CLASSMATE'S BLOG RESPONSE: David Camm Is My Favourite And I Love Him

Jamie D'Amato recently posted a critique of WHAS's extensive coverage of the David Camm trial. It was a good critique in my opinion because it, unlike other blog's "I Hate David Camm" posts, this one actually listed other news that WHAS could've reported on on their program. This helps her argument of newsworthiness. I mean, some stations have slow news days and play filler stories. But Camm was not an exception, and Jamie does a good job showing that. Thank you.

CLASSMATE'S BLOG RESPONSE: Crime On The Internet

Harper Carlton recently posted a very good response to the class discussion about internet. I enjoyed the fact that she focused on the internet's effect on crime over Internet's any other effects. I agree with her points for the most part. Yes, pirating on the internet is becoming more common. Yes, hackers are also becoming more common. But the anonymous part? Wellllll....

For the most part, the internet is anonymous. Except it's not. While an amateur computer user would not be able to find your identity, it's completely possible for criminals to be found. IP addresses can be traced, firewalls can be broken-- no amount of code can keep police out forever. Considering how thinly layered most people are with covering up their illegal activities online, it's actually easy to find out a criminal's identity.

The thing is, though, people for the most part don't get arrested for piracy. The pirate's database of videos and music is so enormous I don't think the police even try to catch everyone who streams or downloads illegally uploaded content. I mean, come on, who hasn't downloaded music without paying for it? Times are a'changing, and today's people don't care about consequences because there aren't really any enforced ones. Now, if you get caught doing another crime or something, when the police check your computer you could get arrested, but otherwise, they don't seem to care.

I, for one, would not like stricter piracy laws. Such laws have tried to pass,, and they would make fanfiction and fanart even illegal. Terrible thoughts. And no Supernatural livestreams? I would die. But I digress.

CLASS RESPONSE: Radio Was The First

Radio has a much larger impact on today's broadcast journalism than people acknowledge. It was invented by Tesla in 1892, and became popular around 1923. (I feel bad for inventors. They never seem to see their inventions get popular.) 

Radios were unique to the fact they were the first live news medium. That means that "breaking news" could be reported right after it happened. Radios also followed magazines' lead by having something for everybody in their content. Radio shows would feature readings of stories for kids and adults, news, radio dramas, and much more all in one show.

Radios, however, were forced to demassify, as every other medium before television was forced to. Television drew away most of radio's "talent" to the appealing quality of having their images broadcasted along with their voices. Because of that, radio had to demassify to niche audiences to attract more talent. Radio talk shows and music stations became more popular, and now they're the dominant types of radio shows.

While I myself do not listen to the radio, I do understand its importance. Its live reporting and audio-only playback is still preferred by many people. My dad likes to listen to the radio (Conservative talk shows) while he's driving. It helps him learn about current events while making his daily commute, which is good. (Although, not his talk shows. They aren't good.)

CLASSMATE'S BLOG RESPONSE: The Courier-Journal Does Not Just Report For Louisville

Haley Kaelin recently posted a critique of a Courier-Journal story about a woman in Corydon, IN who died in a car crash in Harrison County. Haley used the argument that because she personally was not affected by the incident, it was not a newsworthy story.

She said that Indiana is far away from Louisville, and basically implied that the Courier-Journal should only write about events happening in Louisville. The thing is, Haley, the CJ says that they "serve ... Louisville and Southern Indiana communities." And Corydon is literally only 25.8 miles away from Louisville, so not "a ways away".

I'd also argue that this story could be newsworthy. Since the CJ is writing for Harrison County too, I can go ahead and speculate that at least someone cares about the details of the car crash. Family, friends, community members, etc. might've known Denise L. Meitzler and wanted the details. I mean, just looking at her obituary, lots of people will miss her. She was a mail carrier and met lots of people that way. So people definitely do care. Or maybe that street was shut down because of the crash. Who knows.

I guess what I'm trying to say is: Someone probably cares about this news. Just not you.

CLASSMATE'S BLOG RESPONSE: Good And Bad Advertisements

Jamie recently posted about the introduction activity we did in Journalism I yesterday.  I agree, PR and advertising should be very interesting to learn about.

Jamie said that the Head-On commercial was bad because it was annoying, but really, isn't that effective marketing? I mean, they got the message across, yes? Apply directly to the forehead. I'd say it was pretty good. I agreed with her about Dumb Ways To Die, however. It was a funny commercial that I could relate to. I mean, who hasn't dressed up as a moose during hunting season? (Looking at you, Jared Padalecki.)

On the worksheet, I had listed the worst advertisement as the 1990's McDonald's commercial Misha Collins starred in before he was famous. It is poor quality (obviously though) and doesn't really go with McDonald's business at all.



