Journalism of the future

Steve Smith gave me new hope for my future in journalism. To me and many who are interested in journalism, the draw of moving into marketing and advertising for the pay and relative ease compared to working in journalism is powerful. My grandparents are in journalism, and according to them people who give up journalism for marketing are considered failures in their journalistic passion. Although some may have a change of heart in their love of journalism, many make the switch because the work of journalism is too stressing. I was not sure what I wanted to do before, but after this speech it has become clear that the job of journalist will be thriving once I graduate from college. The combination of new technological advancements and old journalistic endeavors combining mean a new future for my generation, who know how to use computers and want to inform the world. If you believe Barack Obama, our country will be turning around in the next 4 years, and by the time that my graduating class is out of college, we will be in the perfect situation to help our world.

PRWatch

I found that PR watch is one of then only trustworthy places on the internet for information on scandals, bs, and generally calling out the business world for all the things they do. It is a great example of the consolidation of the newsmedia, allowing for any person to visit the site and cull from the many different sources of media a detailed, truthful view of the world. One interesting story came from the Wired.com Blog, about GM asking its workers to petition their representatives to support the bailout of the auto industry. I find this to be interesting, and a good idea, although I'mnot sure that they should have allowed to be so public. It feels good to know that it is possible to see all of the problems with our world. It is still important to remember that no one can be trusted, and even PRwatch.org must be questioned and not absolutely accepted as truth. Anything can be corrupted, especially on the internet.

Political parade

CNN's coverage of the elections lifted my hopes concerning the mainstream media and how they are approaching younger viewers. The coverage was streamlined and interesting, and used many different approaches to display data and opinion. there was no point when I felt talked down to, and young voters were respected for the power we held over what happened that day. By far, CNN had the best coverage, and it seemed to me to be fair and unbiased. I cannot compare it against anything else, but also I am somewhat informed and noticed no obvious problems with what the people were saying. On the other hand, I was supporting Obama and even the republicans in the group were saying that he had a distinct upper hand, so it could have just been the endorphins. CNN has lately been bragging that they were the most watched channel that night, breaking records and having unprecedented coverage. In my opinion, this was not their doing, but simply a renewed interest in politics stirred by Obama and the many youth vote coalitions that slammed us with the question about if we are registered to vote over and over again.

The History Channel

I was watching the history channel today, and I came to the realization that they are not only a history channel, but a psuedo-entertainment channel disguised as purely an academic endeavor. I was watching a show that could have been called "What scares people; with 10 minute reenactments and crazy-cool graphics, and also ridiculous facts" and I couldn't stop. It was interesting, because it was real, but also because the package that it came in was none-stop action adventure. it felt like a videogame, only with facts about what drowning alive feels like and what happens when you go into bars in Rhode Island. Although not exactly relevant to our course of life in the world, it was definitely not bad to know. After watching this, and other shows that combine entertainment and history (like a war history show that used videogames for reenactments, among others) that I realized that this is what the news channels should be doing. If the news syndicates are having problems with young people watching their shows, DO NOT give D.L. Hughley a show. He's too old to be relevant to us, and all other comedians we listen to talk mostly about food, sex, and drugs anyway, so that whole idea is pretty bad. We want to respect the news, and enjoy entertainment. We also d0n't like looking at things that don't move every 5 seconds. So keep the content, focus on the same issues, but change the presentation. That doesn't mean change try to fit in with young people, and have celebrities and rap music and catchphrases you think we say injected into every discussion of the current american financial system. Just BE interesting, in a classy way. Don't do what you think we want, but hire US to do your programming. Young people who don't listen to the news appreciate those who do, because the average young person still knows the news matters. Don't foolishly scurry to snatch back the young people you know you need to save your viewership. We will come to you if you simply keep going the same way you have been, by hiring news anchors once the old ones die off. Eventually you'll hit our age group, and those who don't already will begin to appreciate what you have to offer

Saving Our World

As decades and centuries pass, cultures evolve and change as outside influences affect the interior. The changes, and some might say degradation, of these cultures are apparent everywhere, in every culture across the world. The changes can be also described as a melding of the world's cultures, in which different societies, trends, and ideas are shared across the world and integrated into the methods of the people.
I argue that this melding is not only important for the survival of our world, but a natural and appropriate evolution of society.
Firstly, the only way to combat and defeat the problems of the world, including poverty, hunger, and death, we must be able to understand how attempts across the world have worked or failed in order to solve the problems. Our world faces an unbelievable amount of problems, that are only growing.
The first way a society interacts is often through media. Media entertains, and can be universal in its message. Different societies can interact through media, and can come to common goals through the proliferation of messages displayed in mass media.
And when societies interact in a positive way, all can gain. It is worth the dissolution of certain aspects of a culture in order to save the rest of our world. Some might say that all we have is our history, but that cannot still be true in our modern world. We have come to a pivotal moment, and the melding of our media into one world media is necessary to save it.
Mass media will be our savior. The instantaneous combination of cultures through a television or the internet is an amazing thing, and should embraced. We cannot pretend that keeping a culture strong is worth the destruction of its citizens.

