"Ray Rice", It's Not Alright (Critique of Media's Handling of Ray Rice Domestic Violence Incident)

A major story that is currently being reported by the media is the video of Ray Rice hitting his wife in an elevator. Although what Ray Rice did is reprehensible, there are multiple things wrong with how the press handled this story. Not only did they fail as journalists to get all sides of the story, they also made this specific story “Featured” or “Front Page” while articles about ISIS seemed far more life-threatening and only received a mention. The media has failed to uphold multiple of the journalistic standards and violated some of the yardsticks.

Abuse definitely is an important topic in today’s society. It is estimated that there are 960,000 cases of domestic abuse every year (http://www.statisticbrain.com/domestic-violence-abuse-stats/) . That hardly ever gets in the news, but Ray Rice does. The media is not focusing on the big picture of domestic abuse, instead they are focusing on the Ray Rice event. This is an example of how the media is violating one of the yardsticks, explanation. The Ray Rice instance is only one case out of hundreds of thousands. Why is the media so focused on this case though? It seems like an instance where they are focusing on keeping the interesting important instead of vice versa. The only reason that they are so focused on this case is because it involves a successful professional football player. The media turns those on TV into superstars, even for bad reasons. The media is keeping the interesting important by doing this. Many websites like CNN and Fox had this as their featured story instead of the growing threat of ISIS.

As Journalists, it is not right to silence a person who has involvement in a case, no matter who this person might be. In the case of Ray Rice, although he should not have been punching a woman, no one reported his side of the story. The yardstick that they are violating here is fairness. There were no statements from him. No one seemed to bring up the fact that he is in a player’s union and has certain rights to be heard before he is fired. The NFL seemed to arbitrarily react by suspending him for 2 days. Then, because of media attention, they fired him without hearing his side. The media is not reporting on how the NFL is violating his rights by doing this. They only are getting information from one side and are therefore not reporting fairly. The media is also not following the journalistic principle of inclusion. They seem to be inflating this event to rile up more veiws, delibirately they are not including information about Ray Rice’s circumstances.

The media as a whole has not covered this issue thoroughly. Their sensationalizing tactics do not meet standards of the journalistic principles. Part of this is that they are not being fair and also blowing this one incident way out of proportion. Those reporting on this need to remember that they need to keep the important interesting instead of the interesting important.

Why Laurie's Blog Is #Fab

If you guys haven't checked out her blog already, Laurie's blog (http://www.dreaminreality14.blogspot.com/) is definitely one of the best out there? Why? Because her writing style definitely keeps the reader interested. Here's a couple of examples:
      "Did you know that when magazines were first made they were NOT made for invading
            celebrities personal lives..." (Talking about magazines)
      "It was like getting those new Jordans that just came out (#NewKicks), Right?" (On the
            popularity of newspapers)
      "...it's like one of those things that never change like Yin and Yang or Good and Evil" (Relating  
            the hot and cold binary model)
And there's a whole lot more than this, it kept me interested. In many of her analogies, she doesn't sacrifice comprehension for her style, which is definitely a good point. She stands out from many other blogs who just talk about things, she actually seems to be directly talking to her audience. (Also, dating the day we learned that lesson is a nice touch too.)

Roses Are Red, Ink Is Blue, Check Out This Blog, I Would if I was You!

Kaeyln's blog, The Blue Ink Blog (http://www.bluerthanink.blogspot.com/), is definitely one of the most detailed blogs I've ever read. In one of her articles, "Those Glossy Pages", she talks about things I don't remember hearing from class. She's definitely a great source to study information from, she seems to say it all! Another thing that I liked about her article was that it was easy to read and despite all the information in there, I didn't get bored. It also didn't seem like she used longer words when it wasn't necessary.

Check out more stuff by her here: http://www.bluerthanink.blogspot.com/

Let's Compare Newspapers, Books, and Magazines.

These last couple of weeks in Journalism 1 class we've mostly spent focusing on physical forms of communication. These things are: Books, Newspapers, and Magazines. I thought that it would be a smart idea to get all the points across on how these things are different.

HISTORY
I'll take the easiest thing out first. Compared to all the other things, books are the oldest thing on the list. Before the Renaissance, they were a source of power because only the wealthy could read. This meant that tax collectors could lie about who was on record for paying and get a second payment. Newspapers trace back to 59 B.C.E. when the Romans had a publication which they would carve into stone to get the news out. The First American Newspaper was called Publick Occurrences and closed down after one issue. The magazine was invented far later than the other two. Magazines were invented in 1741 by the founding father that invents everything, Benjamin Franklin. Back then, magazines had something in there for everyone, so, advertisers wanted to advertise in it.

CONTENT
Newspapers were invented to get the news out quickly to the people, they weren't meant to last that long. That's the reason why they're printed on such cheap paper, the news in newspapers won't be as relevant in a week. Newspapers mostly report on global news and politics. Magazines, compared to newspapers, are meant to last a little bit longer. Many magazines are filled with colored pictures, celebrity news, and long-term journalism. (Usually about a politician). A book will last long than a magazine, but they also don't have as many pictures. Books come in multiple different genres like nonfiction and sci-fi to make it easier for the consumer to figure out what they want to read. Newspapers and some magazines only do that a little bit, not as much as books.

