My Responce to Journalism and Freedom....according to Rupert Murdoch

In response to the article posted in the Wall Street Journal by Rupert Murdoch titled: Journalism and Freedom, I’d have to disagree entirely with his main concept.

Murdoch’s article is about disagreeing with common views that find many news enterprises are shutting down or scaling back due to the digital era, and believes that it will only prosper.

Stating a good fact he explains that the journalism world is solely founded on the trust that the reporters and news organizations relay to inform us on the truth of what’s really going on in the world. However, his idea goes on to explain that the news agencies will greatly benefit from this, and that technology should not be blamed for those who could not succeed with this route.

He discusses the issue of trust in journalism…and for me I trust more of what I see in print than what I do online. Not to go bashing on the internet here, but it’s more often you’ll find websites out there with false fabricated information. For example, Wikipedia is famous for the amount of research information it provides, however it’s not 100% reliable when you can go in and edit the websites and information. Not only that but with the number of computer hackers out there…if to go along with this “new business model” Murdoch proposes…who’s to say people won’t want to try and find a way around his method of profiting for news on the web?

Another point he discusses – that “ Today news consumers do not want to be chained to a box in their homes or offices to get their favorite news and entertainment – and our plan includes the needs of the next wave of TV viewing by going mobile.” As convenient as that would be for personal use, older generations are not always going to want to have just rely on their cell phones and blackberries to hear the news.

Especially those of elderly people…small screens with text might be fine for us younger generations, but it won’t be like that forever.
Going back to this “new business model” I agree with the critics who believe that people won’t pay for internet news sites. Why should people have to pay to read the news online when it costs them 50 cents at a gas station or when they could just they listen to the news on the radio for free?

Now, as for the freedom for point he discusses...this confused me a bit as to how the founding fathers relate to truth in new forms of journalism. If the idea is to promote that the Internet will not be the end of reliable and trustworthy journalism, wouldn’t the writers and publishers be the real concern of our problems?

As Murdoch points out that a lot of times many news organizations tend to just play follow the leader and rewrite another version of the same story rather than just attributing it to the credible source. …and with this point I do agree, but not only does this happen with internet news, but in every media outlet – radio, TV.

Not that I don't believe that technology will make an even more bigger impact on news organizations in the future..but if we can’t always attribute credible news in those outlets, why would it be better for us to then solely only rely on Internet journalism?

Oh those THRILLER nights...

For all you Halloween fans out there be sure to checkout the podcast Sarah and I produced for class...just keep in mind we submitted this in late October for that upcoming holiday.




http://cid-f0a134bfacca6473.skydrive.live.com/self.aspx/Podcasts2009/Greco%5E_Schaffstall1%20podcast.mp3

How are enterprises using Twitter and/or other social media sites to draw in more customers?

Enterprises like Twitter and facebook draw in more customers by displaying advertisements to their audience on a more personal non-ad look basis.

Facebook uses fan pages, which allows people to identify themselves with that particular brand. When signed into your facebook account on the right hand side you see little boxes of things like sports teams, or ideas, or products that you and your friends can "like."

For example, when comparing if someone is an Adidas person or a Nike person. So by having a fan page on facebook, and stating you "like" it, the brand is able to pull in more customers because users are wanting to be branded as the type of person who wears that kind of shirt, sneaker, or whatever the brand is trying to sell. By having the fan sites, facebook also shows you what your friends are fans of. Therefore if showing you what the people you associate with associate themselves with, it might generate more attention to the product or brand in interesting you to "like" it or associate with it yourself.

Now sites like Twitter are a little bit different. Twitter lets the company interact with the individual so they fell more connected to what they're buying. It gives them a more personal connection to the customer, as they are able to advertise themselves to you directly by tweeting about their product or promotion.

For example a hotel may leave a comment about telling you to book a 2 night getaway for the low cost of x amount of dollars when you book it in the next two weeks. Therefore it gets you thinking about that vacation to your family or friend's house you've been trying to plan for the past month, and just haven't been able to think too much about the cost or when to do it.

Getting back to facebook for a minute...if you haven't noticed that besides the fan pages the advertisements you see when your logged into your own personal account...they are ads that are concerned with things that you state are in your hobbies and activities. This is a marketing technique that looks at your interests and complies directly with the brands you would potentially buy or have a general interest. This technique seems a little creepy because its going into your information, but its also very intelligent because it pinpoints your interests rather than showing you what your friends associate themselves with.

By using these more personal-like ads social media sites get a more emotional-like attachment to their potential customers, and are able to draw more people in.

Is technology becoming more personal or professional?

In MY opinion, I think that people these days rely too much on technology.

Don’t get me wrong, technology these days is great with how quick and easy you can access things like the internet, but are we taking it too far?

Over the past summer I landed a job in which I travel all over the state. My dad had bought himself and my brother a GPS for last Christmas, because they too travel a lot for work. During the summer I constantly had to keep borrowing my dad’s and my mom would get slightly annoyed, because a GPS isn’t always 100% reliable. I work at events such as festivals, fairs, and sporting events, and some of these fairs would be in Nowheresville, Pennsylvania.

