WAVE 3 News Coverage Overall

My part in the research on WAVE 3 was counting and categorizing top stories WAVE had online. Overall, I really liked the setup of the website. They had all their top stories lined up on the website with pictures that were interesting to see for the viewers/readers; and I felt that it was very organized to have different sections for different kinds of stories (national, sports, weather, international, "water cooler", etc.) it was more clear to the viewers were to go or click on to find current stories that interested them. I didn't agree with their chosen top stories or the ones recommended to readers. The stories with enlarged headings and photos made to attract readers most of the time about crime or fluff seemed to be less important than international stories that affect everyone. I had a problem with the fact that certain stories made the "top-page" list.

WAVE had a lot of crime stories compared to all other categories (accidents and disasters, politics and government, crime, war and diplomacy, business and economy, social issues, human interests, education, health, consumer, environment, celebrity, fluff, and other) but didn't have many political, business, economical, or war stories. Out of a total of ten news log WAVE had 74 crime stories (online and on television) but only 48 stories on political, war, business, and economical stories. That's a 37:24 ratio! And that's only comparing how many crime stories there was less than a third of the possible categories. At first, this seemed pretty normal to me for a news station but after the first few news logs it became this recurring fact that there were always an excess of crime stories compared to everything else.

On October 14th 2014 (News Log #5) WAVE finally had more than two stories (online and on television) in the health, consumer, and environment category (and more of these stories than crime stories.) But sadly, these were mostly on the "Ebola Epidemic"(except for about two of them which were on the weather). The average two-story category shot up to seven stories, mostly on Ebola. The category became the number one most top stories until about News Log #7 where the number of Ebola stories started to slowly decline. It then went back to it's average by the last news log.

Other than the fact that WAVE 3 is a local t.v. news station , it seemed like there were little to no international stories (that were classified as a top story). There were only nine top stories that were international. (now compare to that seventy-four crime stories, big difference isn't there?)

Ending on a positive note, WAVE 3 is very good at live coverage, updates, and breaking notes. During the epidemic of the Fern Creek Shooting and the Tornado Watch while I was counting stories online there were many updates to the top story. Every time a new piece of information cam out WAVE always made sure to cover it as fast as possible and keep viewers and readers informed. I liked how they kept the viewers posted and on the "edge of their seat" waiting for new info. So, I'd like to say thanks to WAVE for doing such a good job in a time of need! =)

WAVE 3 News Log #4

   On October 13th, 2014 News Log #4 was conducted. This were I started to notice all the patterns WAVE had with its show and website. First of all, WAVE always has twenty stories online. Why? I have no idea. Each time I've looked at their top stories there is always twenty. Now you's think that these twenty stories would be evenly divided up for each available category (Accidents and Disasters, Politics and Government, Crime, War and Diplomacy, Business and Economy, Social Issues and Education, and Health and Environment, Celebrity, Fluff, and Other) but that wasn't the case. This the log where I noticed that most stories were crime stories or social issues and human interest. A lot of these stories are also local, or in their coverage area, Kentuckiana. With all the things going on around now, there were plenty of stories that they could've done that was international or even national. If I could give WAVE some future advise, I would advise them to add more variety in their stories that would probably give them a bigger viewing audience because it would appeal to everyone. I would also tell them that they should inform the viewers on international and national  because these events affect them too.

   Looking over these news logs, I realize that although it may not seem like it but WAVE does try to inform their viewers. But it could be done in a better way.

WAVE News Log #8 (10/23/2014)

I actually am skipping around the news log, because I want to write about the ones I think are the most important ones. I feel that this news log is pretty important because I really disagree with some of the stories WAVE had that day.

As we get closer and closer to Election Day, you'd expect for the number of political stories to increase, but they haven't. There were more "celebrity, fluff and other" then there were political stories.

There were also a lot of accident/disaster stories this time around and crime stories. I have noticed that WAVE always has a lot of crime stories whether it's online or on television. And out of eight news logs there's only been seven international stories and that's counting online and television.

There also was no stories on business, economics, wars, and diplomacy. Although, I do think that it's great that they try to keep as many local stories on the show and stories that people are interested in and stories that are social issues across the nation.

So overall, some feedback for WAVE is that: they should add more political stories to their television 6:00 P.M show and some more economic stories because they do effect us. And I think it's okay sometimes to have some celebrity/fluff stories because that's what people are intersted in but they could have more balance withe political stories.

WAVE 3 News Log #2

This is the second "data/news log" of WAVE 3 which is based off the online version seen on October 8th, 2014 (9:00 A.M) and the news "episode" on October 7th, 2014 (6:00 P.M). Since the previous one only included about two stories because of the breaking news story, this was mostly devoted to the Tornado Watch. On television there were about six local stories, zero national stories, and zero international stories. Online there were twenty-six local stories, two national stories, and zero international stories.


I still have some of the same issues as the first one, there was a good amount of local stories but there were no international stories online or on television. I think online, once again, they could have fit in more international stories because even though they aren't happening in Kentuckiana, they still affect us and are newsworthy to tell us. They did do more political stories, which is very important while we get closer in the election. Again, there wasn't a lot of war and diplomacy stories online but they did manage to squeeze one in on television.


I do have a problem with the top story online: Luke Bryan returning to Louisville in February. Yes, it does affect us, in a way; but I felt that another could have been a wiser choice to put up on the front of your website, bigger than all the others. They did keep a good balance on how many "just entertainment" stories they had. They did have a great number of crime stories (Ten of them) but only two in business and economy. I think that maybe next time they could include more business and economies stories because they are very important and essential information to us.