EFFECT ON THE WORLD
Thanks to Zenger, today's newspapers allow us to see what's truthfully going on in politics. Many people rely on newspapers for their source of news. Also, without newspapers, earlier advertisers wouldn't be able to get their products out. The same thing would happen if there were no magazines in the world. Magazines caused a huge boom in advertising because they reached everyone. Now, magazines are separated into tinier categories for different types of people. You can see what groups of people each magazine is for based on what advertisements are in it. Books don't really have advertising, but they give us records of what happened before newspaper. It shows us what people of the past liked to read and some books gave us an idea of what life was like back then.

Magazines Are Great, But What Happened to Them?

Back when I was 7 I thought that magazines were icky. The only time that one had kept me entertained was on those horrible plane rides where my DS died and I had nothing to do. However, like many 7 year olds, I was wrong. Magazines really aren't all that icky, they're actually really great. If magazine's had never been invented, I probably wouldn't even have a DS. Magazines let advertisers reach a mass audience. So, if we lived in a world with no magazines, advertising a product would only happen locally. Until TV, only huge mega-companies would be able to reach an audience. What I'm trying to say here is that without magazines, our economy and progress in the world probably wouldn't be as large as it is today.

Magazines opened the way for things like photojournalism and celebrity news, keeping many people in the 1800's entertained. 200 years later, they nearly ever show up. The only magazine I've actually been subscribed to was those kids puzzle magazines, so what happened? As soon as radio showed up, it was like magazines took a stab to the heart. Many magazines shut down. The business demassified from a medium which could fit everyone into different sub groups. Now, there are less than a handful of magazines which are truly for everyone.

Worrying Issue of Net Neutrality

A while ago, we discussed Net Neutrality in our journalism class.  I’ll be honest, I had never really heard of the issue until we talked about it in class. Since then, I’ve seen it pop up everywhere. (Tomorrow is actually the day that courts the will reach a verdict on whether or not they will allow these internet “Fast and Slow Lanes.”) For people who don’t know what net neutrality is, here’s an explanation accompanied by a beautiful illustration drawn by myself.

Many people call the state which our current internet is in “open internet”, where the internet is free, publicly available, and can be built upon by anyone with a connection. However, those against net neutrality want to change the internet so that major providers such as Comcast and Time Warner Cable control at what speeds different websites go. Two things will happen if they’re able to do this.

A.) They will makes tons of profits. The websites who want their load times to be faster will need to pay a fee which will, most likely, only be a possibility to larger websites like Youtube or Google.

B.) Internet Providers will choose what goes on the internet and what doesn’t. Doing this is a bad idea because then where will those unable to pay the premium go to speak their voice? No one will want to stay on their website because load times are so slow.

How this affects you is that those small websites that can’t afford to pay the large premium will have far slower load times than larger websites. So, if you’re not rich and wanted to start a websites, you probably couldn’t because you would never be able to pay the premium. Since you can’t pay the premium, people who want to see your site will leave due to the longer wait times. This takes away from the “public and can be built upon” part of the internet. Think about 50 years from now if there was no net neutrality. We would all be stuck with the same websites. Load times on larger websites would be the only thing that people could stand, so money from advertisements would only go to larger websites. Advertisers probably wouldn't even bother with websites that hadn't paid the premium. Larger websites now are the only companies able to pay the premium. No one else can join this system without having enough to pay first.

Binary Models and "The Great White Sharks" of Business

Binary Models and Monopolies
Today in Journalism class, we talked about the different binary models. There are 4 different kinds of binary models:

• Hot (Requiring lots of focus) and cold (Requires less focus, so you can probably do something in the background)
• Elitist ( Focuses on internalization of a concept and mostly gets money through donations or government grants) and populist (Focused on being popular and usually use advertising and direct sales)
• Content creators (Make content) and Content distributors (Distribute content)
• Then there's Information and Entertainers. (These are not displayed, but this binary model is just the difference between companies like National Geographic and Disney)

Here's a picture I made in MS paint to make things easier:

A

Many content distributors are starting to make their own content and vice versa. For example: Netflix, a content provider, has started to make shows like Orange is the New Black or House of Cards. This means that Netflix won't have to go through the process that a regular content provider will have to take. That allows them to put it on their website so that anyone can watch it without as much of a hassle. (Or costing as much money) This is a kind of vertical monopoly. Another kind of monopoly is a horizontal which makes it so that everyone has to come to a certain company to get one step of a process done.

The Great White Sharks
Mr. Miller used an analogy saying that many of the big companies (like Google or Disney) are like great white sharks. Google, a great white shark, might buy a company just starting out because they feel like it's threatening their business. However, Google would never buy Disney, or, how Mr. Miller explained it, eat their own kind. A process like this causes conglomeration, when companies come together in a one huge clump by absorbing the little things that pop up.