According to inside sources, a group of magazine publishers are planning the construction of a joint online newsstand. Such magazines include Time Inc. and Conde Nast, and the magazines will be created in different digital formats.
Though no official deals have been signed, it is rumored that Time, Conde Nast, Meredith, and Hearst will all be equity partners in the new company, which will run the online newsstand, and has been called the "iTunes for magazines."
The hope is that these publishing houses will be able to obtain some control over digital readers, since most of their print circulations are struggling in sales.
The point is that this new magazine company would make it easy to buy print and electronic copies of magazines like Sports Illustrated, Esquire, The New Yorker, and Better Home and Gardens from just one website. With this, you will be able to view the magazine on iPhones, BlackBerrys, ebook readers, and other platforms.
I am not very surprised that now magazine publishers are looking to expand to the digital marketplace; they're not dumb. While I think that this is a very interesting concept and definitely has promise of being successful, I don't like it. I know it sounds cliche and oldfashioned, but I truly enjoy flipping through the pages of my magazine, just like I prefer to turn the pages of my newspaper. I guess for people who are on the go, this will be a more convenient option, but I think I will always prefer to stop at a stand and buy a magazine to read on the train on my way to work.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Undercover Reporting
A London filmmaker decided to turn the tables on those preying journalists who live to victimize celebrities in order to get the scoop for tabloids.
Many a celebrity have been duped by such journalists, remember the Martin Bashir documentary on a naïve Michael Jackson? Well, Chris Atkins, a London based filmmaker, has decided to go undercover to document ‘dubious reporting methods’ of those on the hunt of stories for celebrity tabloids.
Atkins did this by arranging meetings with many Fleet Street papers, luring them with promises of containing revealing information about television stars’ visits to private medical clinics. His plan worked, many reporters excited about the prospect of obtaining headlines that included the names of celebrities and such words as facelift or Botox, agreed to meet and speak with Atkins.
With these stealthily filmed clips from the meetings, Atkins put together a Michael Moore-esque documentary, entitled “Star-suckers,” which targets society’s growing obsession with celebrities and fame, and what he believes to be its cynical manipulation by the big media companies. Atkins said, “Media companies are in dire straits, and the only thing they have left is celebrity. They have discovered that this is an incredibly potent tool for selling.”
None of the reporters agreed to buy any of Atkin’s ‘information,’ but Atkins was able to plant many fake stories in tabloids by calling them with tips. Also, British tabloids aren’t the only target of “Star-suckers,” the documentary also addresses crazed American parents who push their kids into the spotlight, plus other European TV personalities who go into politics and ‘Irish rock stars who front global anti-poverty campaigns.’
Atkins also pointed out that although fascination with celebrity has existed for a long time, it is becoming more and more sinister as technology and greedy media companies combine to turn out greater excess almost daily.
While I totally agree with Atkins and am glad that someone has put together some sort of documentation on this topic, I must admit that I am guilty of the celebrity fascination. I am much better now, I have been sober for 5 months now (from buying tabloid magazines that is (I actually don’t know how long it’s been, I’m joking)), but I was once nearly unable to leave the checkout aisle without buying one! But in all seriousness, this is an illness that has become an epidemic in our society, because it has come to excess. For example, my stepmom receives OK, Star, People, and Us Weekly in the mail, every week! That’s sick, and a waste of money, and I know she’s not the only one.
I am a bit worried, though; I have a road trip coming up and am not sure I’ll be able to resist the temptation of buying entertainment that will last for hours on the road!
Many a celebrity have been duped by such journalists, remember the Martin Bashir documentary on a naïve Michael Jackson? Well, Chris Atkins, a London based filmmaker, has decided to go undercover to document ‘dubious reporting methods’ of those on the hunt of stories for celebrity tabloids.
Atkins did this by arranging meetings with many Fleet Street papers, luring them with promises of containing revealing information about television stars’ visits to private medical clinics. His plan worked, many reporters excited about the prospect of obtaining headlines that included the names of celebrities and such words as facelift or Botox, agreed to meet and speak with Atkins.
With these stealthily filmed clips from the meetings, Atkins put together a Michael Moore-esque documentary, entitled “Star-suckers,” which targets society’s growing obsession with celebrities and fame, and what he believes to be its cynical manipulation by the big media companies. Atkins said, “Media companies are in dire straits, and the only thing they have left is celebrity. They have discovered that this is an incredibly potent tool for selling.”
None of the reporters agreed to buy any of Atkin’s ‘information,’ but Atkins was able to plant many fake stories in tabloids by calling them with tips. Also, British tabloids aren’t the only target of “Star-suckers,” the documentary also addresses crazed American parents who push their kids into the spotlight, plus other European TV personalities who go into politics and ‘Irish rock stars who front global anti-poverty campaigns.’
