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

Response to Sylvia's Post...

So, I read Sylvia's post and I have to agree to it, I had never really thought about what would have happened if the movable printing presses were invented earlier. I think there are many examples throughout history were powerful people have taken advantage of illiterate people to get what they want. For example, when Kings used to send out tax collectors to collect money they could charge people way more than needed because they can't read the actual amount that the tax is, or when countries are electing officials people who are illiterate can't really elect the person they think are right for their country.


I really liked the example Sylvia brought up because if this invention was invented earlier than it would change many of the events that happened on history, but also I think that it wouldn't have changed a lot because books were still EXTREMELY expensive back then and most people who were illiterate were poor so even if they wanted to learn reading and writing they wouldn't have the money to do so. So in conclusion, there would be many events that would change but not in a way that it wouldn't have happened but more in a sense that there would be less people taking part in the event.


P.S. You guys should really check out Sylvia's totally rocking amazing blog right here at: http://sylviasjournalism.blogspot.com/ Have fun reading!

Binary Models

This is actually one of our earlier discussions we had on August 29th 2014 on binary models. There are four different binary models... Hot-Cool, Elitist-Populist, Content-Distribution, and Information-Entertainment. (in case you didn't know, binary means two). So, as you can already see, each binary model has an opposite. Cool things about opposites is that you can do one of each like, one Hot thing and one Cool thing, but not two of the same activity. An examples of a Hot thing is reading a book and a Cool thing would be listening to music; you see, you can listen to music and read a book at the same time but you can't actually read a book and listen to an audio book at the same time (that'd be confusing) because that's two Hot things. But the point of this post is more of a response, not a re-teaching so I'll tell you about what I predict is going to happen these binary models.


The first one (Hot-Cool) there is not much that could happen to it, it's like one of those things that never change like Yin and Yang or Good and Evil, sure the scale could tip but it all goes back into place, eventually; I think that that's what's going to happen it's just going to stay in that one place forever. How we read will change, the type of music will change, but overall it will ALWAYS be the same.


I think that Elitist-Populist is changing but more in a slow, subtle way. In a few years, majority of things will be Populist and a lot of Elitist media will go bankrupt or change the industry like the way magazines were forced to. I also think that some of them, to make more money, will begin to include more of the populist ideas of news. I feel like people today want mostly to be entertained rather than hear things that they NEED to hear; but sometimes we need to hear things that we don't want to.


I think we all know about Content-Distributor, it's pretty obvious (if you don't that's ok, just think about how Netflix has changed over the last few years) and pretty much the same for Information-Entertainment. (Infotainment, is a pretty good name, props for that). So, you know that game you used to play, monopoly, well... it's illegal (don't worry, not game you guys) but there's two types, and now I see why they are illegal, if you think about how life would be like if it weren't illegal it would be very...dull. One company would make everything you buy from your T.V, to your house, to your underwear (yes, even that) and that ONE person who makes it all and distributes it all would be richer than the whole country combined. There would be no people inventing because the company would buy them out, they'd have enough money and power to take over the world (just like in the movies, again) now that wouldn't be fun now would it? Aren't you glad that instead of one company owning everything, just about six do? (Phew!!)

Magazines!!

Did you know that when magazines were first made they were NOT made for invading celebrities personal lives by stalking them for twenty-four hours to get a RARE NEVER BEFORE SEEN picture of them walking their dogs?!?! (insert gasp here) Nope, sorry to let your hopes down there but they were definitely more interesting back then. Instead of nowadays opening a magazine to see a famous celebrity without makeup on (even though we know that's SO interesting) back in the 1820's people opened magazines to read jokes, the news, fictional, stories, political news, recipes, comics, anything you can imagine. It was for everyone that included everyone's interests. It's amazing how "fast" things changed from then until now.


