When James Kurisunkal began his blog Park Avenue Peerage 10 months ago, he never could have imagined where it would lead him. Kurinsunkal had always been interested in royalty and the socially elite. So, from his dorm room at the University of Illinois, he began a blog about the young socialites of New York City.
His subjects took notice. They began sending him photos and news to post. In May, Kurisunkal said that his site receives on average, 8,000 hits per day. Over the summer, he was offered an internship at New York magazine. Kurisunkal was only 18, a freshman in college.
There are several things that could be learned from Kurisunkal's experience. We discussed in class how public records can provide valuable info for stories. Although he was living in Illinois, Kurisunkal was able to access wedding and death announcements and certificates to begin his site and map together the lives of his subjects. His thorough research gained him credibility. He made a point to avoid salacious gossip and rumors which gained him the respect of his readers and his subjects.
One thing I questioned was his decision to not use his real name on the blog. When Andrew Keen gave the McBride Lecture earlier this month, he said that one major problem with the Internet is that people can hide. They can create fake pseudonyms to disguise who they really are. It's a huge problem because there's little credibilty and people don't take responsibility for what they post.
Obviously, in Kurisunkal's case, the pseudonym worked. I still feel it's something that should be avoided.
Showing posts with label Comm-211. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Comm-211. Show all posts
Friday, November 30, 2007
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Black Friday
Yesterday, we had our tv on most of the afternoon. It served mostly as background noise while we caught up on homework and chores around the house. However, as I watched CNN, I got more and more annoyed. A majority of the coverage focused on the day after Thanksgiving shoppers. The day, referred to as Black Friday, is one of the busiest shopping days of the year.
I understand if CNN reports one time that people are out by the thousands, probably millions, shopping. I understand if they want to tie in this year's slow economy. What I don't understand is how they think that whole segments on this can be considered newsworthy. My educated guess is that the same clip of shoppers running into the mall was shown five or six times over the course of the afternoon. Is this really the only thing that went on yesterday? Do I really care that Molly from New Hampshire had already gone home once to unload her car? No!
Maybe people would be more interested in the news if they focused more on issues like how many people won't have a meal this Christmas, (or how many will, thanks to food banks, etc.) than what stores are the most popular.
I understand if CNN reports one time that people are out by the thousands, probably millions, shopping. I understand if they want to tie in this year's slow economy. What I don't understand is how they think that whole segments on this can be considered newsworthy. My educated guess is that the same clip of shoppers running into the mall was shown five or six times over the course of the afternoon. Is this really the only thing that went on yesterday? Do I really care that Molly from New Hampshire had already gone home once to unload her car? No!
Maybe people would be more interested in the news if they focused more on issues like how many people won't have a meal this Christmas, (or how many will, thanks to food banks, etc.) than what stores are the most popular.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Television stations could be good for newspapers
In class we have discussed the drawbacks of media conglomerates, both on a national and on a local scale.
On a national scale, media companies that own several television stations, radio stations, newspapers and other types of media make it difficult for smaller companies to compete.
On a local scale, having a single company own the television station, the radio station and the newspaper limits the amount of information presented to the audience. Instead of sending out three reporters who find three different angles to a story, the company can send one to cover all three genres. This eliminates different viewpoints of the story. It would also be difficult for the audience to determine the accuracy and objectivity of the reporting, because there is nothing to compare it with.
This appears to be a problem that should be avoided. However, a recent op-ed article in the New York Times advised that local television stations could be the savior of regional newspapers.
Newspapers are becoming more of a novelty in America than a staple to daily life. As a result, newspaper subscription numbers are down. People are turning to online resources for news, and advertisers are turning from print media to the internet with their business.
In the article The Daily Show by Kevin J. Martin, Martin states that at least 300 daily papers have stopped publishing over the past 30 years.
He points to televion as a way to save newspapers. Martin argues that companies who own newspapers in the 20 largest cities should be permitted to purchase one tv or radio station within their community.