Atkins also pointed out that although fascination with celebrity has existed for a long time, it is becoming more and more sinister as technology and greedy media companies combine to turn out greater excess almost daily.
While I totally agree with Atkins and am glad that someone has put together some sort of documentation on this topic, I must admit that I am guilty of the celebrity fascination. I am much better now, I have been sober for 5 months now (from buying tabloid magazines that is (I actually don’t know how long it’s been, I’m joking)), but I was once nearly unable to leave the checkout aisle without buying one! But in all seriousness, this is an illness that has become an epidemic in our society, because it has come to excess. For example, my stepmom receives OK, Star, People, and Us Weekly in the mail, every week! That’s sick, and a waste of money, and I know she’s not the only one.
I am a bit worried, though; I have a road trip coming up and am not sure I’ll be able to resist the temptation of buying entertainment that will last for hours on the road!
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Women in late night: Good for something, but not for writing
A recent article in The New York Times discussed the lack of women writers in late night television.
This may be considered somewhat surprising considering the dominant female presence in many other aspects of TV; more women watch television than men; in prime time and daytime, many females have had huge success as producers and writers; and in January, women will hold two of three seats as anchors of network evening newscasts. In spite of it all though, there have been very few women to break the barrier into late night writing rooms, even though women make up a larger percentage of the audiences than men do.
There are no female writers on the new “The Jay Leno Show,” or on “Late Show with David Letterman” or “The Tonight Show with Conan O’Brien,” yet Leno’s audience is more than 53%, Letterman’s 55%, and O’Brien’s also over half.
This fact was highlighted by Letterman’s confessions of having sexual relations with many of his staff members. Nell Scovell, a former female writer for Letterman, spoke about late night writing positions for females, based on her experiences, noting that the environment while working for Letterman was ‘hostile,’ including his relationships with female staff members. She said in an e-mail message, “Writing for late-night talk shows is a great entry-level TV job, and if you deny women that opportunity it reduces the chance for them to pursue careers in comedy.”
Steve Bodow, head writer for “The Daily Show,” said that their show hired two female writers in September, saying they had to ‘shake the trees a little’ to do so, but that they wanted to get their different perspective, which I agree with and am somewhat surprised that more shows have not wanted to incorporate as well.
An argument is that as long as the hosts remain male, so will the writers, because you are writing for that one person’s personality, which makes sense, but I think a female’s view would only add to the humor of these men.
I watch these shows occasionally, not regularly, and I think that the lack of female influence is apparent, although I still enjoy the shows and the humor, with or without female writers. It is sort of discouraging to me though, as comedic writing is something, quite possibly the thing, I want to do.
This may be considered somewhat surprising considering the dominant female presence in many other aspects of TV; more women watch television than men; in prime time and daytime, many females have had huge success as producers and writers; and in January, women will hold two of three seats as anchors of network evening newscasts. In spite of it all though, there have been very few women to break the barrier into late night writing rooms, even though women make up a larger percentage of the audiences than men do.
There are no female writers on the new “The Jay Leno Show,” or on “Late Show with David Letterman” or “The Tonight Show with Conan O’Brien,” yet Leno’s audience is more than 53%, Letterman’s 55%, and O’Brien’s also over half.
This fact was highlighted by Letterman’s confessions of having sexual relations with many of his staff members. Nell Scovell, a former female writer for Letterman, spoke about late night writing positions for females, based on her experiences, noting that the environment while working for Letterman was ‘hostile,’ including his relationships with female staff members. She said in an e-mail message, “Writing for late-night talk shows is a great entry-level TV job, and if you deny women that opportunity it reduces the chance for them to pursue careers in comedy.”
Steve Bodow, head writer for “The Daily Show,” said that their show hired two female writers in September, saying they had to ‘shake the trees a little’ to do so, but that they wanted to get their different perspective, which I agree with and am somewhat surprised that more shows have not wanted to incorporate as well.
An argument is that as long as the hosts remain male, so will the writers, because you are writing for that one person’s personality, which makes sense, but I think a female’s view would only add to the humor of these men.
I watch these shows occasionally, not regularly, and I think that the lack of female influence is apparent, although I still enjoy the shows and the humor, with or without female writers. It is sort of discouraging to me though, as comedic writing is something, quite possibly the thing, I want to do.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
The Berenstain Bears
The next stop for the beloved Berenstain Bears is the big screen. Shawn Levy, who is director of the Night at the Museum movies, has signed on to produce film version of the The Berenstain Bears books. Levy is planning on this being a comedy with both live action and computer animation.
