reporters do.
Cyberjournalist.net created a Blogger's Code of Ethics by modifying the Journalist's Code of Ethics in order to provide serious, professional bloggers with a set of rules to follow for online reporting. Clearly, blogging is not just for Myspacers complaining about their day anymore.
If you can get fired from your job for what you say on Facebook then bloggers should be held accountable for what they report online.
View more presentations from Paul Dunay.
Even though the Internet gives people numerous ways to express their thoughts and ideas, one must always remember that the web does not give you a free pass to talk about whatever you desire. Simply put, if bloggers want to be considered journalists then they should uphold the same standards as journalists who are employed by news organizations.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
From Pokes to Tweets: How Companies are Using Facebook, Twitter, and Other Social Media
It's hard not to go to a website these days without seeing the Facebook or Twitter icon located somewhere on the page. Beware if you decide to follow any of these companies or organizations by clicking on the icon unless you want the company to have complete access of your profile. For instance, let's say you tweet about wanting a new Samsung LCD High-Definition TV. If you're following a company such as Amazon.com on Twitter the company will mercilessly start sending you tweets and email messages about the latest deals on Samsung TVs. Believe me, other companies have done the same thing to me and while it's interesting and informative at first it quickly becomes annoying.
Facebook essentially does the same thing. If you're listed as "Single" in your profile, ads for dating sites will frequently appear next to your profile page. If you have a certain band listed under your "Favorite Music" section in your profile, you will see ads featuring concert information or an upcoming album from that particular band.
Of course, this is only one of the ways companies are utilizing social media sites. People are using Twitter to directly communicate to their customers or potential customers. They can obtain valuable information about their products and suggestions for how to improve on them through polls or direct messages. They can also offer feedback if their customers have any questions or concerns about their products. Basically, Twitter is an easy way to have a focus group without spending money or alot of time to conduct one. All of these ideas and more can be found at 50 Ideas for Using Twitter for Business.
However, an even better source for learning how to use Twitter for businesses is Twitter 101. It's a great site for companies to go to if they desire to learn how to use Twitter within its marketing techniques. Companies can use Twitter to find out what the public is saying about them by enabling Twitter to report to them if the company name is mentioned within a person's tweet. Companies that take advantage of all of Twitter's capabilities will discover it is a tool like no other that allows companies to instantly connect with people at any time of the day especially if the person has Twitter connected to their cell phones.
Not only are companies using Twitter to probe into your everyday activities and feelings about their company or products in general, but the other big social media tool that everyone, including your grandmother, that companies are using to communicate with you is through Facebook. Remember in 2004 when Facebook was exclusively for college students and all you had was a profile pic, some personal information, the ability to create and join groups, and a wall for people to write on? Those were the days...
Today, if you're not being asked to take a quiz, add an application, play a game etc. you're either being bombarded by people's status updates or being forced to look at an advertisement that is specifically geared toward your personal profile. Then it should come as no surprise that if companies can see your interests on your Facebook page, even if you apply all the correct privacy settings, there are still ways around these settings in which Human Resource people can view your profile to see if your personal information reflects the type of person they are looking to hire for a job. The same practice applies to Twitter, Myspace, or Xanga too.
It's also interesting to note that while companies are using Twitter and Facebook to advertise to people, a recent study found that 54% of companies have banned the use of social networking sites by their employees while they are at work. So while your company may be using Facebook to advertise itself, it may ban you from using Facebook to advertise yourself at certain times of the day. This is just a little food for thought for a different discussion.
As far as marketing is concerned, the first thing most companies do is create a special page for their company or organization. These pages will usually include a link to the company's official website, their mission or purpose, and maybe a few videos about their company. Companies can also create groups and applications for unique advertising purposes.
Not only are businesses using Facebook as a means of communicating with their customers or clients, but they are also using it as a means to communicate with other businesses. By doing this they are networking with possible business partners by sharing research and information (but not to the point where the information shared is considered illegal) to help their businesses prosper.
