One Last Blog Post

The idea that certain media creations which seem trivial can actually be very important is something that stuck with me from the class.  I never even considered twitter or blogs to be revolutionized journalism until I took the class.  Overall, I think the idea that journalism is a career that needs to keep up with technology was a surprise that also stuck with me.  I always considered jobs involving computers and science to be the ones who needed to be constantly aware of new things, but journalsim needs to keep up just as much.  It’s something that connects directly to society, and itneeds to stay in pace with how society gets its information if it wants to survive.  It made me nervous to see that newspapers, publishers, and the music industry are kind of loosing their grip, but maybe they just need to change, rather than disappear, and change can be good..it can make things even better than what they originally were.  It takes some getting used to, but I think people will to learn to adapt to the new methods, some which I don’t think have even been created yet, or are still at a small stage. 

I also never really considered media and how much it effects.  It determines what we think, where we go, how we develop our opinons.  It’s such a huge factor, and it is completely overlooked by most people because we’ve grown so accustomed to it being everywhere.  I think it’s important to monitor media and it’s effects more closely before we are all too far under its influence to realize its negative aspects.

How ’bout Them Disney Movies?

It’s surprising how much Disney really owns.  It seems like they are slowly taking over, while society is just under the impression that they put out movies and t-shirts with cartoon characters.  When only a few large corporations own everything, it isn’t really captatalism, and it will probably be too late by the time one corporation owns everything.  It was weird how the man writing about negative effects of Disney was asked if he was afraid to be going up against the corporation and how he got so much negative feedback.  It really makes you question what direction we are moving in as a society.

We don’t even give enough attention to Disney’s “innocent” side. Children around the world are completely surrounded by the shows and products they put out.  I was really surprised to see the comparison of woman characters throughout their movies.  It gives children an unrealistic idea of who women really are.  Then again, what it appears some people would prefer from the movies is almost too feminist.  The movies shouldn’t suggest that a woman needs a man, but it shouldn’t portray that it’s anti-feminist to be married either.  I think we as a society have trouble finding a blance, it’s always one extreme verse another. 

It seemed like the kids were clearly getting bad impressions from the movies, like abuse from a boyfriend is okay because in Beauty and the Beast it’s okay.  But then again, the movies aren’t the only way the children are learning and I really don’t think it’s going to effect decisions they make later on in life.  The movies are only used as entertainment, and therefore they aren’t really taken seriously.   Little girls will have that fantasy of being a princess, but I’ve never met a teenager or an adult who is still aspiring to have the same lifestyle as Cinderella.

A Needed Evolution

I think spotus.com is a good idea.  I found it sort of inspiring.  After all the “newspapers going down the drain” talk, it’s sort of the light at the end of the tunnel.  Not only that, but he was so young when he made it.  It made sense that instead  of having to report on things he has no interest in and working his way up, he is supervising writers and freelancing about things he enjoys writing about.  It’s obviously the riskier path, but sometimes big risks can pay off…and other times they can leave you unemployed.

I like newspapers, but the industry needs to evolve if it wants to survive.  Letting the audience pick the articles they want to be done makes sense.  I’d call it innovative, but it seems almost logical, I’m surprised it hasn’t been done before.  Then again some of the best ideas are the most obvious ones.  It’s pretty much allowing your target market to pick the product, it’s fool-proof.  The problem is making the idea mainstream.  You need to get it to the point where people are so familiar with it that it’s no longer “a new idea” but just something that people are used to.  Also, I feel like getting people to give money is tricky.  People are always skeptical about making donations  because they don’t know if it’s really going where it’s supposed to, there are so many scams these days.  Also it will take time to get people motivated to choose their news and put money towards it.  I feel like most would just rather have it handed to them, even if it’s not what interests them.

Overall the idea is good, it’s just getting the people adapted to it.  As for  the newspapers adapting, they aren’t very good with change, but since they are so worried about the industry surviving, they have to become more and more open to new ideas.

Sell Out

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0e6LUTjzX0 —-> Check it.

I think the whole record company caring more about they money than the music is something that has been around about as long as record companies have been around.  Going to a label has always been “selling out”.  I don’t even blame musicians for doing it.  If someone throws the possibility of that much money in your face, you’d be an idiot not to say yes.  It’s the companies themselves that are at fault for trying to change them afterwards in order for them to appeal to a larger group.  They end up loosing whatever they had that got them the contract in the first place.  They turn into something generic, something you’ve heard before.  Plus in music I sort of think appealing to a more specific group is better.  When you’re unique the people who like you really like you.  They’re the, “follow you around the country on your tour”, fans. 

It is strange that people can make it big without a record label.  I don’t even quite understand how they do it.  I feel like it’s all about the people you know and getting your stuff out to as many people as possible.  I can’t see being able to get stuff out to that many people without help.  Then again I’m always surprised by how many people know about bands that I thought were obscure.  I suppose if they’re good enough, they can rely on word of mouth and the idea that people dig their music so much that they want everyone they know to experience it too.  If that’s the case, then they do deserve to be successful.  It’s likely that too much success will be their downfall, but that’s just sort of how things go.  It’s hard for people to stay humble, and I think part of that is our, the listeners, fault.  We treat them like they aren’t just people like us…which they are, by the way.  No wonder they get big egos. 

