Friday, November 15, 2013
Underground Culture: Sydney Says.
To go to Sydney's post click this. To go to Sydney's Blog click this.
The mainstream and underground have been eliminated. Sydney said this is because the Internet made everything available, but what I agree with her upon is that the internet has made a new underground. It's special because the Internet has this potential to reach millions upon millions of people, yet exclusive communities still find a way to thrive. Although now you don't have to rummage through a pile of records to find an unknown song, all you have to do is type in the lyrics to Google and there you have it.
Crime Relevance
http://www.whas11.com/news/crimetracker/Change-231586121.html
http://www.whas11.com/news/crimetracker/Judge-orders-Robby-Albarado-to-get-new-trial-232070711.html
http://www.whas11.com/news/crimetracker/Louisville-woman-accused-of-using-rocks-to-break-into-ATM-machine-231595081.html
The stories listed above are examples of stories that ought not be covered by the local news station, WHAS. But that doesn't mean all crime stories are unsuitable for coverage, there is some crime that demands to be reported upon.
Based on the yardstick of newsworthiness. We can determine if a crime story is newsworthy if it is (but not limited to) one of the following:
If some obscure member of a community dies it isn't grounds for a story. It's a cop out (pun intended) all an outlet has to do is listen to the police scanner and send a truck to interview the person's family about how he or she was such a good person. This violates the journalistic yardstick of enterprise.
http://www.whas11.com/news/crimetracker/Judge-orders-Robby-Albarado-to-get-new-trial-232070711.html
http://www.whas11.com/news/crimetracker/Louisville-woman-accused-of-using-rocks-to-break-into-ATM-machine-231595081.html
The stories listed above are examples of stories that ought not be covered by the local news station, WHAS. But that doesn't mean all crime stories are unsuitable for coverage, there is some crime that demands to be reported upon.
Based on the yardstick of newsworthiness. We can determine if a crime story is newsworthy if it is (but not limited to) one of the following:
- Someone whose identity is unknown is linked to a series of crimes. Like a string of murders or robberies that were likely committed by the same person. This affects a large amount of people until the criminal is caught, which puts civilians at danger.
- Someone that has committed a crime whose whereabouts are unknown. This affects everyone in an area until the person is caught for the aforementioned reasons.
- A kidnapping. It affects others in the community and it's a good way to get out the information and warn people to keep an eye open.
- If an important figure is killed. Sometimes this develops into another kind of story, like if it's a political figure it becomes a politics story.
If some obscure member of a community dies it isn't grounds for a story. It's a cop out (pun intended) all an outlet has to do is listen to the police scanner and send a truck to interview the person's family about how he or she was such a good person. This violates the journalistic yardstick of enterprise.
A Day In the Life of WHAS
WHAS11 is a local station is Louisville, KY promising to report the facts, but do they really hold true to their motto: on your side? Here's what they reported on October 15th, 2013.
First block, the top story was three children were found with E. Coli, their connection being that they had all visited Huber's Petting Zoo in Starlight, Indiana. This story lasted two minutes and discussed what E. Coli does and how to avoid it. This story is newsworthy due to the fact that potentially E. Coli could affect Kentuckiana for a while. However, as the stories continued on their importance diminished. There were stories like the David Camm trial, a murder that happened miles away, 13 years ago. His third trial should be covered once, the day of the decision, not for almost 2 minutes everyday. Western Middle School was evacuated due to a faulty heater, there was no fire and no injuries, also no need for coverage. The Blind Pig restaurant is closing because they owe rent, minute spent on an instance not out of the ordinary. Next and stupidest of all, WHAS spent a whopping 2 minutes 30 seconds on a showing a video of a police chase that occurred in 2012 .The man being chased was caught the day of and no one was hurt, the only new information is that he has a court date. 2:46 was spent on weather which is newsworthy, but, I don't know if that much time should be allotted for it. There was approximately 3 minutes spent on sports which was ridiculous because it engages only a minute audience. 10 minutes was spent on news, leaving 14:54 for breaks. There is a serious problem when half of your new cast is commercials and promos.