Like Twitter, Facebook can also be linked to your cell phone so that companies instantly advertise new products, ask you to take a survey, or find out your if you're making any comments about the company. This can all be very beneficial to the company, but might become another headache.
So is marketing on social media good or bad for the average person? If you enjoy receiving information on the latest gadgets or talking with faceless companies on Facebook ( I know, that was bad) then you might embrace the social media marketing machine. But, if you'd prefer not to have your cell phone or computer flooded with advertisements and could care less about the business world, well my friend, I am sorry but you're out of luck. Social media marketing is here to stay and it's only going to get worse with every new piece of technology that is invented.
Facebook essentially does the same thing. If you're listed as "Single" in your profile, ads for dating sites will frequently appear next to your profile page. If you have a certain band listed under your "Favorite Music" section in your profile, you will see ads featuring concert information or an upcoming album from that particular band.
Of course, this is only one of the ways companies are utilizing social media sites. People are using Twitter to directly communicate to their customers or potential customers. They can obtain valuable information about their products and suggestions for how to improve on them through polls or direct messages. They can also offer feedback if their customers have any questions or concerns about their products. Basically, Twitter is an easy way to have a focus group without spending money or alot of time to conduct one. All of these ideas and more can be found at 50 Ideas for Using Twitter for Business.
However, an even better source for learning how to use Twitter for businesses is Twitter 101. It's a great site for companies to go to if they desire to learn how to use Twitter within its marketing techniques. Companies can use Twitter to find out what the public is saying about them by enabling Twitter to report to them if the company name is mentioned within a person's tweet. Companies that take advantage of all of Twitter's capabilities will discover it is a tool like no other that allows companies to instantly connect with people at any time of the day especially if the person has Twitter connected to their cell phones.
Not only are companies using Twitter to probe into your everyday activities and feelings about their company or products in general, but the other big social media tool that everyone, including your grandmother, that companies are using to communicate with you is through Facebook. Remember in 2004 when Facebook was exclusively for college students and all you had was a profile pic, some personal information, the ability to create and join groups, and a wall for people to write on? Those were the days...
Today, if you're not being asked to take a quiz, add an application, play a game etc. you're either being bombarded by people's status updates or being forced to look at an advertisement that is specifically geared toward your personal profile. Then it should come as no surprise that if companies can see your interests on your Facebook page, even if you apply all the correct privacy settings, there are still ways around these settings in which Human Resource people can view your profile to see if your personal information reflects the type of person they are looking to hire for a job. The same practice applies to Twitter, Myspace, or Xanga too.
It's also interesting to note that while companies are using Twitter and Facebook to advertise to people, a recent study found that 54% of companies have banned the use of social networking sites by their employees while they are at work. So while your company may be using Facebook to advertise itself, it may ban you from using Facebook to advertise yourself at certain times of the day. This is just a little food for thought for a different discussion.
As far as marketing is concerned, the first thing most companies do is create a special page for their company or organization. These pages will usually include a link to the company's official website, their mission or purpose, and maybe a few videos about their company. Companies can also create groups and applications for unique advertising purposes.
Not only are businesses using Facebook as a means of communicating with their customers or clients, but they are also using it as a means to communicate with other businesses. By doing this they are networking with possible business partners by sharing research and information (but not to the point where the information shared is considered illegal) to help their businesses prosper.
Like Twitter, Facebook can also be linked to your cell phone so that companies instantly advertise new products, ask you to take a survey, or find out your if you're making any comments about the company. This can all be very beneficial to the company, but might become another headache.
So is marketing on social media good or bad for the average person? If you enjoy receiving information on the latest gadgets or talking with faceless companies on Facebook ( I know, that was bad) then you might embrace the social media marketing machine. But, if you'd prefer not to have your cell phone or computer flooded with advertisements and could care less about the business world, well my friend, I am sorry but you're out of luck. Social media marketing is here to stay and it's only going to get worse with every new piece of technology that is invented.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Red Bar Radio Podcast Review
Since the Red Bar Radio podcast is considered the most popular podcast on podcastalley.com I decided to give it a shot. After listening to the first twenty minutes of the show I could see why the show was so popular.