These popular characters were first published by creators Jan and Stan Berenstain in 1962’s “The Big Honey Hunt,” and they have remained popular ever since. Levy says that to maintain the level of popularity that these books have is a formidable achievement, and they must have something special in their DNA to have endured this long. He is looking forward to begin working on the film.
Levy says he wants the film to stay true to the original story and to incorporate some details from the more popular books in the series. He also said he will be sure that the film is witty, but never sarcastic, comparing it to Will Ferrell’s Elf, a movie that had a sweet, sincere hero who conflicted with his more mocking environment. Ultimately, they want to stay true to the Berenstain’s origins as to not disappoint the generations of families who have enjoyed them. There are hopes that the screenplay will be completed by late next year.
I thought this was kind of cool; when I saw the picture of the Berenstain Bears on the website it immediately brought back memories from being a kid and reading those books, and even better, watching the movies. I vividly remember enjoying the books and cartoons thoroughly, and hopefully this film will continue the legacy and keep the bears pertinent to children today. I only hope that if the film does not live up to the books, it doesn’t damage what has proven to pass the test of time.
These popular characters were first published by creators Jan and Stan Berenstain in 1962’s “The Big Honey Hunt,” and they have remained popular ever since. Levy says that to maintain the level of popularity that these books have is a formidable achievement, and they must have something special in their DNA to have endured this long. He is looking forward to begin working on the film.
Levy says he wants the film to stay true to the original story and to incorporate some details from the more popular books in the series. He also said he will be sure that the film is witty, but never sarcastic, comparing it to Will Ferrell’s Elf, a movie that had a sweet, sincere hero who conflicted with his more mocking environment. Ultimately, they want to stay true to the Berenstain’s origins as to not disappoint the generations of families who have enjoyed them. There are hopes that the screenplay will be completed by late next year.
I thought this was kind of cool; when I saw the picture of the Berenstain Bears on the website it immediately brought back memories from being a kid and reading those books, and even better, watching the movies. I vividly remember enjoying the books and cartoons thoroughly, and hopefully this film will continue the legacy and keep the bears pertinent to children today. I only hope that if the film does not live up to the books, it doesn’t damage what has proven to pass the test of time.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Will free papers be able to save deteriorating sales?
Struggling newspaper sales have been a topic of conversation all over the world, and that includes France, but the French approach to saving this diminishing market is much different from that of others.
Eric Pfanner, of the New York Times, wrote about France’s plan to win back newspaper subscriptions and revenue; to give away newspapers in an attempt to gain regular consumers. This plan, called “My Free Newspaper,” offers 18 to 24-year-olds a free, yearlong subscription to a newspaper of their choice, with hopes that they will then continue to buy and read the newspapers when that year ends.
This may seem like a drastic measure, but France is facing drastic circumstances, even in comparison to the dwindling sales everywhere else; on a per-capita basis, only about half as many papers are sold in France then are in Germany and Britain, according to the World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers in Paris.
France’s newspapers, much like elsewhere, are in crisis mode due to an advertising slump and readers’ movement to the internet for news sources, but customers are especially low among young people. A government study found that in 2007, only 10 percent of people aged 15 to 24 are reading a paid-for newspaper daily, which is only half of what that number was 10 years ago.
This certainly sounds like an innovative idea to me, but I had many questions upon reading the first paragraph, like, how will they pay for this, because if this doesn’t turn out customers after the year ends like they are hoping it will, how will they make up for what sounds like a pretty significant loss? The article said that the costs of the project will be shared by the government and the newspapers, with the government contributing $22.5 million over three years, which will certainly help.
Another problem that I found with the idea is that I would imagine that many of the people that will subscribe to this free year’s worth of newspapers are people that already pay to read papers daily, so, essentially, the newspapers might simply maintain consumers, rather than gain consumers. In response to that, the article said that over 30,000 people have already signed up for the free subscriptions, so let’s hope that these people keep their subscription when it comes time to pay for it.
This certainly sounds very interesting, but hopefully it will prove to be a success, more importantly. I receive a newspaper daily, and I enjoy reading it, and I can only hope that sales will increase so we don’t have to face possibly losing such a long-standing tradition.
Eric Pfanner, of the New York Times, wrote about France’s plan to win back newspaper subscriptions and revenue; to give away newspapers in an attempt to gain regular consumers. This plan, called “My Free Newspaper,” offers 18 to 24-year-olds a free, yearlong subscription to a newspaper of their choice, with hopes that they will then continue to buy and read the newspapers when that year ends.