Interview with Mindich

I truly appreciated the tone David Mindich took in explaining his views on youth involvement in media. He seems less angry with young people for tuning out and more hopeful that a difference can be made. Although the way he communicated with us was quite kind, I believe a more hardline approach must be taken to convince young people. Considering what is at stake, and some believe it is the future of this nation, we must understand how dire the situation is if we continue to be ignorant.
There are countless ways to get involved, and I cannot believe that anything more than laziness and dispassion are the reasons for young people to become a part of our government system. There is passion, there is thievery, there is deceit, true heros, villains, and everything else that makes up all the movies, tv, and videogames we ingest. all it takes is a slightly more than cursory look at Fox News or The Atlantic or the Washington Post or CNN to figure out what makes the news fun.
So David Mindich should take a look at what he wrote, and begin preaching louder and harder to those who he seeks to influence.

Independent Radio

In San Francisco, there is one independent radio station, Energy 92.7. It's owned by a dude from SF who comes on from time to time to let the listeners know that he is not controlled by the media conglomerates, and the DJ's employs choose their own music. San Francisco is known for being independent, and following the beat of its own drum, so the autonomy of the station is a big selling point. The station does not shy away from crossing media, as they have sponsored events and broadcast their shows on the internet, but still big companies have not bought them out.
So what does the channel sound like? you can listen for yourself, on their website, but it will sound exactly like every other channel, if you replaced Britney Spears with a techno group you've probably never heard of. This channel is straight up cookie cutter, playing the same 20 songs all day. The songs that are popular at the time are the only ones that get play, and the different DJ's only say different things before they introduce the same songs all day.
Remembering listening to the channel after watching Money For Nothing brought me to the conclusion that music companies are not entirely to blame for the degredation of radio. Listeners have to shoulder some of the blame, because we love listening to the same songs over and over, and have grown to lack the patience for listening to new things. As our society becomes isolated and individual, we expect everything we know we want as soon as we ask. If Energy started playing new, independent artists, some people listening would change the channel. A similar thing happened to another Bay Area radio station, Live 105. They went from playing independent Indie Rock to horrible mainstream bulls**t rock.
As a society, we cannot pass all blame over to companies buying out stations. Our music choices need to stay varied, and support those who do something different.

Allstar Team

In our world of video games, massive sports influence, and celebrity fame bordering on ludicrous, Presidential candidate Barack Obama and Joe Biden have been slacking when it comes to going big. This may come as a shock to those inundated with the Barack Obama Music Video, his face on every magazine, his admittance to smoking weed, and his sit-down chats with rappers. He has been faltering at the most important time in this election, when he has a direct chance to destroy his opponent. Biden has also lost a similar chance. The debates of the past few days have left me unimpressed, and I want to deal with both of them separately.
Barack, against the petulant and slow Mccain, could have used all of the drama and fame he has built up to grandstand his opponent. Instead, they politely sparred over issues and neither seemed to be the clear winner. Everyone knows Obama is charismatic. That’s the point. That debate could have been a tipping point, and yet it felt like a steadying of the two opponents.
Biden, on the other hand, was exactly what I wish Obama had been: he choked up when speaking about his children, he laughed outright at the claims made by Palin, he was entertaining. I was watching CNN, and every time a question was posed to Biden, the group of undecided Ohio voters they had grouped together beginning voting positively toward what he was saying, or even before he had started.
The Obama/Biden team must embrace their popularity and demonstrate their confidence. Smarmy and secretive identify what most people think of the past administration. Obama was right to tell us that he smoked, and inhaled, because that’s the point. He just now needs to apply that idea to the rest of his campaign.
Every media medium we observe is coming together, on the internet. In that way, publicity has become more public, and everything is on display. One opinion can spawn a myriad of links, videos, other articles, podcasts, and youtube videos. In our culture, it is necessary to omnipresent and entertaining, and Obama's next appearance needs to reflect this.