The 3 commentators on the show are crude, but not Howard Stern crude, and insightful at the same time. Specifically, the show that came out on October 9th primarily discussed why President Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. Like most people I talked with the day it was announced, I was puzzled and a little annoyed that he won. But after listening to Red Bar Radio's host, Mike D's, opinion on the subject I backed off on my own views. Mike D made an interesting point that the key word that most people are forgetting about in this issue is "prize." Getting a prize has nothing to do with deserving it. As one of the commentators remarked, "Do you really think anyone on the "The Price Is Right" deserves to win any of the crap they give away?" Indeed, Obama should not be criticized for receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, however, I still believe that the people who decided to give it to him need their brains examined.
So the show's commentary is insightful and hilariously crude at the same time. I found myself laughing and nodding my head at all their observations about the stupid things that people do on Facebook.
Technically, the show is well made too. The theme song to introduce the show was professionally done and the sound effects they used certainly added to the humor of the commentary rather than distracting people from what they were saying like some podcasts tend to do.
If you aren't a fan of shock jocks or bad language then I wouldn't reccommend this podcast to you. Otherwise, it's an entertaining show with great commentary about current topics or trends.
The 3 commentators on the show are crude, but not Howard Stern crude, and insightful at the same time. Specifically, the show that came out on October 9th primarily discussed why President Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. Like most people I talked with the day it was announced, I was puzzled and a little annoyed that he won. But after listening to Red Bar Radio's host, Mike D's, opinion on the subject I backed off on my own views. Mike D made an interesting point that the key word that most people are forgetting about in this issue is "prize." Getting a prize has nothing to do with deserving it. As one of the commentators remarked, "Do you really think anyone on the "The Price Is Right" deserves to win any of the crap they give away?" Indeed, Obama should not be criticized for receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, however, I still believe that the people who decided to give it to him need their brains examined.
So the show's commentary is insightful and hilariously crude at the same time. I found myself laughing and nodding my head at all their observations about the stupid things that people do on Facebook.
Technically, the show is well made too. The theme song to introduce the show was professionally done and the sound effects they used certainly added to the humor of the commentary rather than distracting people from what they were saying like some podcasts tend to do.
If you aren't a fan of shock jocks or bad language then I wouldn't reccommend this podcast to you. Otherwise, it's an entertaining show with great commentary about current topics or trends.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Remakes, Reboots, Re-Imaginings, REDICULOUS! (Op-Ed Assignment)
I know I am not the only person out there who is fed up with Hollywood lately. The concept of "originality" has packed up its bags of fresh ideas and left the film studios. Now, the movie-going public is being served old leftovers of remakes, sequels, prequels, and films based on videogames, toys, or old television shows.
Hollywood executives and producers like churning out remakes for the same reason mothers like serving leftovers to their kids. IT'S EASY!
Here's the recipe for a remake:
First, you snatch the original film that's been lovingly stored within the memory bank of the public. Next, you add a dash of inexpensive actors who know how to look good on screen and well...that's pretty much all they know how to do. Then, drench the film in a hefty coating of computer generated visual effects to mask its stale flavors like the butchered storyline, acting, or directing. Finally, you serve up the film with fancy words like "new vision," "re-imagining," "reboot," or whatever label the producers want to slap on it other than "remake."
As long as people keep consuming remakes, other classic films will enter the Hollywood kitchen looking like filet mignon and leave it looking like mystery meat.
Believe it or not folks, we will soon be treated with remakes of classic films such as A Nightmare on Elm Street, The Birds, Footloose, and even The Karate Kid, which will be renamed The Kung Fu Kid with Will Smith's son, Jaden Smith, set to star in the role that was originally made famous by Ralph Macchio. Jackie Chan will also take over the role that was iconically portrayed by Pat Morita as the young boy's mentor, Mr. Miyagi.