The music industry overall seems like a hard place to be.  You may love making music, but not make any money..and sometimes loving what you do isn’t enough.  On the flip side, you might make a bunch of money, but you’ll forget why you started in the first place and you won’t love it anymore.  It’s all about finding a balance which I think is far trickier than some make it look.

Pay Attention!

Social Networking keeps people in contact.  It allows you to maintain a relationship more easily with someone far away, it allows you to find someone you used to be close with, and it even allows you to create new relationships (although those can be a bit more iffy).  Certain people may become “obsessed” with facebook or other social networking sites..but there are always people who become obsessed with anything that is put out.  Some people really love…I don’t know..Scrabble…and they have a “scrabble phase” where maybe they play a little bit too much Scrabble for a time period, but they don’t become addicts.  Scrabble is not like heroin and either is social networking. 

I think the real problem is internet in general….you click..read a few things..look at a picture.. watch a video..a minute passes..then another click…you repeat this over and over..how can that not be affecting your attention span? I thought I was just an impatient person, but the more I talk to people it seems like everyone is an impatient person.  Waiting in lines? Ridiculous! Waiting in general is aggravating.  We can’t sit still and concentrate on the same thing for more than hour, probably even less.  You are probably ready to not be reading this blog..because it’s too long..and you can’t concentrate on it anymore…so i’ll wrap it up.

People might get really into social networking sites, but it’s not going to effect their daily lives.  Cyber chat will never be a replacement for social interaction.  It might make people a little more awkward when they do socially interact..but that’s okay..because sometimes awkward people are funny.  The thing to worry about is our shortening attention spans.  Pretty soon everyone will have some form of a.d.d. and maybe it’s not just the internet that’s at fault.  Maybe our society is molding to our increased impatience which only makes us more impatient!

Ok..you can click to something else now.

Fashion and Political Activism

I think that sometimes a journalist is a blogger, but I don’t think that all bloggers are journalists.  It’s sort of impossible to have an opinion on blogs in general.  They are kind of like magazines, some are credible and interesting, and then there are the tabloids, claiming alien abduction.  An online diary seems kind of silly, but it really depends on who’s diary it is.  An important figure tends to do important things in their daily life and although I hate to admit it, sometimes celebrity lives can be pretty interesting too. 

Blogs really seem to be gaining a foothold in the media world.  They provide a whole new pathway of opportunity, particularly for young people, and how can I say that’s a bad thing being a young myself?  I read the article about 17 year olds girls getting recognized for their blogs, and getting jobs designing for major stores, or reviewing famous designers.  It all was described in a sort of “dream come true” way.  But then again, it seems like a bit of a drag for the designers who make good stuff, went to school and work hard, but don’t make it into the business because potential jobs are taken by high school girls looking for something to do.  It also worries me that people are hitting their career prime in their early 20′s , is everyone going to be washed up by their 30′s?  The business world will just be filled with inexperienced young computer-savvy kids?  I mean we are just talking about fashion, and it tends to be the younger generation who is up to date in that world, but who knows what other sort of businesses might start grabbing up young bloggers who attract attention. 

On the other hand, in other countries where they are just starting to get a handle on the internet, blogging is one of the few ways to be politically active and not be punished for it.  It was kind of a crazy comparison when I read an article about young bloggers making their way into the business world, and then another about blogging being the only way for some people to express their political opinion.  You’ve got people trying to make a difference for their country, but it’s difficult because the government is shutting you down at every corner, and now they’ve found this new outlet of blogging to express themselves anonymously. 

It’s all sort of relative I guess..I know that’s a cop out way to make an opinion, but for blogs it’s the only thing I can conclude.  Some are frivolous where as others are capable of making a difference in a lot of people’s lives. 

Referenced articles..

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/14/technology/14youth.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/21/technology/21iht-censor.html

Trends Take Out Superstars

The media has almost given new generations an a.d.d-like syndrome where we are completely incapable of paying attention to one thing for a long period of time.  Not only has the media created this “syndrome” but they feed to it, they only tend to put things out that go along with the current trends of the year..month..week..whatever.  They take the first thing that gets attention and recycle it in every way possible until it gets old.  Then they find the next big thing, rinse, and repeat.  I think this is the main reason we don’t have any more superstars, because agents aren’t really looking for long-lasting talent. 

I don’t think audience fragmentation has too much to do with the lack of superstars.  It does specialize things more, but I would think it would make it easier to reach fame, maybe not super stardom, but truth be told too much fame seems to do more damage than good.  As for fragmentation taking away society’s sense of community, it doesn’t really seem like an issue because that many people can’t truly be unified.  In fact fragmentation probably brings multiple smaller groups closer together.  Liking different things shouldn’t be a reason to pull people apart, it gives people different things to tell each other, it keeps things interesting.