This may seem like a drastic measure, but France is facing drastic circumstances, even in comparison to the dwindling sales everywhere else; on a per-capita basis, only about half as many papers are sold in France then are in Germany and Britain, according to the World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers in Paris.
France’s newspapers, much like elsewhere, are in crisis mode due to an advertising slump and readers’ movement to the internet for news sources, but customers are especially low among young people. A government study found that in 2007, only 10 percent of people aged 15 to 24 are reading a paid-for newspaper daily, which is only half of what that number was 10 years ago.
This certainly sounds like an innovative idea to me, but I had many questions upon reading the first paragraph, like, how will they pay for this, because if this doesn’t turn out customers after the year ends like they are hoping it will, how will they make up for what sounds like a pretty significant loss? The article said that the costs of the project will be shared by the government and the newspapers, with the government contributing $22.5 million over three years, which will certainly help.
Another problem that I found with the idea is that I would imagine that many of the people that will subscribe to this free year’s worth of newspapers are people that already pay to read papers daily, so, essentially, the newspapers might simply maintain consumers, rather than gain consumers. In response to that, the article said that over 30,000 people have already signed up for the free subscriptions, so let’s hope that these people keep their subscription when it comes time to pay for it.
This certainly sounds very interesting, but hopefully it will prove to be a success, more importantly. I receive a newspaper daily, and I enjoy reading it, and I can only hope that sales will increase so we don’t have to face possibly losing such a long-standing tradition.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Oreos: Milks favorite cookie
Craig Wilson knows the key to happiness in life. And it may not be what you would expect.
In his recent article, Wilson talks about the Dalai Lama and his book, “The Art of Happiness: A Handbook for Living.” Although the book was written ten years ago, it is being reissued this month, though that’s not surprising considering it sold millions, was on the best-seller list for two years, and was translated into 50 languages.
The Dalai Lama has also written a sequel, “The Art of Happiness in a Troubled World.” This is surely a book I should put on my buy list. His message is simple, something anyone can achieve; happiness is something that can be achieved by daily practice and discipline. Happiness is determined more by one’s state of mind than external events.
Although I have not yet mastered the art of being happy, or really come close for that matter, I have certainly learned that happiness IS a state of mind. Surely what goes on around you will have an effect on you, but you must find a way to not let your state of mind reflect whatever craziness is surrounding you.
Wilson, and the Dalai Lama, says that the whole purpose of life is to achieve happiness. According to the Dalai Lama, our money, our mates (or lack thereof), our physical appearance, none of this has anything to do with our ability to be happy. We are born with everything we need to be happy. Wilson goes on to say that most of us don’t buy this, otherwise we wouldn’t be at the gym, mall, or local bar looking to attain happiness in superficial things. This couldn’t be more true, but that’s our society, and I have a difficult time imagining a drastic change anytime soon.
As much as I want to be happy, I don’t think I will be if I don’t run at least 4 times a week.
Though this article wasn’t the best to stimulate an argument, it was very interesting and entertaining. Maybe I enjoyed it so much because it really hit home, especially the title, “The final word: Cookies and milk make a happy combination.” Wilson says Oreo cookies make him very happy; he can eat an entire sleeve in record time. I too am a strong believer that Oreos ARE milk’s favorite cookie. I eat cookies and milk pretty much every night before I go to bed. I guess that’s why I feel the need to go to the gym every day of the week. It’s a vicious cycle.
In his recent article, Wilson talks about the Dalai Lama and his book, “The Art of Happiness: A Handbook for Living.” Although the book was written ten years ago, it is being reissued this month, though that’s not surprising considering it sold millions, was on the best-seller list for two years, and was translated into 50 languages.
The Dalai Lama has also written a sequel, “The Art of Happiness in a Troubled World.” This is surely a book I should put on my buy list. His message is simple, something anyone can achieve; happiness is something that can be achieved by daily practice and discipline. Happiness is determined more by one’s state of mind than external events.
Although I have not yet mastered the art of being happy, or really come close for that matter, I have certainly learned that happiness IS a state of mind. Surely what goes on around you will have an effect on you, but you must find a way to not let your state of mind reflect whatever craziness is surrounding you.
Wilson, and the Dalai Lama, says that the whole purpose of life is to achieve happiness. According to the Dalai Lama, our money, our mates (or lack thereof), our physical appearance, none of this has anything to do with our ability to be happy. We are born with everything we need to be happy. Wilson goes on to say that most of us don’t buy this, otherwise we wouldn’t be at the gym, mall, or local bar looking to attain happiness in superficial things. This couldn’t be more true, but that’s our society, and I have a difficult time imagining a drastic change anytime soon.
As much as I want to be happy, I don’t think I will be if I don’t run at least 4 times a week.