It's also amazing how something so popular could be destroyed so quickly by things like radio and television; with all the new technology the magazine industry just kind of... crumpled. The only two choices left were either to change the whole industry itself or just destroy it altogether. So, the turn of events led to the era of paparazzi and making the interesting, important. So, next time I stumble upon an article in a magazine about how famous celebrities eat at McDonald's (JUST like we do...) remember, it's okay to blame it all on T.V. (P.S We talked about this on 9/11/2014)

Newspapers (and why they will stay here forever...)

So, I have given a lot of thought about this discussion we had in class on Tuesday September 9th. Newspapers were one of those subjects that I had know facts about but had never actually connected the dots of how old they actually are. We've been using newspapers for about 600 years! That's even older than the U.S., I mean, we've been using newspapers for so along, so WHY are they STILL here? If I really wanted to read the news I could just get on a computer and look it up on the internet in like thirty seconds, way faster than trying to receive it through the mail, but there is something about them that is so convenient to have. If you didn't already know, newspapers were not the most popular thing (and their not really popular today either) back way before you or your great-great-GREAT grandparents were born (I'm assuming) people didn't really want to read newspapers because they saw it as negative propaganda and just some people who didn't have anything better to do with their lives rather than write criticism about people who they wish they were (just kidding, they wrote about people with power) but around the 18th century they got REALLY popular, like Disney Channel popular; everyone just had to have one.


It was like the iPhone 6 of this era, except of course it was cheaper and low-tech, but why wouldn't you want one? It was like getting those new Jordans that just came out (#NewKicks), Right? But unlike these popular items we all know and love, it lasted a WAY longer time but also with each growing year the popularity just kept dying down. It still remained portable, cheap, low-tech, non linear and of course we still have those people who get up in the morning with a cup of Joe in one hand and the newspaper in the other (just like in the movies!!)But, you know, it's probably for the best having that one thing we can keep passing down generations to come... what do you think?

Literacy IS Power

We actually discussed this topic in my Journalism 1 class on September 5th 2014. The topic was actually the first ways of mass communication: books. I originally had never really thought about where or how books had gotten its start. I always thought that it started out as telling stories and that was passed down as a tradition until somebody had actually thought to write it down; but what's wrong with that idea (or what I had never thought about) was that telling stories and passing them down is like a big game of telephone that lasts for hundreds of years (and we all know that in games of telephone things always tend to get "messed up" depending on our interpretataion of them).
 We learned in class that the first ever movable type printing press ever created was by Bi Sheng in China 1040 CE. This led to the first way to mass-produce books.

So you know those villians in the movies or even in books? I've noticed that usually one of the first things they do is take away books and newspapers and such; now why is that? Well, one of the most important things that come along with books that are available to everyone is increased literacy but also with it comes decreased power from powerful officials in the world. Taking away books from a place has this increasing ripple effect of negative events. First comes a low literacy rate as more new generations come along, then comes no public education (without reading you can't learn really anything else, you read in every subject you learn, no matter what it is.), a high poverty rate, low tchnology advances, and so on. And there's especially no one who has a high enough literacy rate to stop them from gaining more power. Without literacy, someone can tell us that in the Constitution that we are not allowed to have a freedom to speech and we can't disagree with them because no one can read it so we just believe them; but haven't you noticed those superheroes in comics or books have some type of literacy rate that is higher than those around them? Look at Superman a.k.a. Clark Kent he works at a metropolian newspaper place called The Daily Planet (high literacy rate to be a journalist); Spiderman a.k.a Peter Parker works at The Daily Bugle (newspaper) as a photographer (again high literacy rate); Harry Potter goes to Hogwarts which is a boarding school (high literacy rate; Katniss Everdeen even has somewhat of a literacy rate even in a dystopian future where no one has education, she can make medicine and she has a book on each kinds of plants and their purpose. Now these are just a few examples of hereos who have "saved the world" that just "happen" to have somewhat of a literacy rate. So in conclusion, I believe that Literacy IS Power and without it, well then I guess we could figure out what coud happen.