David Camm Trial

For the last month I had to watch WHAS 11 news at 6:00 every other night. Out of those 10 nights,
David Camm as on the news or either the top story 8 out of the 10 times. The David Camm trial goes all the way back to September of 2000, and is still in the news almost always 13 years later. I think this story is starting to get irrelevant. I mean, does everything that happened with David Camm have to be the top story in the news? This isn't even a Louisville story, so why is it all over the news stations of Louisville? WHAS is violating of the nine core principles of journalism: Making the Important Interesting. They are doing the exact opposite; making the interesting important. The David Camm trial is basically over, so we do not need to keep seeing it in the news every week.
 

Class Discussion on Internet

Last week in class we had a discussion on the invention of the internet. We basically use the internet every day, but we never really knew all the work that was put into making it what it is today. In 1995 the internet had 16 million users, and by the next year that number had increased by more than half...and it was just invented only 20 years before. Each year the number of peoplem using the internet increased by more than the last. In 1997 ebay and amazon were both added to the internet. After this, the number of people using the internet sky rocketed. I would understand the reason for this. This was the start/foundation of online shopping. People could actually order things off the internet and get them shipped to their house with the simple push of a button.

Ultimately the internet basically took over ALL other media. THe other forms of media were greatly impacted (in a negative way) by the introduction of internet. Why watch shows on the t.v. when
I can watch them portablely on my phone? Why read the newspaper when I can go on the Courier Journal website and get all the stories from there? THe internet opened up many oppurtunites and made things alot easier for the people. Only want one song off of that new album? well you don't have to buy the whole thing anymore, get it from the internet! The news media, movies, radio, magazines, etc. could all be found of the internet now. This forced most media to demassify and focus on niche audiences.

One thing the internet did was eliminate privacy. Whatever people put on the internet, STAYED on the internet. Many people struggle with that today because we don't realize that anyone is capable of seeing the information we put out there, and it will never go away.

Response to Sydney's Post

I really liked how Sydney sydneyblocker.blogspot.com went in depth about how much she learned through the lecture of newspapers. Connecting it to social studies was a good comparison, because they really do have alot to do with each other. She also made a good point about how you have to write your articles I.P. style, putting all the important information in the beginning, and details later because you never know where your article might get cut off! Her post was  very well written and hit all the points that we discussed in class.

Response to Gabi's Blog

I liked Gabi's post gabib99.blogspot.com about the invention of the printing press. She was honest about her opinion about what she thought would've been the most important invention. Her thoughts and ideas about how the world would be without the moveable type printing press were on point. There would be ALOT more illiterate people, information wouldn't get around as fast, and the Protestant Reformation probably wouldn't have happened, leaving everyone forced to believe what the Higher Powers told them. Things would be totally different if it wasn't for Gutenberg's invention.

Recordings

The invention of recording was a big thing. Music was used to spread entertainment and news around. Before the invention of recording, music had to be spread from village to village. To me, this seems like a long time to get a message to someone! Thinking of all the different languages everyone spoke, different cultures everyone had, how could they possibly understand eachother? Message distortion was a  big problem with this. Messages would often get changed around and turned into something totally different than what it originally meant.I think many of the old songs and hymnals we have today went through these phases and probably meant something different back than when the song was first made. But ever since recording was made possible, things in the music industry started to get better. Information through music could spread faster and better, and it also taught different cultures other languages, unifying us. from the late 1800's to the early 1900's things were starting to look up for music and recording. From that point on set the path for all the things we have today.

Media Critique Obama and the 'Red Line'

'Red line' just one of roughly 500 Obama promises that have come and gone. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/22/red-line-just-one-roughly-500-obama-promises-that-have-come-and-gone/

Fox News has claimed that President Obama has not been keeping his campaign promises he has made since becoming president in 2008. He keeps "re-drawing" the red line for Republicans threatening to shut down the government over ObamaCare. The article says "The president has had mixed success in keeping that vow over the past few years...However, in 2011 he failed to reach a “grand bargain” with House Republicans over the debt ceiling, forcing both sides to eventually accept a series of drastic spending cuts known as sequester." President Obama responded that by saying that the sequester wasn't his idea, it was Congress'. This is a violation of one of the Nine Core Principles of Journalism: Verification. Fox News has no recordings of other sources or witnesses besides what they are saying. This article only has one point of view; from a republican.
 Another violation of the Core Principal: Truth. The article says "President Obama vowing that Syria would “cross a red line” by using chemical weapons is far from the only marker he’s laid down or promise he’s tried to keep since running for president in 2008." Which is simply bashing Obama in how he is dealing with the chemical weapon situation. The whole truth is in fact not being told. From a different new source, the article "Obama: U.S. concludes Syria carried out chemical weapons attacks" from http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/28/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html says that "

"We do not believe that, given the delivery systems, using rockets, that the opposition could have carried out these attacks. We have concluded that the Syrian government in fact carried these out," Obama told "NewsHour."

"And if that's so, then there need to be international consequences," the president added.

Obama said that he has "not made a decision" about whether to conduct a military strike in Syria." CNN states more acurate facts, and also has more sources whereas Fox News is reporting false information about President Obama.

Violation of the Core Principle: Inclusive. Fox News is stating some of the truth, but not the whole truth. it says here, "The president appeared to try to blur the red line when he said earlier this month: "I didn’t set a red line. The world set a red line. … My credibility isn't on the line. The international community’s credibility is on the line." President Obama did NOT set a red line. He says “I didn’t set a red line. The world set a red line.” from the article "President Obama and the ‘red line’ on Syria’s chemical weapons" from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2013/09/06/president-obama-and-the-red-line-on-syrias-chemical-weapons/ 

Fox News is a more conservative point of view. Instead of just showing one side of the story, informing the people with both sides of the story would be more helpful and insightful for those reading the news. When writing an article, telling the whole truth and not leaving any important or key facts out, even if it doesn't agree with what you believe in. This is the Core Principle: Room For Dissent. Not letting morales and beliefs getting in the way of doing a job is an important part of being a journalist.

 

 

Conglomeration

Conglomeration. It can be good in some ways..or bad. Before we learned the concept of conglomeration in class, I was thinking "This is probably the most selfish thing someone could possibly do." But, after listening to the lecture, conglomeration actually is helpful in some ways. Think about it, why not eliminate some competition, and just buy all the companies? More money can be made, and less problems to deal with competitiors. This is also a risky move to make. What happens if your business fails and invested all your money in buying all these companies? This is also a hassle for employees. Many people lose or have to compete for their jobs becuase there are less openings. There is also less diversity for consumers. All the designs look the same? Sorry! Can't get these anywhere else. Conglomeration can also be a dangerous thing. Businesses can be in trouble because this certain company doesn't want to produce your stuff. Where else can you go? Oh right, there's nowhere to go because all the other companies have been bought. There are shortcuts around this though, so the process isn't completely torn apart. Anyway, conglomeration has its pros and cons, but most of the time can be used for the better.