Hollywood executives and producers like churning out remakes for the same reason mothers like serving leftovers to their kids. IT'S EASY!
Here's the recipe for a remake:
First, you snatch the original film that's been lovingly stored within the memory bank of the public. Next, you add a dash of inexpensive actors who know how to look good on screen and well...that's pretty much all they know how to do. Then, drench the film in a hefty coating of computer generated visual effects to mask its stale flavors like the butchered storyline, acting, or directing. Finally, you serve up the film with fancy words like "new vision," "re-imagining," "reboot," or whatever label the producers want to slap on it other than "remake."
As long as people keep consuming remakes, other classic films will enter the Hollywood kitchen looking like filet mignon and leave it looking like mystery meat.
Believe it or not folks, we will soon be treated with remakes of classic films such as A Nightmare on Elm Street, The Birds, Footloose, and even The Karate Kid, which will be renamed The Kung Fu Kid with Will Smith's son, Jaden Smith, set to star in the role that was originally made famous by Ralph Macchio. Jackie Chan will also take over the role that was iconically portrayed by Pat Morita as the young boy's mentor, Mr. Miyagi.
You will never be Mr. Miyagi to me, Mr. Chan.
As I previously mentioned, not only are remakes polluting theaters, but also films that are based on things that didn't have an actual story to begin with. For instance, in 2011 we will see the release of two films that are based on popular board games. Yep, that's right...board games. Director Ridley Scott (Alien, Blade Runner, Gladiator) will be directing a live action version of Monopoly and Director Peter Berg (Hancock, The Kingdom, Friday Night Lights) will be bringing Battleship to the big screen.
Granted, sometimes board games can make decent films. 1985's Clue was an alright movie for what it was. Then again, at the other end of the spectrum you have films like 2000's Dungeons & Dragons, which makes you wish you could get back the 107 minutes of your life you wasted watching it.
My point is that good, original films are hard to come by these days. Why is this? Well, the main reason is that producers are often afraid to take risks on original story ideas by upcoming screenwriters. There is less of a risk when it comes to remaking classic films because there is already a built-in audience who enjoyed the original film and will go to the theater to see the remake simply because of that fact. Essentially, many producers believe it doesn't make sense to put so much time and effort into a brand new story when you can retell an old story in minimal time and with little or no effort.
One studio executive said it best when describing why studios are so eager to spit out remakes: "If you're trying to get a movie made now, you can push the rock up a mountain or you can push it on flat ground. And most of us would rather push it on flat ground."
Yes, a good lesson indeed boys and girls. Always take the easy path. With such great wisdom coming out of Hollywood it's amazing California is able to function properly. Oh wait, scratch that last sentence.
The bottom line is that most remakes or "reboots" are either garbage or mediocre films at best. Notice how I said MOST remakes. There have been exceptions with the most recent one being the reboot of Star Trek. In the nerdy debate of Star Trek vs. Star Wars I always believed the Star Wars Universe was superior. But even I was won over by J.J. Abrams' awesome vision of the first voyage of the crew of the Starship Enterprise.
Films like the newest Star Trek give me a small glimmer of hope for remakes. But then as soon as a great film like Star Trek is released, I hear about the announcement of a Cliffhanger remake and I immediately slam my head down. Why anyone would think this 1993 Sylvester Stallone action flick warrants a remake is beyond me. It was an entertaining, mindless action film and nothing more. But some individuals seem to think the story could be explored further. According to producer Neal Moritz, "Just as they rebooted Star Trek, we're going to do the same with Cliffhanger."
Aside from the terrible remake idea, putting Cliffhanger on the same level as Star Trek is just insane. Maybe Mr. Moritz should listen to what was said to Mr. Billy Madison when he tried to sound intelligent to an audience...
Unfortunately, remakes are here to stay and there are plenty more coming. All I can advise anyone who is reading this to do is to allow yourself to see more original, creative, thoughtful films like Up, 500 Days of Summer, or The Hurt Locker and skip the effortless, recycled films made from the faded memories of Hollywood classics.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Keeping the Watchdog on a Leash
We've all heard about how the press is supposed to be the watchdog of the government and society. But how can a news organization report what it feels to be true when it must keep in mind the interest of its sponsors?