When I would borrow the GPS it would take me on these random dirt roads, state parks, anywhere but main roads to achieve my destination. (Don’t get me wrong this didn’t happen all the time, but it did happen quite frequently) When I would tell my mom this, she would laugh at me and say this is why I gave you an atlas in case you ever get lost. Now I know how to read a map, but when I would carpool with my friends to work I noticed none of them had one.

When I asked my friends about this, they would say yeah I know to read a map, but when do I ever need it, when my GPS is in my glove box, and my boyfriend can MapQuest my destination at home if I get lost. As for my generation, we still resign in that transition of being able to do things the old fashioned way, and using the technology that’s right at our finger tips. In these cases, technology tends to win.

A few days ago I was discussing this matter with a fellow student, and we were discussing about how long we sit in front of a computer every day. Clearly being a college student and in the Comm. /Journ. major its obviously pretty necessary how often we need to use a computer; but we joked about how much our homework is specifically directed at using our laptops. Our brains our constantly looking at screens, and when we used to use the computer for downtime, we talked about how much we’d rather just read a book or take a nap, because we’re sick of looking at a screen.

Of course technology is beneficial to us on many levels, such as for school, jobs, networking, and keeping in contact with friends and family, but it appears to sometimes to get over-excessive. I personally will dread the day when it comes to just reading full books on a tiny hand-held screen. I feel as if I just look at a computer all day long. When I go to my French class, it’s almost weird as to how much I’m dependant on that book alone, but when I’m in my media classes, I’m almost always only looking at a screen.

If we become so reliant on technology now, what will happen to our future generations? Studies about kids and the increase in obesity blame technology and that we allow them to just stay inside and play video games or watch TV. I’m not trying to justify that constant use of technology is a bad thing, because it does have its good qualities when listening to the news or weather reports. Yet the concept of Twitter still comes to my mind.

I don’t know all that much about Twitter, but I do know that it is constant updates of somebody’s status. I personally don’t always want to know what someone is thinking every five minutes. When the whole issue of the Kanye West and Taylor Swift VMA’s debacle came about, signing onto Facebook alone everybody had something to say about it. When events like this happen, it gets me to question, how far is this going to go?

At Its core, the job of the [working] journalist [today] is unchanged.

I would have to agree with this statement. Granted that technology has changed a lot of views as to how we need to approach the media, the fact remains that when a story is out there, the journalist is the one to find it and report it to the public. Finding stories is a maneuver that is both difficult to the human ear, and sometimes plainly obvious. Nevertheless truths are out there to be told and the working journalist isn’t going to rest until he or she has presented them to the public.
Journalists take on the pursuit of letting the public know what’s going on in the world. They not only put themselves at the risk of their lives to report such harsh stories of wars, money-laundering, and scandals. They are the gatekeepers that provide us the information that we use to get by with everyday. Every morning my parents would turn on the news before my brother and I left for school, and on Sundays they would read the newspaper at the breakfast table, discussing the stories in them. Whether it’s a story about federal taxes, an obituary of a local mailman, or the town festival that is going on next week, news is news, and someone is there to tell us.
As journalists make the efforts to keep the public well informed without tending to be bias, we’ve seen, bias still sometimes takes a toll. Regardless, the facts in the story is what we the people depend on when it comes to finding out the results of things such as whether or not OJ Simpson really did or did not kill his wife, and is he being convicted for the crime. Now is the core of a journalist’s occupation to understand the truth, or merely report the facts? I believe both, that it’s important to understand the facts of the case, and why they are significant.
Journalists do not just create stories for our amusement, but to notify the public what the media deems is essential to know. Given that all stories may not be as attractive as the next, or as detailed, it is how we perceive them to be relevant, and the impact they leave on us that makes them so important. The town creeper who breaks into female off-campus houses, and watches them sleep, is a great example of this. This story is not intentionally meant to scare people, but to show them what they need to be watching out for, and how to take precautionary action. Thus being able to relate to the journalists story is what makes them connect with their audience.
The point of this assignment is to defend whether or not the occupation for working journalists has changed or not. As previously mentioned, I agree that it has not changed, and that it will not change. There will always be a story to tell, and there will be many different ways to research it, write it, and report it; however the fact remains that it is the job of a journalist to expose it.

How has journalism and mass communication changed over the past decade?

Over the past decade mass communication has expanded exponentially. I remember back when I was in 7th/8th grade the Internet was becoming real popular, real fast. I would only use it to chat with my friends on AIM, and send e-mail to friends and family. Ha I can still remember the old AOL dial-up connection noises my computer would make as I would sign online. Now everything is about wireless connection, and AOL's popularity got drowned out by other companies such as Comcast, Yahoo!, and Verizon FiOs.

On the subject of wireless, cell phones have now become a common necessity for most people. I remember I didn't get my first cell phone until I was in 9th grade, and it was one of those $10 Nextel phones that was half cell phone, and half walkie-talkie with basic texting capabilities. These days everyone carries around blackberries or iPhones, or some type of cell that consists of a built-in camera, unlimited texting, and web access to check their e-mails, facebook, and even mapquest directions. As for the journalism aspect, since everything is technological these days and the Internet is a main source of news and information, we need to keep ourselves informed as to how to write correctly for media outlets like the Internet, radio, and television.