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