Week 4 - Media Fragmentation

I don't think that media fragmentation is the end of superstardom forever and always. It's true that there will never be another Michael Jackson or a record-breaking audience for the Ed Sullivan Show as when the Beatles came to the United States. However, I think that we know as world fame and supestardom has simply changed forms. To be more specific, the number of venues to become famous through has multiplied from what it was. Media fragmentation has caused people to become famous through more than just the radio, television, and in newspapers and magazines. Now fame is possible through satellite, cable, and the endless vessels of the Internet on top of the traditional media forms. People now become superstars through many different mass media forms rather than the few that were available 30 years ago.

I think in some ways media fragmentation has lessened the sense of community. I think it's especially visible in the generation gap. Young people have embraced and been immersed in technology that older generations have not. Young people find out about an up and coming celebrity from different sources than their parents would, if their parents would at all. Entire families don't block out an hour of their weeknight evenings anymore so that they don't miss their favorite TV show. Now episodes are posted on websites, can be downloaded on iTunes, or recorded with a DVR. However, I don't believe that fragmentation has caused our society to stop having shared social experiences. People are still the same in nature. When something becomes popular, everyone hears about it in one way or another. The modes of communications may have changed, but the end result is still the same.

Week 3 - Alternative vs. Mainstream Media

I chose to pursue the issue of the universal health care debate in my comparison between alternative and mainstream media sources. The alternative sources that I visited included Wiretap Magazine, Yes Magazine, and Free Speech Radio News. I found that the level of writing in the alternative sources seemed less formal than what I'm used to reading in a mainstream newspaper or magazine. I also found that the alternative sources leaned very heavily in favor of universal health coverage. This isn't all that surprising considering alternative media sources tend to be more liberal in nature. However, the manner in which the opinions and information was presented was more creative and eye-catching than other mainstream online news sources I have visited. The article I read on the Yes Magazine website had two stories about health coverage experience from what one would assume are real people, but the article didn't dwell on the credibility of the sources. For all I knew while I read it, they could be make-believe people with fictional health care problems.

The mainstream media sources I viewed included The New York Times, The Chicago Tribune, and CNN.com. I found that the articles on these sites had more statistics and supposed facts incorporated in them. Really, they had quotable tidbits of information, percentages, ratios, and other statistics that stand out and make the articles seem more interesting and credible. Overall, I believe the mainstream articles did a better job than the alternative sources at being objective on a topic that has aroused a lot of debate. At the same time though, the information was presented in an entirely cookie-cutter way. It wasn't creative in the least. This is to be expected though. These mainstream news sources are catering to an audience that knows what they want to read and expects to get it. It would be foolish of them not to give their readers the cut-and-dry journalism they want.

In some ways, I believe that alternative media sources are at an advantage to the mainstream. There is a lot more freedom that goes along with alternative media. They have more freedom with layout, design, and of course, content than large newspapers like The New York Times have. Because alternative media sources aren't necessarily concerned with pleasing large groups of people, they can focus more on what they want to write about and how they want to present it to their audiences.

Week 2 - Journalism's Future

I believe that newspapers definitely have a place in our futures. As our society has become more and more computer and internet savvy, newspapers and other businesses have had to adapt, changing their approach to audiences. Newspapers have been forced to post online articles and versions of articles that also appear in the traditional print versions. Journalists are having to work harder to keep up with society's desire for technologically advanced options. In the future, I believe we'll see more of the same. Perhaps print versions of newspapers will become entirely obsolete, but I doubt that that will be the case. Even so, it takes time and money to produce a newspaper article, whether it's posted online or printed, and as long as there is a need for news in our society, newspapers will have business.

The book industry is experiencing similar difficulties as the newspaper industry. People hate to pay for something that they can find for free online. If they can find it for free, then of course, they won't pay for it. I believe the book industry will have to do their best in the coming years to keep up with their markets by giving them accessible online options. However, I believe there will always be people, like myself, who enjoy reading in print and holding a book in their hand.

Blogging, baby. (Week 1)

In my opinion, blogs are really unique. Like any other form of social media, blogging has its pros and cons, but overall, blogging is versatile and accessible.

I personally don't read a lot of blogs on a regular basis. The blogs I do read are mostly the personal blogs of my close friends. I also enjoy reading some popular blogs, such as the classic FML or Texts From Last Night. Sometimes I like to read blogs about some of my interests like cooking or traveling. I tend to stay away from blogs that are more like the personal journal or soapbox of the blogger because I usually find them to be boring and annoying.

Blogs are neat because they can pretty much become whatever the blogger wants them to be. They can be diaries, a place for photographers to post pictures, business advertisements, or simply for entertainment. Blogs can contain a lot of variety within their templates and the format of their posts too. A blog post could consist of entirely writing with no pictures, or entirely pictures with no writing, or somewhere in between with a combination of writing and pictures. Blogs are also good because a blogger can post links, videos, or pictures from sites like Twitter.

I think the worst thing about blogging is the lack of credibility that goes along with it. Blogging is a form of online publishing written word. Because it's accessible to virtually anyone with computer and internet access, almost anyone publish their thoughts to the world. When someone creates a truly exceptional blog, with good information and unique content, their blog is still not going to be seen as an acceptable piece of writing because it is just a blog.