Martin goes on to argue that not allowing newspapers to own television stations could hurt the quality of news the paper is able to produce. A television station could bring in revenue to help run the newspaper and allow journalists to do more in-depth research, or allow the company to hire more journalists.
This appears to be a catch-22 in media today. It is a logical worry that having a sinle company own a lot of the local media market could result in non-objective reporting or incomplete stories. People could be less informed than if several companies owned different aspects of the media. However, without the revenue and cooperation of the media outlets working together, one company may not have enough resources to produce a quality product.
On a national scale, media companies that own several television stations, radio stations, newspapers and other types of media make it difficult for smaller companies to compete.
On a local scale, having a single company own the television station, the radio station and the newspaper limits the amount of information presented to the audience. Instead of sending out three reporters who find three different angles to a story, the company can send one to cover all three genres. This eliminates different viewpoints of the story. It would also be difficult for the audience to determine the accuracy and objectivity of the reporting, because there is nothing to compare it with.
This appears to be a problem that should be avoided. However, a recent op-ed article in the New York Times advised that local television stations could be the savior of regional newspapers.
Newspapers are becoming more of a novelty in America than a staple to daily life. As a result, newspaper subscription numbers are down. People are turning to online resources for news, and advertisers are turning from print media to the internet with their business.
In the article The Daily Show by Kevin J. Martin, Martin states that at least 300 daily papers have stopped publishing over the past 30 years.
He points to televion as a way to save newspapers. Martin argues that companies who own newspapers in the 20 largest cities should be permitted to purchase one tv or radio station within their community.
Martin goes on to argue that not allowing newspapers to own television stations could hurt the quality of news the paper is able to produce. A television station could bring in revenue to help run the newspaper and allow journalists to do more in-depth research, or allow the company to hire more journalists.
This appears to be a catch-22 in media today. It is a logical worry that having a sinle company own a lot of the local media market could result in non-objective reporting or incomplete stories. People could be less informed than if several companies owned different aspects of the media. However, without the revenue and cooperation of the media outlets working together, one company may not have enough resources to produce a quality product.
Friday, November 9, 2007
Citizen Reporters
I recently watched an interview that Matt Drudge creator of the infamous Drudge Report had with the National Press Club. As we are showing through this class project, blogs are everywhere. There are millions and millions of blogs.
People use blogs to keep in touch with family and friends. Some people use them as journals. Now, it's becoming increasingly popular for people to use their blogs as news sites.
As Matt Drudge showed, regular citizens can become journalists. Drudge was working in the CBS Gift Shop when his father bought him his first computer. He soon discovered how to post information on the information, and as they say, the rest is history.
Now Drudge's sight gets more than six million hits a month. He has scooped the mainstream media on several major stories, such as the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal and the Microsoft and NBC merger.
Yet, the National Press Club seemed to despise Drudge. They accused him of suspect methods. They said he spread gossip as much as he reported news. He doesn't do in depth research or check his facts.
Drudge, however, says that he's just one of a growing number of citizen reporters.
People who take on the powers that be. They are the watchdogs of the watchdogs. Now that anyone is able to post information on the internet, people don't have to go through mainstream media to get something seen by the world. They can simply upload it to YouTube or MySpace.
It eliminates the need for editors which eliminates the filtering of news. According to Drudge, it enables the public to have access to a more accurate complete view of what's really happening.
People use blogs to keep in touch with family and friends. Some people use them as journals. Now, it's becoming increasingly popular for people to use their blogs as news sites.
As Matt Drudge showed, regular citizens can become journalists. Drudge was working in the CBS Gift Shop when his father bought him his first computer. He soon discovered how to post information on the information, and as they say, the rest is history.
Now Drudge's sight gets more than six million hits a month. He has scooped the mainstream media on several major stories, such as the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal and the Microsoft and NBC merger.
Yet, the National Press Club seemed to despise Drudge. They accused him of suspect methods. They said he spread gossip as much as he reported news. He doesn't do in depth research or check his facts.
Drudge, however, says that he's just one of a growing number of citizen reporters.
