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.