Is a review a news article?
Does it matter if a movie only gets 2 out of 5 stars?
I think this goes back to the opinion argument. If opinion is news then I suppose a review should be also. Maybe.
But this poses a more interesting angle that if a big block buster movie that was looked at to be the next Titanic and make a bunch of money for everyone ended up like the real Titanic and sank. Then that might be news because it relates to job loss and economic things.
Or another thing is if a movie takes the country by storm out of nowhere. If a completely under promoted movie takes over and everyone goes crazy then that would be news too. Especially if it breaks into mainstream culture and everyone starts quoting it.
But, if a movie was supposed to be good and it is, or is supposed to be bad and it is, then no I don't find that newsworthy because it did as it was supposed to. The status quo was not changed.
Monday, April 22, 2013
Deadlines: Do they still matter
Do deadlines still matter? I mean in this day and age of technology and instant gratification why does it matter if I have a story exactly at 10 am?
Especially if it isn't a breaking news story it isn't important.
We can all agree that print media is dying a slow and painful death. The internet is, unfortunately, the future. But, that does mean that deadlines shouldn't matter. Breaking news is one thing that needs to be up the moment it happens, but anything else can wait, especially if something is breaking news.
Take last week for example. The Boston bombings covered everything up. Even someone trying to poison the president was covered up. The Texas explosion happened and came into the limelight for a bit but even that was covered up again by Boston. And, what happened to that North Korea crisis?
So what I'm trying to say is it shouldn't matter when the story comes out so long as it is in a reasonable time frame.
Especially if it isn't a breaking news story it isn't important.
We can all agree that print media is dying a slow and painful death. The internet is, unfortunately, the future. But, that does mean that deadlines shouldn't matter. Breaking news is one thing that needs to be up the moment it happens, but anything else can wait, especially if something is breaking news.
Take last week for example. The Boston bombings covered everything up. Even someone trying to poison the president was covered up. The Texas explosion happened and came into the limelight for a bit but even that was covered up again by Boston. And, what happened to that North Korea crisis?
So what I'm trying to say is it shouldn't matter when the story comes out so long as it is in a reasonable time frame.
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
More interesting than the truth!
Fake newspapers and anchors are more interesting and more fun to watch and read than real ones.
The Onion is hilarious and widely read all over, sometimes believed to be true too. But, why is it that people find that more interesting? It's all fake, no matter how realistically they portray it. Shouldn't what is actually happening and something that could actually have an effect on people's lives be more important? Apparently a quick entertainment is more important than actual fact.
Also John Stewart and Stephen Colbert are watched by people looking for actual news too. I mean I enjoy watching them too, I find them hilarious, but I don't get my news from them. I watch them make fun of actual news organizations. Maybe when I was young and immature I watched them for news, but my news watching only consisted of what I heard via my friends or facebook, The Daily Show and Colbert Report on occasion when I had nothing else to watch, and the weather channel in hopes of a snow day. But, that was when I was a young kid who didn't actually pay attention to the real world news (now I exclusively read the BBC because I'm a snob who wants to seem more interesting because I get my news from and internation news source). It just seems silly to seriously look to them for news.
The Onion is hilarious and widely read all over, sometimes believed to be true too. But, why is it that people find that more interesting? It's all fake, no matter how realistically they portray it. Shouldn't what is actually happening and something that could actually have an effect on people's lives be more important? Apparently a quick entertainment is more important than actual fact.
Also John Stewart and Stephen Colbert are watched by people looking for actual news too. I mean I enjoy watching them too, I find them hilarious, but I don't get my news from them. I watch them make fun of actual news organizations. Maybe when I was young and immature I watched them for news, but my news watching only consisted of what I heard via my friends or facebook, The Daily Show and Colbert Report on occasion when I had nothing else to watch, and the weather channel in hopes of a snow day. But, that was when I was a young kid who didn't actually pay attention to the real world news (now I exclusively read the BBC because I'm a snob who wants to seem more interesting because I get my news from and internation news source). It just seems silly to seriously look to them for news.
Did I just hear him correctly?
Is it okay to print what was overheard but isn't in an interview? Should that be allowed? Is there a moral obligation not to report it because you didn't get their consent? Or is there a moral obligation to report on it if it is potentially harmful?