Though this article wasn’t the best to stimulate an argument, it was very interesting and entertaining. Maybe I enjoyed it so much because it really hit home, especially the title, “The final word: Cookies and milk make a happy combination.” Wilson says Oreo cookies make him very happy; he can eat an entire sleeve in record time. I too am a strong believer that Oreos ARE milk’s favorite cookie. I eat cookies and milk pretty much every night before I go to bed. I guess that’s why I feel the need to go to the gym every day of the week. It’s a vicious cycle.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Rush to Judgement
Rush Limbaugh’s bid to buy part of the St. Louis Rams has stirred lots of controversy and brought about lots of opinions, and now the Reverend Al Sharpton has joined the mix.
Sharpton sent a letter to NFL Commissioner, Roger Goodell, urging him to reject Limbaugh’s bid, he also asked for a meeting with Goodell. The letter basically said that the NFL should reject the bid because Limbaugh would be bad for the league.
Goodell was in Boston attending an owner’s meeting when the letter arrived and will respond to it upon his return, league spokesman Greg Aiello, but frankly, I don’t understand why he would take the time to respond.
There have also been several former and current NFL players speaking out against Limbaugh, many saying that they would refuse to play for a team that Limbaugh owned. Roman Oben, a retired NFL player had this to say, “The biggest fear that I share, and a lot of people share with me, is that you just don’t want a guy with these extreme views, who has made a living off those views, getting in the ear of upper management and ownership to create some of these policies.”
What policies? What policies are speaking about, Mr. Oben? The NFL already has a code of conduct and holds their players to high standards, so what policies are you talking about that Limbaugh’s political views could possibly affect?
Also, those players that say they would refuse to play for a team that Limbaugh owned are full of crap. Their job is to play football, if Limbaugh was offering you more money than another owner, you’re telling me that you wouldn’t go to his team? NO. You would.
And as far as politics goes and other league owners, the majority of the owners are conservative, like Limbaugh, and we don’t know them like we know Limbaugh, but if we did, I’m sure there would be some secrets revealed that would be less than pleasing, because people in their position don’t get there without stepping on some people along the way.
My biggest problem with this article, though, is the fact that Sharpton is writing a letter to Goodell and requesting a meeting with him. Why should Goodell even take into consideration what Sharpton has to say? And Sharpton says that Limbaugh will be bad for the league, but we don’t even know who most of the league’s owners are, because they really don’t have that much of an effect on the league. They sign the checks.
It just really bothers me that Sharpton is speaking out against Limbaugh. It’s a free country, Limbaugh has worked himself to a position where he can buy an NFL team, if he wants to, he should at least be fairly considered. What pull does Sharpton have with the NFL? Because I don’t think he should have any.
Sharpton sent a letter to NFL Commissioner, Roger Goodell, urging him to reject Limbaugh’s bid, he also asked for a meeting with Goodell. The letter basically said that the NFL should reject the bid because Limbaugh would be bad for the league.
Goodell was in Boston attending an owner’s meeting when the letter arrived and will respond to it upon his return, league spokesman Greg Aiello, but frankly, I don’t understand why he would take the time to respond.
There have also been several former and current NFL players speaking out against Limbaugh, many saying that they would refuse to play for a team that Limbaugh owned. Roman Oben, a retired NFL player had this to say, “The biggest fear that I share, and a lot of people share with me, is that you just don’t want a guy with these extreme views, who has made a living off those views, getting in the ear of upper management and ownership to create some of these policies.”
What policies? What policies are speaking about, Mr. Oben? The NFL already has a code of conduct and holds their players to high standards, so what policies are you talking about that Limbaugh’s political views could possibly affect?
Also, those players that say they would refuse to play for a team that Limbaugh owned are full of crap. Their job is to play football, if Limbaugh was offering you more money than another owner, you’re telling me that you wouldn’t go to his team? NO. You would.
And as far as politics goes and other league owners, the majority of the owners are conservative, like Limbaugh, and we don’t know them like we know Limbaugh, but if we did, I’m sure there would be some secrets revealed that would be less than pleasing, because people in their position don’t get there without stepping on some people along the way.
My biggest problem with this article, though, is the fact that Sharpton is writing a letter to Goodell and requesting a meeting with him. Why should Goodell even take into consideration what Sharpton has to say? And Sharpton says that Limbaugh will be bad for the league, but we don’t even know who most of the league’s owners are, because they really don’t have that much of an effect on the league. They sign the checks.