In a digital world where the public has the ability to speak and write however they desire about an event, topic, or issue, the average news organization still walks on eggshells when it comes to digital reporting. Often times the press will offer the basic facts about a news story with little or no opinion to accompany it. News stories from news organizations within the online community are nothing more then the elementary "Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How" of a story because they are afraid of angering the corporations that keep them running.
More people are reading blogs now more than ever to find interesting opinions and perspectives on news stories rather than reading or hearing about the "WWWWWH." Unfortunately, as long as news organizations cater to their sponsors, the public will never see anything more than dry, standard news reporting from them.
From time to time, however, the watchdog will dig up a few fresh stories for the public. But most of the time even the watchdog knows it's not smart to bite the hand that feeds.
In a digital world where the public has the ability to speak and write however they desire about an event, topic, or issue, the average news organization still walks on eggshells when it comes to digital reporting. Often times the press will offer the basic facts about a news story with little or no opinion to accompany it. News stories from news organizations within the online community are nothing more then the elementary "Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How" of a story because they are afraid of angering the corporations that keep them running.
More people are reading blogs now more than ever to find interesting opinions and perspectives on news stories rather than reading or hearing about the "WWWWWH." Unfortunately, as long as news organizations cater to their sponsors, the public will never see anything more than dry, standard news reporting from them.
From time to time, however, the watchdog will dig up a few fresh stories for the public. But most of the time even the watchdog knows it's not smart to bite the hand that feeds.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Journalism's Job: Changed or Unchanged?
At its core, the job of the working journalist is indeed still unchanged. Journalists must still strive to report important newsworthy stories to readers in a manner that is both credible and fair.
The only things that have changed in the field of Journalism are the means in which journalists communicate the news to people, the higher competition in reporting news stories, and the higher level of scrutiny they must face due to avid, opinionated, fact checking bloggers.
The biggest change in how journalists report stories to the public is the obvious jump from the newspaper page to the webpage. Many newspapers across the country are losing readers and shutting down at a rapid pace due to the ability to read newspaper stories online for free (See newspaperdeathwatch.com).
Therefore, journalists must unlearn what they have learned over the course of their careers and adapt their reporting style for the Internet. The Internet is a fast-paced environment and online journalists must be able to report their stories quickly and accurately or else they will run the risk of losing their audience to another news source or another entirely unrelated website. This is not to say that journalists did not have to worry about reporting their stories in a timely manner in the past, but now they must develop ways to hold their readers' attention even more so due to the countless distractions someone can encounter online.
These distractions help create a greater level of competition that journalists must endure to keep their readers coming back. Other news sites, Facebook, Twitter, Youtube etc. all have the potential to sway people away from journalists' stories. However, journalists must still maintain a code of ethics while gathering the news at a speedy and accurate pace. Unfortunately, some journalists fabricate stories in an effort to attract readers such as former New York Times reporter, Jayson Blair, or former reporter for The New Republic, Stephen Glass.
The possible inaccuracies, whether they are intentional or unintentional, within a journalist's article are more likely to be discovered in the realm of online news. Before many newspapers decided to publish stories online, the only fact checkers a journalist had were the ones who were employed by the newspaper. But at the present time when a journalist submits his or her story to be checked, not only is it checked by the newspaper's fact checkers, but it can also be checked by countless bloggers. Dan Rather, a long-time respected journalist for CBS News, was fired for presenting inaccurate information about former President Bush's National Guard service, which had been uncovered by bloggers. Journalists have been and always should be careful of what they present to the public as fact, but with the Internet's ability to give anyone with a computer and a connection a voice, journalists must be more cautious with their reporting.
At its core, the job of a journalist will always be the same. Journalists will continue to report the news in a fast and accurate manner. The only questions that will challenge every new generation of journalists are: How will they report the news? How will they maintain their code of ethics within the new technological era that emerges? And how many people will be reading and analyzing their stories?
