Ginny: Too. Much. Just. No

http://ginnycon12.blogspot.com/2013/11/too-much-just-no.html
This is probably my favorite blog I've ever read. I could not agree more with this, considering I too had to sit though a long month of David Camm. Ginny says in the blog, "It causes me emotional pain to see how much this trial was reported on." I like this for two reasons: it's hilarious, and it's 100% true. Two things that in my opinion mix together very very well. The overuse of the Camm trial as a lead story for ther local news stations is outrageous and ridiculous, like Ginny says. My favorite part of the blog is the use of the two memes, it really brings a funny mood to it, plus they're completely necessary for the situation.
If you haven't yet gotten the point, here it is: Go read Ginny's blog! It's AWESOME! 

Desha's Blog: Jeopardy

http://deshahorton.blogspot.com/2013/11/jeopardy.html One of Desha's recent blogs was about the pretest jeopardy we play in Mr. Millers Journalism 1 class. She describes how I'm sure every student feels, considering it's a great way to study. It's probably the most fun way to study, plus like she says in the entry (read it!), the winning team gets a prize out of the prize box. It's a way to actually make students pay attention to the questions, if they truly want that prize. He makes it as realistic as possible, making three separate rounds (Jeopardy, Double Jeopardy, and Final Jeopardy) like the actual game. She makes good points, and I agree with all of them! Go check out her blog!

A Classmates Blog: Sam (The Courier-Journal (Local News Source))

Sam's blog entry The Courier-Journal (Local News Source) is a fantastic entry and deserves a read. Find it at: http://samwinreallife.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-courier-journal-local-news-source.html He makes really great points about things we talked about in our J1 class recently about a newspapers depth. He really explains why The Courier can have many more National stories than any other news source and still have about the same amount of Local stories as its competitors. I would agree with him on the fact that it's a much better news source than any other Louisville news source, as long as you don't mind reading because they do a good job about going in depth.

Smith Dominates as Louisville Wins in Return of Hancock, Behanan

http://www.wdrb.com/story/23951744/bozich-smith-dominates-as-louisville-wins-in-return-of-hancock-behanan
In my opinion, this story doesn't belong in the news section of stories at all. This belongs in the sports section of the news because that's what it is- a sports story. I wouldn't call this non-newsworthy, because this could effect all of the UofL basketball fans in the fact that Russ Smith is playing well, and two of our best players (Luke Hancock and Chane Behanan) are back into action. So by those standards the story is newsworthy, it just isn't fit for the regular news part of the news. This is a humongous story to a lot of sports fans, it's just that the story effects nobody outside of sports. It doesn't effect our city's reputation, society, economy, nothing is effected. It doesn't even effect The University of Louisville, unless in the long run this brings another championship to the table, which won't happen until April if it in fact does happen.

Viatle Says Calipari On A Hall of Fame Trajectory

WDRB recently reported a story about Dick Vitale's saying John Calipari, the head coach of the UofK mens basketball team, would be inducted into the Hall of Fame in the future. The story is non-newsworthy because it's merely just stating one mans opinion on the subject for one, and for two it will have no lasting effect on a large group of people as of now. It would be different if Coach Calipari was actually inducted into the Hall of Fame, but nothing actually happened. http://www.wdrb.com/story/23949737/crawford-vitale-says-calipari-on-a-hall-of-fame-trajectory This link to the story shows that it is just Vitale talking, and doesn't report much. This story should have never come up, until Calipari is in fact inducted to the Hall. I think it would be valid to include in THAT story some quotes from Vitale, but other than that this story is just an opinion and has no facts in it, the story also doesn't currently effect enough people, making it non-newsworthy.

Internet

Fun fact: the first thing typed into a computer was "LO" trying to type the words "LOG IN". Today's people just know the internet as something you use to talk to people or to look up homework answers. But the actual reason the internet was ever invented was for the nuclear was with the Soviet Union; and the Pentagon created it. The internet, unlike most of the other forms of mass communication, took awhile to become popular. Nobody has the tools to use the internet! The internet takes a lot of things to be able to use it: Computer, hard drive, internet access, it's a lot to pay for and most people didn't have the money for it. But now, that is isn't out of everyone's price range, over 2.4 BILLION users were on the internet as of 2012.

Just think about it, we use the internet for almost everything- from school to watching movies on Netflix, to finding friends that you haven't seen in twenty years. The possibilities are endless! Most people are now getting their news from the internet (News websites, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc.) People now shop online instead of going to the stores that might not be located in their city. It really has no limits, and I think it's not too long before there will be online school for everyone. Instead of going to school you'll just go to your computer and learn everything.

Television

Television today is a part of our society, I'm sure some people consider it a way of life. From it being invented in 1927 to there being 200 TV's around the US in 1936, television has transformed our way of thinking, spending, and it changed our daily activities today. In just 22 short years (1959), 200 became 50,000,000. That's a 25,000,000% increase in just 22 years, and that just shows how popular TV had become, and that number has done nothing but go straight up. As of 1977, 97% of American homes had at least one television in them, and that number has also gone up. Probably, over 99% of homes have a television as of today. There's probably more homes with television than there are with indoor plumbing. Any home with at least one TV, on average has that TV on 7 hours a day. I can say for myself, that my own TV is on for at least that each day, and the main TV in our house is probably on for at least 12 hours each day.