There were some relevant stories however, WHAS reported on a case of arson, asking for the whereabouts of the suspected perpetrator. And they spent an appropriate :30 seconds on a job fair in Indiana because it is of human interest. They also covered the Government Shutdown, but a questionable angle was taken on the matter. They interviewed a couple in J-Town with a special circumstance, they should have been more inclusive and made it marketable to a broader audience.
First block, the top story was three children were found with E. Coli, their connection being that they had all visited Huber's Petting Zoo in Starlight, Indiana. This story lasted two minutes and discussed what E. Coli does and how to avoid it. This story is newsworthy due to the fact that potentially E. Coli could affect Kentuckiana for a while. However, as the stories continued on their importance diminished. There were stories like the David Camm trial, a murder that happened miles away, 13 years ago. His third trial should be covered once, the day of the decision, not for almost 2 minutes everyday. Western Middle School was evacuated due to a faulty heater, there was no fire and no injuries, also no need for coverage. The Blind Pig restaurant is closing because they owe rent, minute spent on an instance not out of the ordinary. Next and stupidest of all, WHAS spent a whopping 2 minutes 30 seconds on a showing a video of a police chase that occurred in 2012 .The man being chased was caught the day of and no one was hurt, the only new information is that he has a court date. 2:46 was spent on weather which is newsworthy, but, I don't know if that much time should be allotted for it. There was approximately 3 minutes spent on sports which was ridiculous because it engages only a minute audience. 10 minutes was spent on news, leaving 14:54 for breaks. There is a serious problem when half of your new cast is commercials and promos.
There were some relevant stories however, WHAS reported on a case of arson, asking for the whereabouts of the suspected perpetrator. And they spent an appropriate :30 seconds on a job fair in Indiana because it is of human interest. They also covered the Government Shutdown, but a questionable angle was taken on the matter. They interviewed a couple in J-Town with a special circumstance, they should have been more inclusive and made it marketable to a broader audience.
Newsworthiness
What makes a new story worthy of coverage? It follows the principles and yardsticks of journalism. Now if you aren't in my journalism class you are probably completely confused. The principles and yardsticks are unofficial regulations known in the journalistic world. The principles are a list of nine determining factors decided upon by an organization known as the Project of Excellence in Journalism that dictate what a story is supposed to do in order for it to be worthy of coverage. The seven yardsticks are put out by gradethenews.org and strive for a similar goal of determining the quality of a given story.
- Truth
- Loyalty
- Verification
- Independence
- Watchdog
- Forum
- Make the Important Interesting
- Inclusivity
- Room for Dissent
- Newswortiness
- Context
- Explanation
- Local Relevance
- Civic Contribution
- Enterprise
- Fairness
In determining whether a story should be reported on or not the easiest thing to critique it upon is newsworthiness. Gradethenews.org dictates that newsworthiness is based on the question does this have a lasting effect (six months or more) on a wide audience (10,000 people)? With a local news outlet you may change that a little, does this affect most of the city for at least three weeks.
The Gene 'Synder' Fiasco
So I'm sure everyone in the Greater Louisville Metro Area has heard of the disaster that is "Gene Synder Apocalypse 2K13. Basically, some poor guy switched the 'n' and the 'y' in Snyder and ended up with 'Synder.' And so why is this news? It's not really. The story isn't really newsworthy because while it does affect drivers in Louisville it doesn't in the long run. They fixed it fast enough for it to not be a big deal. Also there weren't any accidents to come out of the misspelling, no "Breaking News: Driver causes 15 car pile up while craning his neck to read a sign he drives by passively everyday." Yet we see this:
http://www.wdrb.com/story/23687360/misspelled-interstate-signs-pop-up-across-louisville
http://www.wdrb.com/story/23712516/gene-snyder-freeway-signs-corrected
http://www.wave3.com/story/23689585/big-signs-feature-big-mistake
http://snyder-signs-new.rsspump.com/?key=2013101507127f.misspelled-interstate-signs-pop
http://www.whas11.com/news/Go-north-on-Bardstown-Rd-until-you-get-to-the-Gene-Sydner-Freeway-Wait-what--227677981.html
And even more randomly this:
http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2022054537_apxmisspelledroadsign.html
I mean I know since most news outlets are in an agreement to let them share stories, but if we look at a map we see this:
So Seattle Times this is not at all newsworthy to your city and it's citizens, because it isn't even newsworthy to ours.