It just really bothers me that Sharpton is speaking out against Limbaugh. It’s a free country, Limbaugh has worked himself to a position where he can buy an NFL team, if he wants to, he should at least be fairly considered. What pull does Sharpton have with the NFL? Because I don’t think he should have any.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
News
I know, creative title, right? I have trouble finding an article to blog about, and I have probably read nearly 35 articles in the past hour and a half trying to find something that I feel I can write about, and one topic that has come up repeatedly is the state of journalism and what the future holds for it. Well, as my eyes have gotten incredibly heavy and I feel I no longer possess the energy required to read a new article, I have settled (yes, just settled, so don’t expect much) on an article addressing the question that so many others have pondered.
Alexandra Fenwick’s article about Alex Jones’ new book, “Losing the News; The Future of the News that Feeds Democracy” puts journalism and the turmoil surrounding it in terms that pretty much anyone can understand, probably because Jones’ book is aimed not at journalists, but at people concerned about journalism but uninformed about what has happened to it and why it’s so important. Nevertheless, it was interesting.
First off, I found Jones’ explanation of what he means by the ‘news’ quite insightful:
“Imagine a sphere of pitted iron, grey and imperfect like a large cannonball. Think of this dense, heavy ball as the total mass of each day’s serious reported news, the iron core of information that is at the center of a functioning democracy. This iron core is big and unwieldy, reflecting each day’s combined output of all the professional journalism done by news organizations—newspapers, radio and television news, news services such as the Associated Press and Reuters, and a few magazines. Some of its contents is now created by new media, nonprofits and even, occasionally, the supermarket tabloids, but the overwhelming majority still comes from the traditional news media.”
I think we are not supposed to include long quotes in our blogs, but I found this the most suitable way of sharing with you Jones’ metaphor. Jones used this visualization because it was representative of the news in that, it’s not always pretty, but it’s got weight, it’s important. He also used the erosion, the loss of weight, and rusting on the outside of the cannonball to represent everything that is happening to the news.
Jones also spoke about his belief that newspapers are worth fighting for, saying that they provide the bulk of the weight in the cannonballs (or the bulk of the news), and so they must survive. But, he believes, they also must survive because many of the non-profit journalism and small news start-ups that we have seen sprout more recently, won’t survive.
The article ended with a quote from Jones saying that he wants NEWS, “I. Want. News. I don’t want T-ball coverage, I want news. I don’t want Britney Spears, I want news. I don’t want just wire copy, I want news.”
I agree with him about the importance of news and papers and that we must sustain the condition of news and journalism and not let it slip into an oblivion of BLOGS (as I blog).
*Please know that I have absolutely no qualms with blogs and people that blog, I was simply trying to make this somewhat interesting to read!
Alexandra Fenwick’s article about Alex Jones’ new book, “Losing the News; The Future of the News that Feeds Democracy” puts journalism and the turmoil surrounding it in terms that pretty much anyone can understand, probably because Jones’ book is aimed not at journalists, but at people concerned about journalism but uninformed about what has happened to it and why it’s so important. Nevertheless, it was interesting.
First off, I found Jones’ explanation of what he means by the ‘news’ quite insightful:
“Imagine a sphere of pitted iron, grey and imperfect like a large cannonball. Think of this dense, heavy ball as the total mass of each day’s serious reported news, the iron core of information that is at the center of a functioning democracy. This iron core is big and unwieldy, reflecting each day’s combined output of all the professional journalism done by news organizations—newspapers, radio and television news, news services such as the Associated Press and Reuters, and a few magazines. Some of its contents is now created by new media, nonprofits and even, occasionally, the supermarket tabloids, but the overwhelming majority still comes from the traditional news media.”
I think we are not supposed to include long quotes in our blogs, but I found this the most suitable way of sharing with you Jones’ metaphor. Jones used this visualization because it was representative of the news in that, it’s not always pretty, but it’s got weight, it’s important. He also used the erosion, the loss of weight, and rusting on the outside of the cannonball to represent everything that is happening to the news.
Jones also spoke about his belief that newspapers are worth fighting for, saying that they provide the bulk of the weight in the cannonballs (or the bulk of the news), and so they must survive. But, he believes, they also must survive because many of the non-profit journalism and small news start-ups that we have seen sprout more recently, won’t survive.
The article ended with a quote from Jones saying that he wants NEWS, “I. Want. News. I don’t want T-ball coverage, I want news. I don’t want Britney Spears, I want news. I don’t want just wire copy, I want news.”
I agree with him about the importance of news and papers and that we must sustain the condition of news and journalism and not let it slip into an oblivion of BLOGS (as I blog).
*Please know that I have absolutely no qualms with blogs and people that blog, I was simply trying to make this somewhat interesting to read!