TV has even shaped modern politics. If a politician doesn't have good political campaign ads, then he has a lower chance of winning the race if hos opponent has fantastic campaign ads. So as you can see, TV is really one of the biggest factors, if not the biggest factor in our society today. Talking about it in Mr. Miller's class really blew my mind with all of the statistics and all of the ways that it influences culture, and I'm sure it'll influence culture more to come.

Movies

To think movies could move from a single motion picture camera in 1888 invented by Dixon, to Fox Studios showing movies with audio with it in 1922 is mind blowing. In just 34 years, movies moved from an idea, to a huge, money making success. And by just 1930- just eight years later, there were 9000 theaters! That's right, in JUST eight years movies went from movies being showed by a single studio to movies being played everywhere from 9000 theaters. Movies are still crazy popular today though, and it's amazing they've lasted over 80 years. But that isn't a coincidence, some reasons include the social experience, going t the movies is a good place for a large group or for a date. Genre variety- self explanatory, there's always different kinds of movies out that reach out to everyone. And the cultural experience- people always wanting to be able they saw it opening night and they want to be able to talk about it with other people. Plus movies get a lot of money from things like TV showings, DVD's, product placement, shirts, and posters.

Talking about movies in class really made me happy because I for one, love movies, and two I love knowing things that actually interest me/involve things that are relevant to me.

Will's Blog: Demassification

Check this guy out. thedovahkiinoflegend.blogspot.com. He has amazing blogs and he's the most reliable person I know regarding anything Journalism. In this entry he said, "So I suppose the question is, what will demassify the Internet?" and it really makes you think! What could possibly overtake the Internet? It's the largest form of mass communication the world has ever seen! It's getting more updated and better everyday and it's hard to believe to think anything could ever do it. Bu, I'm sure people said that about TV, didn't they?o 

Sam's Blog: Response to Magazines Lecture

Check out Sam's blog! He has great entries and good points. I particularly liked his blog on magazines. I agreed with everything he said and kind of made me think about some things. When he said, "It was a 'that makes perfect sense' moment", I agreed whole heartedly! If you want to learn about some history of Journalism, go look at his blog! http://samwinreallife.blogspot.com/

Newspapers

Have you ever thought, "Why do people still publish and buy newspapers? There's TV, it's much easier." Well, there's multiple reasons newspapers are still around and successful.
1. It's diverse: meaning there's something for everybody.
2. The physicality: meaning you can carry it around with you all day and read what you want, instead of sitting down at a certain time and watching things you don't care about until the big story at the end airs.
3. It's non-linear: Non- linear means you can read what you want, in the order you want. You could read the sports section, the skip to the Arts & Literature section. You more than likely won't read everything that's in the newspaper, because they don't interest you.
4. The cost: They're cheap! You can walk into a gas station and buy The Courier Journal for probably 50 cents! A lot of people don't have the money to spend on cable, the TV or computer, or on Internet. It all adds up to a huge bill a month, while they can get everything they want to read for probably $5.00 a week (considering that the Sunday paper is probably around $1.50- $2.00).
There's still plenty of reasons, but i think those are four of the biggest reasons they're still popular today.

Books

Wow! Imagining how different the world would be if Guttenburg had never invented the first movable type printing press is really amazing. There would pretty much be no public education, no maps, extremely low literacy rate, less spread of science and inventions, and there's still more things that wouldn't be the same. WE wouldn't be the same if Guttenburg didn't invent the movable type printing. Even if you someone like me, who doesn't love reading, you still have to appreciate books and literature because the whole world would be completely different.

Demassification

In my opinion,  demassification is interesting because it really completely changes/changed everything. What would the world be like if magazines were never demassified by television? What if the Internet never came along to demassify television? Everything in the world could be 100% different because we're so accustom to the internet being the biggest form of mass communication. What if neither TV or the Internet came along and magazines were still the most popular and biggest form of mass communication?

Conglomeration

Before I came to J&C, I had never heard of, or even thought about conglomeration. It's really interesting thinking about how many people conglomeration can really effect, and the pros and cons. For example, a pro could be more money made by a company. While a con could be less jobs because there would be less need for that job when a single company owns all of that one thing.

Media Critique- Dog Ziggity: New Jersey's Own Hot Dogs

When you go to NYTimes.com, you probably don't expect to find a two page article regarding hot dogs in New Jersey. About a reporter driving through New Jersey for a day, stopping at twelve major hot dog restaurants. The first Yardstick of Journalism is Newsworthiness. Ballpark food around New Jersey and how they're all different does not qualify as "newsworthy."Considering that New York Times is probably the most well known newspaper in America, it's strange that they would have an article about a topic like this. They have articles involving things like shootings around the New York Region, then they have this. For something to be newsworthy, it has to have a lasting effect on a lot of people. Really, this doesn't have even a small effect on anybody. The owners of the hot dog joints most likely thought it was amazing to be mentioned in a story on NYTimes.com, but the chances are they didn't gain much business out of it. Now don't get me wrong, this is a good article. But it's a good article on a not-so-good topic. They went so out of their way to write the best article possible, and they succeeded in writing a quality story. In fact, they made the article easy to read and interesting. In the story it says, "The trip by rental car covered 270 miles, 12 hours and 12 hot-dog emporiums..." Hopefully Robert Seitsema LOVES hot dogs, because that's quite a lot of traveling to do for a food that you can make in less than five minutes at home. I think the only thing helpful in this is some good things to try on a frank next time you have one. There's nothing really that could improve this piece, because the article isn't the problem. The best way to improve it would probably be not to write it.