http://www.wdrb.com/story/23687360/misspelled-interstate-signs-pop-up-across-louisville
http://www.wdrb.com/story/23712516/gene-snyder-freeway-signs-corrected
http://www.wave3.com/story/23689585/big-signs-feature-big-mistake
http://snyder-signs-new.rsspump.com/?key=2013101507127f.misspelled-interstate-signs-pop
http://www.whas11.com/news/Go-north-on-Bardstown-Rd-until-you-get-to-the-Gene-Sydner-Freeway-Wait-what--227677981.html
And even more randomly this:
http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2022054537_apxmisspelledroadsign.html
I mean I know since most news outlets are in an agreement to let them share stories, but if we look at a map we see this:
So Seattle Times this is not at all newsworthy to your city and it's citizens, because it isn't even newsworthy to ours.
Television Response
You go to school, ride the bus home, sit on the couch, and what? Turn on the television. For citizens of the 21st century it's second nature, if a television is on we're paying attention. But how has TV impacted us?
First, television keeps us indoors. The average American spends 7 hours a day watching television. This keeps us form doing something social, like hanging out with friends or going to church. (But I mean we're all cynical and satanic nowadays anyway.) Television made us more introverted than any medium that preceded it.
Second, TV influences our monetary habits in a negative way. It's great for advertisers because television makes us spend more. We see it on TV, through blatant or discrete advertising, and think, "I have to have that." Because when we see it on TV it becomes real, if it's not on TV it must not be legit.
First, television keeps us indoors. The average American spends 7 hours a day watching television. This keeps us form doing something social, like hanging out with friends or going to church. (But I mean we're all cynical and satanic nowadays anyway.) Television made us more introverted than any medium that preceded it.
Second, TV influences our monetary habits in a negative way. It's great for advertisers because television makes us spend more. We see it on TV, through blatant or discrete advertising, and think, "I have to have that." Because when we see it on TV it becomes real, if it's not on TV it must not be legit.
Third, politics for years was a black and white race. Not anymore - it's in technicolor. To compete in a political campaign you must advertise on TV. It goes back to the whole thing about if it's on television it's real. If someone isn't on debate a on TV or has election commercials than that person isn't important. This marginalizes any social class except the rich because ads are expensive, and to really be effective you must use repetition to get it drilled into your viewers heads.
Last, TV changes the way we as society perceive the world. Television control what's cool and what's not.If it's real it's on TV. So the only thing that's real is a binary - The Kardashians or Honey Boo Boo. TV distorts and blurs the view of the average American.
Merchants of Wack
About a month ago we watched a documentary called The Merchants of Cool. It really dug deep into how PR and marketing controls the world around us. It talked about how much we're exposed to, and basically how the world is a sexual powder keg on the verge of explosion. The movie hit on two main points:
1) The idea of 'cool' is a paradox
2) Who keeps it cold?
What is cool? Cool is defined as being fashionably attractive and or impressive. But cool is never constant, it's relative and always changing. Cool is what comes before what's in the now.
The paradox, as stated by Dee Dee Gordon, is that as soon as you make something cool, it ceases to cool. In the documentary, which was made in 2001, Limp Bizkit was really cool among alternative folk. However, once they made it big, they got a gig on MTV. They then became regulars on this MTV show where viewers pick the music. People started calling them sell outs, and the band became obscure. You see, once something from the 'underground' makes it mainstream the underground deems it uncool and moves on to fresh meat, leaving the originally cool thing to die.
Brain Graden says what MTV does wrong, especially in the above instance was that they broke the number one rule of marketing: don't show your cool. Even though everything on MTV is a commercial, you can't make it apparent, the audience can't know that.
To avoid doing the aforementioned they must do marketing research to see where the cool trend is heading. Research isn't about studying someone as a person, it's about studying them as a customer. The goal is to sell them something, not to make them happy.
But in marketing who is dictating the standard of what is cool? Marketers ask the teens what they want so that the advertisers can market for it, but kids want what they see on television, and what is on television is what kids said they wanted. So who's calling the shots here? Answer: no one. We all fall prey to the viscious cycle of society.