People who take on the powers that be. They are the watchdogs of the watchdogs. Now that anyone is able to post information on the internet, people don't have to go through mainstream media to get something seen by the world. They can simply upload it to YouTube or MySpace.
It eliminates the need for editors which eliminates the filtering of news. According to Drudge, it enables the public to have access to a more accurate complete view of what's really happening.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Debate of the Century?
There has been a continuing drop in news readership and viewship over the last decade or so, particularly among young adults.
It seems that everyone in the media and those who study the media are particularly fascinated by the trend. Those who own newspapers and television stations are trying desperately to entice audiences to return to their programming. Those who study the media are analyzing trends and making theories as to why people are no longer paying attention.
One person who hasn't been losing ground in the viewship battle is Jon Stewart. Stewart's television program, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, is a hit on Comedy Central. The Daily Show is a parodied news program that gets rave reviews for it's comical twist to real stories.
The polar opposite of the Daily Show, is the godfather of news stations, CNN. Particularly, CNN's political coverage with programs like The Situation Room. The man behind the Situation Room, and all of CNN's political programming is CNN Political Director, Sam Feist.
Now, with the presidential primaries around the corner, candidates are in full campaign mode and have been for months. Feist brags that CNN alone is hosting nine debates for the presidential hopefuls,including one earlier this year on YouTube.
As interesting as presidential debates are, I think a debate between Stewart and Feist would trump all.
In a 2004 C-SPAN interview (video) Stewart berated the media industry, saying that reporters were lazy and organizations were more interested in earning money than serving the public.
Stewart referred to presidential debates, the ones that Feist thinks so highly of, as horseraces. He argued that they are merely political pundits who've fed their words to the candidates, and the public doesn't really get anything out of the scripted banter.
Stewart also said in the same interview that CNN is no longer the tough, go to newstation it once was.
"CNN has the saying, 'CNN, news you can depend on.'" Stewart said. "Well guess what, I've watched CNN and no you can't!"
Feist has taken a few jabs at Stewart and his audience as well. He said that he doesn't understand why people watch the show. He personally does not like it.
In a speech earlier this month Feist said, "I don't know how people can watch that show. It's not real!"
In the end, it all comes down to what each feels they are offering the viewer. Feist believes they are drawing in a younger audience with their Election Express. They are conducting focus groups and doing in-depth research. Although, their idea of in-depth research is debunking the Obama Madrassa story Perhaps if they put as much work into their every day issues, people could be informed again.
Stewart, on the other hand, is reaching viewers. They are drawn to his witty bashing of the candidates and over the top anecdotes. How much they actually learn about current events and the presidential candidates is questionable.
Feist and Stewart should go head to head in the media battle and argue it out about the affective way to reach young viewers and what is wrong with the media today. That would be a debate worth watching.
It seems that everyone in the media and those who study the media are particularly fascinated by the trend. Those who own newspapers and television stations are trying desperately to entice audiences to return to their programming. Those who study the media are analyzing trends and making theories as to why people are no longer paying attention.
One person who hasn't been losing ground in the viewship battle is Jon Stewart. Stewart's television program, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, is a hit on Comedy Central. The Daily Show is a parodied news program that gets rave reviews for it's comical twist to real stories.
The polar opposite of the Daily Show, is the godfather of news stations, CNN. Particularly, CNN's political coverage with programs like The Situation Room. The man behind the Situation Room, and all of CNN's political programming is CNN Political Director, Sam Feist.
Now, with the presidential primaries around the corner, candidates are in full campaign mode and have been for months. Feist brags that CNN alone is hosting nine debates for the presidential hopefuls,including one earlier this year on YouTube.
As interesting as presidential debates are, I think a debate between Stewart and Feist would trump all.
In a 2004 C-SPAN interview (video) Stewart berated the media industry, saying that reporters were lazy and organizations were more interested in earning money than serving the public.