WAVE 3 News Log #1

So in my Journalism 1 class we are doing a project where we follow one news source and record the kind of stories they have on there. Kind of like a data log but for the news. My news source that I follow online is WAVE 3. I picked WAVE 3 because I've always had some kind of preference towards WAVE 3. Like whenever my mom's like "turn on the news!" I always turn to WAVE 3 even though it's not the first station on the guide. Anyways, basically for this "data/news log" we count up how many stories they had, which ones were local, national, and international and then put them into categories, such as crime, politics, environment, etc.


The first time we completed this was on October 1st, 2014 and I would say that WAVE 3 is doing pretty good on their show. If you guys remember, that was also the day of the Fern Creek Shooting so that was their top story but it kind of surprised me that online there top story was: "Man Steals Charity Donation Container From Restaurant". I was expecting it to still be about the Fern Creek Shooting; I get that this was actually the day after this event happened but I was still expecting it to be about that.


It was good on-the-spot breaking news reporting, though so great job WAVE! It took up about the whole time, except for the story about the Cherokee Park homicide. Their online stats were okay but I think the number of their stories that are considered top stories, could be improved. I would like to see more reporting on war, diplomacy, and international stories, because they had none of those kinds of stories online. The only reason I find this a little bit of a problem is because there are plenty of stories that could've been written to fit in these categories such as the Ebola situation, ISIS, etc. Maybe they could also add a few more political stories because the election is getting closer and closer. I am glad that they didn't have a whole bunch of celebrity, fluff, and other kinds of news. I feel like news stations could have maybe just two or three to keep the audience engaged because no one really wants to see a whole thirty minute show about crimes in Louisville, so it was a good balance. (There was only one celebrity story.)


So overall, I think WAVE 3 is doing a good job with their news stories. Keep up the good work, WAVE!!

You of ALL websites, Washington Post, tsk-tsk

I had just finished reading an article that not only made me question the journalism in it but made me just a little bit sad for the generations to come... here's a link to this ah-mazing article:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/09/18/only-36-percent-of-americans-can-name-the-three-branches-of-government/?tid=pm_pop (I must warn you though, you might just shed a tear...)


The article was about how only 36 percent of Americans can name the three branches of government, the only thing that makes this whole article even the tiniest bit relevant is the fact that Constitution Day was this Wednesday. (Happy Birthday Constitution!!) Not only did this fail as an article to make the important, interesting (it actually does the opposite) it fails several other types of Principles of Journalism AND Yardsticks of Journalism.


One of the most important principles this article had failed to pass was Watchdog, this article does no justice to the fact that journalism's main job is to keep people/organizations with power in society in check. I do not see how finding out how 64 percent of this country cannot identify three branches of government that we have been learning since about third grade, (Varying on where you went to school, but you get the idea) keeps people who have the potential to "scam" everyone keeps them "in check". This was also very UNinclusive (de-clusive, anti-inclusive?? Help me out on this one you guys...)  yes, in a way, it includes everyone but it has sensational stuff people will read only to give them good ratings, now that's not good.


As I mentioned earlier, this does the opposite of making the important, interesting. Making the important, interesting  means engaging the audience in local news that is not only relevant to them but also keeps them interested enough to continue reading/watching the news. In a way, they also break the rules of verification. Verification is to have sources verify that this is true, but this article only includes one source of information/verification which is the Annenburg Public Policy Center.


Now give a round of applause for the Yardsticks of Journalism they did not follow [insert applause here] NEWSWORTHINESS, this is a biggie, if this is not worth reporting then why is it even up on the site? This neither has a lasting effect on people (except for the fact that it will make people sad for America tomorrow) or important. Context, which is the same as Verification so I do not have to go over this one (but if you want me to, then comment about it) except that there is only one expert source. There is no explanation, this article was just a big "What" instead of a "Why" Ex. WHY do we not all know this?; WHY do they not teach us this every chance they get?; WHY are we not interested in learning this as a whole? Those should be questions you ask them and giving answers to us. (Civic Contribution is the SAME thing as Watchdog soooo....) Local Relevance, I can kind of see their thinking on this one, people all over the country should know the branches of the government but they don't really need to know that 64 percent of us are a little, slow (just kidding, I'm sure they have a valid excuse). Lastly, this was NOT enterprise. What part of this was aggressive? Not as in, did the reporter go out and tackle the expert who conducted the survey and then threaten him to get the data, but as in where's the investigating?; the interviewing?; the sneaking-around to get answers to inform the public? This was passive reporting simply passive and I'm sorry for all that trouble they must've went through to talk to an expert about a study they did.
Thank You, Washington Post and tsk-tsk.


P.S Now that I am done with that somewhat rant thing going on over there, I would like to make one more subtle statement... the fact that most of us couldn't name this is a little sad. But, we can overcome this, right guys?!?!

Response to Grace's Blog...

So, I had just finished reading Grace's response to the monopoly and I thought it was really thoughtful and I liked how she had put a fact in about how in the 1950s they were 50 companies controlling the media. When I read that it did give me a whole new perspective of the media industry. In class that day we learned about which companies owned what and how rich they really are. I used to think that each television network were run by their self and all the money earned was given to the creator but instead there are really owned by only six different companies. Monopolies are illegal but the industry is heading very close to it.


I also really like Grace's blog overall, the cool little cartoons and jokes and then the thoughtful responses from class. It's organized very well. And the name's pretty deep too...


P.S. You guys should totally check out her blog, you won't regret it (I Promise!) http://www.quietremains.blogspot.com/?view=classic