Personally I would be okay with printing what I overheard. I know that's probably wrong, but sometimes you can get some vital and important information when someone doesn't know someone else is listening. I haven't yet because I know it's probably against the rules, but I'm saying that it would probably be a good resource if someone wont talk with you directly.
I guess the moral implications are there though. People would not feel comfortable with big brother watching over their shoulder all the time recording what they say.
Technically isn't reporting and quoting on a speaker doing exactly this though? You didn't ask for their consent to quote and wright down what they said.
Personally I would be okay with printing what I overheard. I know that's probably wrong, but sometimes you can get some vital and important information when someone doesn't know someone else is listening. I haven't yet because I know it's probably against the rules, but I'm saying that it would probably be a good resource if someone wont talk with you directly.
I guess the moral implications are there though. People would not feel comfortable with big brother watching over their shoulder all the time recording what they say.
Technically isn't reporting and quoting on a speaker doing exactly this though? You didn't ask for their consent to quote and wright down what they said.
Tuesday, April 2, 2013
We like sports
People like sports. People want to hear about sports when they can't either watch it live or on TV. So that would make sports reporting very important right?
Maybe not. I know when I check my phone to see how the Bruins, Red Sox, or Celtics (I don't have a football team I'm really devoted to) I just check the scores and move on.
Do people really need the entire game analyzing down to what socks the player was wearing?
I mean how many people actually go through and desire every single minute detail they could possibly consume? It just seems like if you showed the big plays, maybe some injuries or fights, and the scores, people would be okay with it all.
But then again ESPN, NESN, and all the other sports networks make a lot of money. So what the hell do I know?
Maybe not. I know when I check my phone to see how the Bruins, Red Sox, or Celtics (I don't have a football team I'm really devoted to) I just check the scores and move on.
Do people really need the entire game analyzing down to what socks the player was wearing?
I mean how many people actually go through and desire every single minute detail they could possibly consume? It just seems like if you showed the big plays, maybe some injuries or fights, and the scores, people would be okay with it all.
But then again ESPN, NESN, and all the other sports networks make a lot of money. So what the hell do I know?
Why does TMZ exist again?
TMZ is a perfect example of everything that is not only wrong with journalism but with America at large.
It shows the very worst parts of American culture: the worst parts of our celebrities. I don't care what Kanye and Kim's baby is going to be named. When did this crap become newsworthy? So they're celebrities, who the fuck cares?
And, the fact that they pester, pander around, and swarm these people is awful too. They're people too you know, they want their privacy as much as the next person does. They don't like having their personal space bubble raped by a thousand flashing cameras every time they come out in public.
Let's start doing this to the TMZ executives and reports and see if they put it on TMZ. That would be news in my book.
It shows the very worst parts of American culture: the worst parts of our celebrities. I don't care what Kanye and Kim's baby is going to be named. When did this crap become newsworthy? So they're celebrities, who the fuck cares?
And, the fact that they pester, pander around, and swarm these people is awful too. They're people too you know, they want their privacy as much as the next person does. They don't like having their personal space bubble raped by a thousand flashing cameras every time they come out in public.
Let's start doing this to the TMZ executives and reports and see if they put it on TMZ. That would be news in my book.
Blogging Seriously?
How long have people been taking blogging seriously? I mean I've always thought of it as a thing that people who wanted to be journalists did to get attention. Or other people did to push their opinions on people. Hipsters are another sort of people I associate with blogging. Of course if it keeps catching on them hipsters will move on to something else and just complain some more about how lame blogging is now.
But, when did it become, for lack of a better word, mainstream? When did people start listening to bloggers?
I bet it has to do with people using blogs while they travel. I've heard of so many people doing big long country wide trips and blogging about their adventures. That's the biggest reason I can think of.
Maybe it's because actual journalists are doing it too. That could be another reason.
But, when did it become, for lack of a better word, mainstream? When did people start listening to bloggers?
I bet it has to do with people using blogs while they travel. I've heard of so many people doing big long country wide trips and blogging about their adventures. That's the biggest reason I can think of.
Maybe it's because actual journalists are doing it too. That could be another reason.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)