The only things that have changed in the field of Journalism are the means in which journalists communicate the news to people, the higher competition in reporting news stories, and the higher level of scrutiny they must face due to avid, opinionated, fact checking bloggers.
The biggest change in how journalists report stories to the public is the obvious jump from the newspaper page to the webpage. Many newspapers across the country are losing readers and shutting down at a rapid pace due to the ability to read newspaper stories online for free (See newspaperdeathwatch.com).
Therefore, journalists must unlearn what they have learned over the course of their careers and adapt their reporting style for the Internet. The Internet is a fast-paced environment and online journalists must be able to report their stories quickly and accurately or else they will run the risk of losing their audience to another news source or another entirely unrelated website. This is not to say that journalists did not have to worry about reporting their stories in a timely manner in the past, but now they must develop ways to hold their readers' attention even more so due to the countless distractions someone can encounter online.
These distractions help create a greater level of competition that journalists must endure to keep their readers coming back. Other news sites, Facebook, Twitter, Youtube etc. all have the potential to sway people away from journalists' stories. However, journalists must still maintain a code of ethics while gathering the news at a speedy and accurate pace. Unfortunately, some journalists fabricate stories in an effort to attract readers such as former New York Times reporter, Jayson Blair, or former reporter for The New Republic, Stephen Glass.
The possible inaccuracies, whether they are intentional or unintentional, within a journalist's article are more likely to be discovered in the realm of online news. Before many newspapers decided to publish stories online, the only fact checkers a journalist had were the ones who were employed by the newspaper. But at the present time when a journalist submits his or her story to be checked, not only is it checked by the newspaper's fact checkers, but it can also be checked by countless bloggers. Dan Rather, a long-time respected journalist for CBS News, was fired for presenting inaccurate information about former President Bush's National Guard service, which had been uncovered by bloggers. Journalists have been and always should be careful of what they present to the public as fact, but with the Internet's ability to give anyone with a computer and a connection a voice, journalists must be more cautious with their reporting.
At its core, the job of a journalist will always be the same. Journalists will continue to report the news in a fast and accurate manner. The only questions that will challenge every new generation of journalists are: How will they report the news? How will they maintain their code of ethics within the new technological era that emerges? And how many people will be reading and analyzing their stories?
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Mass Comm. in the 90s vs. Mass Comm. Today
Looking back on the decade prior to the Millenium, it is quite amazing how far technological advancements in communication has come. For instance, in the 90s it was not vitally important for everyone to own a cell phone. For most people during that time, a cell phone was a big, clunky piece of equipment that stayed inside your car and was only used for emergencies. Now, however, everyone including children as young as the age of five have cell phones, which they constantly carry with them. Today's cell phones are smaller, more portable and have the capability to instantly connect you to anyone at any time in the world.
The Internet has come a long way as well. The one thing anyone who grew up in the 90s will tell you about the Internet is how unbelievably slow it used to be. But at the present time, a good Internet connection has the ability to access a webpage that would have taken the Internet of the 90s roughly five to ten minutes to load in less than a second.
From these two examples, the obvious trend in the evolution of Mass Comm. is its massive increase in speed. People are now conditioned to expect instant information or gratification from communication devices like cell phones, computers, mp3 players etc. The patience people may have had during the 90s for technology has vanished and has been replaced by a I-want-it-now mentality.
The Internet has come a long way as well. The one thing anyone who grew up in the 90s will tell you about the Internet is how unbelievably slow it used to be. But at the present time, a good Internet connection has the ability to access a webpage that would have taken the Internet of the 90s roughly five to ten minutes to load in less than a second.
From these two examples, the obvious trend in the evolution of Mass Comm. is its massive increase in speed. People are now conditioned to expect instant information or gratification from communication devices like cell phones, computers, mp3 players etc. The patience people may have had during the 90s for technology has vanished and has been replaced by a I-want-it-now mentality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