Alternative to what?

I compared Alternet.org to nytimes.com as a comparison of alternative media verse main stream media.  I decided to look at articles on environmental issues specifically. For starters I’d like to throw out there that I have some favoritism towards alternative media.  I went into the comparison thinking they were “the good guys”, and I wasn’t really let down .  Every article on alternet had a pro activism sort of feeling about it, it’s not just informing you about the problems, it wants you to help.   The New York Times article on Global Warming seemed more like a school report rather than an article.  It was simply informative and extremely vague.  It also didn’t seem like it was even coming from a person, like it was an encyclopedia entry or something.  It said something along the lines of businesses are getting together to figure out what they can do about this problem. Ok well, what businesses? What have they come up with so far? When are they going to implement the “solutions” they’ve come up with?  Maybe there is an article about that somewhere on their site, but you’d have to do some searching.  The alternet article told you about the political gridlock we are currently in to actually start changing things that will reduce our carbon emissions.  You could clearly see the personality of all the writers and it seemed like they were right in the middle of what they were writing about. 

Obviously the alternet’s articles are very opinionated, but they don’t hide that their biased.  If you go to that site, you know what you’re in for.  It’s not like some of the public news stations who lean certain ways but don’t really own up to it so they can get more viewers or even some converts.   I feel like journalism shouldn’t tend to be objective.  I consider it a good piece if the reader is moved into wanting to do something about the problem by the time they’ve finished it. 

Altnernet also had tons of outlets on the site that allowed you to go other related blogs and sources.  The site itself had pieces from it’s own writers, as well as other alternative media.  I read articles from Mother Jones, St. martins Press, and Truthdig.  It just shows that alternet doesn’t want you to only see what they have to say. 

I don’t want to give the impression that I dislike The New York Times because I think they’re a great media source, and I’m really rooting for newspapers to stay alive.  They have a lot of good coverage on important topics and they’re, at least I’d say, one of the most respected media sources. I think the real polar opposite of  alternative media is television media.  The reporters seem uninformed, they don’t even bother trying to appeal to a diverse group, and sometimes they choose to cover what’s more entertaining, rather than what’s important.

Endangered Newspapers

There is a definite possibility that newspapers might disappear.  They’re practically on the endangered species list, nestled between the Siberian Tiger and the Arakan Forest Turtle.   This sort of strikes close to home for me, not so much the part about the animals (although I’m all for saving the animals), but working for a newspaper has for the past three years been a major career option for me.  Now you see all of these reporters terrified of loosing their jobs.  Newspaper salesmen are working door to door, and although they can be rather persuasive (our family bought the delivery of the Seattle Times..no one in the house reads it), it must be a sign of a dying breed.  I don’t even read the newspaper, I know that’s hypocritical, but I feel like most papers aren’t very good anymore.  They have to work so hard to keep up with the internet and tv news that they almost seem sloppy.  I know the internet is the new option, but I feel like something is missing from online newspapers.  Less work is put into it, and therefore the paper seems less personal.   I feel like maybe magazines are the way to go.  They are specified and actual effort is put into the page design as well as most of the articles.  They also don’t leave your hands smudged in black ink, which is pretty nice.  I’m not sure if the disappearance of newspapers will lead to the disappearance of good journalism.  It does seem like the new media outlets increase laziness.  No one wants to spend too much money or time on one thing, but sometimes that’s exactly what good journalism needs.

The Renaissance: Round two?

“(Convergence is) on the verge of transforming our culture as profoundly as the Renaissance did”

- Henry Jenkins

When it comes to technical convergence, I wouldn’t exactly compare the effects to the renaissance as Henry Jenkins suggests.  It’s more of a progression than a re-birth.  I know some might not even view it as progress, but rather a downfall.  Ther’s obviously continuous progression in technology.  I don’t believe there will ever be a wall we hit that won’t allow us to go a little bit further and “better”, but the downfall might be whatt the technology does to the people.  Maybe it really does create laziness.  The conveniences of technology might allow some to get more important things done, but I don’t think most people spend their extra free time very productively. 

Social convergence and the creations of multiasking communication through technology seems like it createss a shortened attention span and takes away certain important components of relationships.  It’s easier to send someone an e-mail or to comment on their Facebook page, but it also can make things more impersonal, less meanigful.  When someone has to put forth actual effort to communicate with you and you do so in return, it creates a stronger bond. 

On the other-hand social and cultural convergence encourage creativity, acceptance, and an eagerness to explore.  I wouldn’t say it’s quite to the extent of the Renaissance, but close enough.  I think it’s a good thing that people can take other’s art forms and combine them to create their own.  Those creations bring a diverse group of peole together who normally wouldn’t share common interests.  Best of all it’s easy to get it out there.  Sure, some people put a lot of junk out in the open through the internt and other soruces, but people also put a lot of great things out there, and that makes it worth it.