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Disney Conquers All
Well, it appears as though Disney is set to make a substantial mark on what has long been a childhood tradition.
Remember mom, or dad (or grandmother, aunt, or uncle for that matter), reading you a story before bedtime? Well, imagine lying in bed looking at a computer screen rather than a book. I guess in a world where our use of technology increases almost daily, it doesn’t seem all that unusual, although still hard to imagine, at least for me; it just doesn’t seem right reading off of a laptop instead of an edition from the Little Golden Book collection.
Nonetheless, Disney is daring enough to transition story time from paperback to the web, planning to unveil their new web-based service sometime this week. The article describes this new innovation as an ‘industry-defining moment,’ a web site, accessed with a subscription, that offers electronic versions of hundreds of Disney classics from “Winnie the Pooh and Tigger Too” to “Hannah Montana: Crush-tastic!” (note the sarcasm in regards to Montana being a classic, though its sure to be one someday at the rate its going, but that’s another blog). The subscription costs $79.95.
So, not only will this new digital service replace actual books, but it also aims to replace the family tradition of story time. Ok, maybe I’m exaggerating a little bit, but the service is aimed at children 3-12, prime age for storybook reading, and it offers the books being read by actors. So now, instead of mom sitting next to you in bed, she can go to the next room over and work on her laptop after she tucks her three-year-old in with their laptop, which is no doubt pink and sparkly, and presses play!
I apologize, I am really just being devil’s advocate here, I really don’t have much of a problem with this except for the fact that it’s a little sad how rapidly the world is changing, and that such a sentimental part of growing up might disappear, though I must admit I don’t remember story time from my childhood. It actually might be an educational tool, including a section for older children that can read on their own where unfamiliar words can be clicked on and will be recited aloud. It also has chapter books and trivia rounds available with the subscription.
Hopefully, this won’t replace a seemingly ancient family tradition, but rather alter it, making it more interactive and a learning experience for young children.
Remember mom, or dad (or grandmother, aunt, or uncle for that matter), reading you a story before bedtime? Well, imagine lying in bed looking at a computer screen rather than a book. I guess in a world where our use of technology increases almost daily, it doesn’t seem all that unusual, although still hard to imagine, at least for me; it just doesn’t seem right reading off of a laptop instead of an edition from the Little Golden Book collection.
Nonetheless, Disney is daring enough to transition story time from paperback to the web, planning to unveil their new web-based service sometime this week. The article describes this new innovation as an ‘industry-defining moment,’ a web site, accessed with a subscription, that offers electronic versions of hundreds of Disney classics from “Winnie the Pooh and Tigger Too” to “Hannah Montana: Crush-tastic!” (note the sarcasm in regards to Montana being a classic, though its sure to be one someday at the rate its going, but that’s another blog). The subscription costs $79.95.
So, not only will this new digital service replace actual books, but it also aims to replace the family tradition of story time. Ok, maybe I’m exaggerating a little bit, but the service is aimed at children 3-12, prime age for storybook reading, and it offers the books being read by actors. So now, instead of mom sitting next to you in bed, she can go to the next room over and work on her laptop after she tucks her three-year-old in with their laptop, which is no doubt pink and sparkly, and presses play!
I apologize, I am really just being devil’s advocate here, I really don’t have much of a problem with this except for the fact that it’s a little sad how rapidly the world is changing, and that such a sentimental part of growing up might disappear, though I must admit I don’t remember story time from my childhood. It actually might be an educational tool, including a section for older children that can read on their own where unfamiliar words can be clicked on and will be recited aloud. It also has chapter books and trivia rounds available with the subscription.
Hopefully, this won’t replace a seemingly ancient family tradition, but rather alter it, making it more interactive and a learning experience for young children.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Guide to Success
Robert Niles has compiled a list that one journalist described as “We-could-build-a-whole-new-school-around-this good.”
The list, in an article so aptly titled “Eight things that journalism students should demand from their journalism schools,” talks about journalism students’ need to extend their education beyond the classroom, take initiative, and be proactive in pursuing a career in the viciously competitive field that is journalism.
So, what are these eight infamous things that Niles so passionately believes every journalism student must demand from their school? Well, the first on the list is role models; students must demand access to working journalists beyond the few that the school brings in as guest speakers. A role model often leads to what’s next on the list, a mentor. Niles says it’s vital that students develop a relationship with a role model to guide them on their path to becoming a part of the news world, actually admitting that his greatest professional regret is not finding a mentor early on in his career. Also on the list are:
Employment Contacts- demand help in getting a job once you complete your education!
A Place to Hack, meaning a place for students to explore and test their interactive publishing skills.