Stewart referred to presidential debates, the ones that Feist thinks so highly of, as horseraces. He argued that they are merely political pundits who've fed their words to the candidates, and the public doesn't really get anything out of the scripted banter.
Stewart also said in the same interview that CNN is no longer the tough, go to newstation it once was.
"CNN has the saying, 'CNN, news you can depend on.'" Stewart said. "Well guess what, I've watched CNN and no you can't!"
Feist has taken a few jabs at Stewart and his audience as well. He said that he doesn't understand why people watch the show. He personally does not like it.
In a speech earlier this month Feist said, "I don't know how people can watch that show. It's not real!"
In the end, it all comes down to what each feels they are offering the viewer. Feist believes they are drawing in a younger audience with their Election Express. They are conducting focus groups and doing in-depth research. Although, their idea of in-depth research is debunking the Obama Madrassa story Perhaps if they put as much work into their every day issues, people could be informed again.
Stewart, on the other hand, is reaching viewers. They are drawn to his witty bashing of the candidates and over the top anecdotes. How much they actually learn about current events and the presidential candidates is questionable.
Feist and Stewart should go head to head in the media battle and argue it out about the affective way to reach young viewers and what is wrong with the media today. That would be a debate worth watching.
Friday, October 5, 2007
Soft News is Driving Young Viewers Away
I'd like to expand on my idea from class, that it isn't necessarily the way the news is packaged, but the actual news that is being reported that is driving viewers away.
I think this holds true, because stunts like the nude news broadcasts and even news sites on the internet are not attracting viewers.
In a recent report, Doing Well and Doing Good: How Soft News and Critical Journalism Are Shrinking the News Audience and Weakening Democracy-And What News Outlets Can Do About It, Thomas Patterson from Harvard discusses how the downfall of journalists and the media to present quality products has aided in the loss of viewers.
In the report, Patterson sites a turn to soft news as one problem. Soft news is defined as news that highlights incidents anddevelopments that have little to do with public affairs and that are selected for their capacity to shock or entertain can distort people's perceptions of reality.
In contrast, hard news refers to coverage of breaking events involving top leaders, major issues,or significant disruptions in the routines of daily life, such as an earthquake or airline disaster.
The amount of soft news has increased, from less than 35% of stories in 1980, to around 50% today.
Soft news is associated with increased ratings, which explains why entertainment news is so popular. However, in Patterson's research, he discovered that a majority of people would rather hear about hard news stories.
In addition to soft news, the media has taken to providing a much more negative view of society. The place this is most evident is in politics.
In 1990, negative coverage of Congress was over 80%. Also, negative coverage of presidential candidates exceeds positive coverage.
Journalists and media outlets need to find new ways to reconnect with their audience. That has to include a trend change away from soft news.
I think this holds true, because stunts like the nude news broadcasts and even news sites on the internet are not attracting viewers.
In a recent report, Doing Well and Doing Good: How Soft News and Critical Journalism Are Shrinking the News Audience and Weakening Democracy-And What News Outlets Can Do About It, Thomas Patterson from Harvard discusses how the downfall of journalists and the media to present quality products has aided in the loss of viewers.
In the report, Patterson sites a turn to soft news as one problem. Soft news is defined as news that highlights incidents anddevelopments that have little to do with public affairs and that are selected for their capacity to shock or entertain can distort people's perceptions of reality.
In contrast, hard news refers to coverage of breaking events involving top leaders, major issues,or significant disruptions in the routines of daily life, such as an earthquake or airline disaster.
The amount of soft news has increased, from less than 35% of stories in 1980, to around 50% today.
Soft news is associated with increased ratings, which explains why entertainment news is so popular. However, in Patterson's research, he discovered that a majority of people would rather hear about hard news stories.
In addition to soft news, the media has taken to providing a much more negative view of society. The place this is most evident is in politics.
In 1990, negative coverage of Congress was over 80%. Also, negative coverage of presidential candidates exceeds positive coverage.
Journalists and media outlets need to find new ways to reconnect with their audience. That has to include a trend change away from soft news.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