1) The idea of 'cool' is a paradox
2) Who keeps it cold?
What is cool? Cool is defined as being fashionably attractive and or impressive. But cool is never constant, it's relative and always changing. Cool is what comes before what's in the now.
The paradox, as stated by Dee Dee Gordon, is that as soon as you make something cool, it ceases to cool. In the documentary, which was made in 2001, Limp Bizkit was really cool among alternative folk. However, once they made it big, they got a gig on MTV. They then became regulars on this MTV show where viewers pick the music. People started calling them sell outs, and the band became obscure. You see, once something from the 'underground' makes it mainstream the underground deems it uncool and moves on to fresh meat, leaving the originally cool thing to die.
Brain Graden says what MTV does wrong, especially in the above instance was that they broke the number one rule of marketing: don't show your cool. Even though everything on MTV is a commercial, you can't make it apparent, the audience can't know that.
To avoid doing the aforementioned they must do marketing research to see where the cool trend is heading. Research isn't about studying someone as a person, it's about studying them as a customer. The goal is to sell them something, not to make them happy.
But in marketing who is dictating the standard of what is cool? Marketers ask the teens what they want so that the advertisers can market for it, but kids want what they see on television, and what is on television is what kids said they wanted. So who's calling the shots here? Answer: no one. We all fall prey to the viscious cycle of society.
Wednesday, November 6, 2013
Crime Made Easy
The Internet. A learning tool, a cultural experience, and... a gateway for crime? The Internet makes so many great things easily available, but along with that it makes crime easier and more effective, with less of a risk factor.
Anything that is digital is free and accessible to someone somewhere. Whether or not it's really free or even available to the public doesn't matter - it's available to internet criminals. I mean we're all technically internet criminals, because we've all probably downloaded or viewed an illegal file, however, in this sense I mean hackers. It;s not like in WarGames where some kid accidentally finds himself logged into a military database, it's very real and very intentional. Said hacker will probably not infiltrate something like a military database, they'll go for some kind of entertainment, and either leak it or make it free. Woah, that's illegal! You're darn skippy. However, when you steal and pirate something n the internet it's more convenient and much harder to find you than in real life.
Easier - databases and firewalls are all relatively similar. All it takes is a good hacker to tap into numerous amounts of businesses and accounts.
More Effective - there's no third party. There's no bystanders or physical barriers. Just the criminal and the victim. Also, there's no need to set up getaway vehicle or purchase a ski mask. You could rob thousands with the click of a button, sitting on your couch.
Less Risk- there's no weapon. It's robbery, but it's always unarmed. There's no shooting the cashier or clumsy dude in your way, so no death penalty.
With technology advancing and piracy increasing, I'm sure more laws and harsher penalties will be putt in place. But then again how do you arrest a criminal, if there;s no way to know who they are?
Anything that is digital is free and accessible to someone somewhere. Whether or not it's really free or even available to the public doesn't matter - it's available to internet criminals. I mean we're all technically internet criminals, because we've all probably downloaded or viewed an illegal file, however, in this sense I mean hackers. It;s not like in WarGames where some kid accidentally finds himself logged into a military database, it's very real and very intentional. Said hacker will probably not infiltrate something like a military database, they'll go for some kind of entertainment, and either leak it or make it free. Woah, that's illegal! You're darn skippy. However, when you steal and pirate something n the internet it's more convenient and much harder to find you than in real life.
Easier - databases and firewalls are all relatively similar. All it takes is a good hacker to tap into numerous amounts of businesses and accounts.
More Effective - there's no third party. There's no bystanders or physical barriers. Just the criminal and the victim. Also, there's no need to set up getaway vehicle or purchase a ski mask. You could rob thousands with the click of a button, sitting on your couch.
Less Risk- there's no weapon. It's robbery, but it's always unarmed. There's no shooting the cashier or clumsy dude in your way, so no death penalty.
With technology advancing and piracy increasing, I'm sure more laws and harsher penalties will be putt in place. But then again how do you arrest a criminal, if there;s no way to know who they are?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)