Work Experience & Deep Knowledge of a Field Other than Journalism- students should work outside of journalism to acquire as much general knowledge as possible, providing them with a foundation to base their writing on.
Getting Your Name Out There- find opportunities to publish your work online and build a group of followers before you start looking for jobs and taking interviews.
Passion, not Excuses- demand your professors encourage you to pursue your passion in journalism; don’t accept complaints and gripes from them about the state of the news business, and don’t be discouraged by those that do whine. Go after what you want!
The list, in an article so aptly titled “Eight things that journalism students should demand from their journalism schools,” talks about journalism students’ need to extend their education beyond the classroom, take initiative, and be proactive in pursuing a career in the viciously competitive field that is journalism.
So, what are these eight infamous things that Niles so passionately believes every journalism student must demand from their school? Well, the first on the list is role models; students must demand access to working journalists beyond the few that the school brings in as guest speakers. A role model often leads to what’s next on the list, a mentor. Niles says it’s vital that students develop a relationship with a role model to guide them on their path to becoming a part of the news world, actually admitting that his greatest professional regret is not finding a mentor early on in his career. Also on the list are:
Employment Contacts- demand help in getting a job once you complete your education!
A Place to Hack, meaning a place for students to explore and test their interactive publishing skills.
Work Experience & Deep Knowledge of a Field Other than Journalism- students should work outside of journalism to acquire as much general knowledge as possible, providing them with a foundation to base their writing on.
Getting Your Name Out There- find opportunities to publish your work online and build a group of followers before you start looking for jobs and taking interviews.
Passion, not Excuses- demand your professors encourage you to pursue your passion in journalism; don’t accept complaints and gripes from them about the state of the news business, and don’t be discouraged by those that do whine. Go after what you want!
Monday, September 14, 2009
Sensationalism
For those of you who unwittingly, plan to see Michael Moore’s “Capitalism: A Love Story,” beware.
In an article touching on Moore’s yet-to-be-released documentary, and others, a warning is issued to those who look to documentaries for direction on such serious matters as business, politics, and even the meaning of life.
The article is based on a new report from the center for Social Media at American University, called “Honest Truths: Documentary Filmmakers on Ethical Challenges in Their Work,” a report based on information gathered from anonymous interviews with forty-five documentary filmmakers.
Some of the conclusions drawn from the report blatantly defy conventional journalistic ethics, finding that many documentarians opt to substitute accuracy with their desire to achieve social justice in their works. To do so, many documentarians admit to manipulating “individual facts, sequences, and meanings of images,” helping their viewers to recognize the documentaries “higher truths,” aka the filmmakers’ biased beliefs; one documentarian even admitted to allowing their film crew members to break the legs of rabbits in order to get better shots of animals being hunted in the wild.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that controversial filmmakers such as Moore manipulate reality to make their passions the passions of others, but it feels good (at least to those that hold steadfast in their own mindsets, in spite of the yellow journalism and exploitations that overwhelm media these days) to hear some of those that employ these tactics fess up.
Let’s take Moore, for example, whose latest work promises to be equally as manipulative and one-sided as his last- he only exploits his point of view, never showing the other side. Though he has proved to be an expert in none of the fields that he preaches about, he continues to spit, not report, his twisted version of reality to the unsuspecting masses that continue to eat it up.
In an article touching on Moore’s yet-to-be-released documentary, and others, a warning is issued to those who look to documentaries for direction on such serious matters as business, politics, and even the meaning of life.
The article is based on a new report from the center for Social Media at American University, called “Honest Truths: Documentary Filmmakers on Ethical Challenges in Their Work,” a report based on information gathered from anonymous interviews with forty-five documentary filmmakers.
Some of the conclusions drawn from the report blatantly defy conventional journalistic ethics, finding that many documentarians opt to substitute accuracy with their desire to achieve social justice in their works. To do so, many documentarians admit to manipulating “individual facts, sequences, and meanings of images,” helping their viewers to recognize the documentaries “higher truths,” aka the filmmakers’ biased beliefs; one documentarian even admitted to allowing their film crew members to break the legs of rabbits in order to get better shots of animals being hunted in the wild.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that controversial filmmakers such as Moore manipulate reality to make their passions the passions of others, but it feels good (at least to those that hold steadfast in their own mindsets, in spite of the yellow journalism and exploitations that overwhelm media these days) to hear some of those that employ these tactics fess up.
Let’s take Moore, for example, whose latest work promises to be equally as manipulative and one-sided as his last- he only exploits his point of view, never showing the other side. Though he has proved to be an expert in none of the fields that he preaches about, he continues to spit, not report, his twisted version of reality to the unsuspecting masses that continue to eat it up.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)