I said the best advertisement was the Amazon Kindle commercial where two people meet at a beach. There's a man and a woman on lawn chairs. The woman says, "My husband is getting me a drink," and the man replies, "So's mine." They look up at their husbands at the drink bar and wave. I like this commercial because it shows the gay man as completely normal, and when it shows the husbands, it is not said which one is gay and which is straight, which means there's no stereotypes enforced in it. It makes me smile, which is good.



Woo, commercials! I cannot wait to study them further.

CLASSMATE'S BLOG RESPONSE: "Hipster Style" Isn't The Only Popular Thing On The Internet

Brigid Stakelum recently made a blog post about the internet's effects on "popular culture". Her response had some good points but some of them kind of missed the target idea of the internet's affect.

Brigid made a clear distinction between what she identified as "underground" and "pop culture". She said that internet "blurr[ed] the line" between the two. But actually, internet didn't really confuse the two. The internet made it so that there was literally no distinction. There's no such thing as "underground culture" anymore-- anything can be shared at the click of a button, so anything can be found at the same click as well. So that kind of rules out that argument. Sorry Brigid.

Another thing is, if you know any "hipster", you will know that they do not try to avoid the mainstream, they swim up it and say "it's ironic". For example: Starbucks lattes, "liv[ing] while I'm young", long sweaters, and soft pop songs. "Oh, you've probably never heard of them," is a phrase associated with hipsters. But the thing is, someone has heard of the band they're referring to. It's literally impossible to be the sole audience of anything. Since everything is pop culture, the only way to avoid it is by lying about what is and isn't popular.

Also, Brigid, you said that anime is not a part of pop culture. I'd like to argue that, while it may not be what you consider pop culture in the 'States, it's majorly popular at its origin, Japan. And I'd go as far to say that anime is popular culture in the U.S. too. Many high schools (including Manual) have anime clubs. There's fandoms for it. I've drawn Hetalia fanart. Manga is available in bulk in our public libraries. If anime wasn't pop culture, this would not be so.

Your last point is a very good one, again: nothing is truly "underground". And, yeah, the "hipster" phase Americans are going through is VERY annoying. I had a lovely debate once with a store employee about which pop culture icon was worse-- mustaches or swag. In the end, it was a draw. People always come up with new stupid things to obsess over. The hipster phase is one. This too shall pass.

Except the doge meme. I will not regret the doge meme.

CLASS RESPONSE: Movies (And Why There Are Still A Thing)

Since the invention of the motion picture camera in 1888, innovations in movie-making have made "going to the movies" a regular activity for American consumers. But since the invention of other, easier and more accessible technologies, why do people still visit movie theaters?

The invention of television made movie theaters demassify and become less popular. Since movies could be shown on television at a lower cost to the viewer and from the comfort of their own home, many people believed there was no point in visiting movie theaters. I myself have often had to watch movies at home due to lack of funds to go to movie theaters. But I still go to the movies. There's many reasons why.

• Movie theaters have what's known as an immersive experience. Unlike watching movies on TV, in a theater, there is loud, surround-sound audio. There's also the giant screen (and, if you wish, 3D). It's really dark so there's no glare on the screen (a blessing, trust me). And movie theaters, as a rule, are completely silent. So if you, like me, have problems getting your family quiet enough so you can hear/enjoy a movie, then movie theaters are a good option. Of course, if you, like me, also like to make commentary on the movie the whole time then perhaps you should not do the thing. Also, movie theaters have really good popcorn. Trust me on this.

• Movie theaters are also good for social interaction. Again, not by commentating on the movie, but because it's basically expected for you to go to the movies with someone. In fact, that's like 97% of the reason I go to see movies in theater. I saw The Hunger Games thrice in theaters: once with some of my friends, a second time with another group of friends, and a final time with my brother. And I'm planning on seeing The Day Of The Doctor in theaters at the one day showing. Pre-ordering tickets for that was a hassle, because by the time my dad finally ordered our tickets, there were only two showings available. And the showing I had planned to go to with Jamie was sold-out. (Which caused loud sobbing, etc. Now I have to see it with someone else.) I know Day Of The Doctor is premiering on TV two days before its theatrical release in Louisville, but the social aspect led me to need in my soul to go to the showing.

• Movies also have a cultural impact. People want to be the first to watch movies (i.e. midnight showings of Catching Fire, wink wink), and they want to be in the loop on what's popular. For example, if I do not watch a movie right after it premieres, you can bet spoilers and gifsets will already be all over my Tumblr dash. I would blacklist it, but I hate blacklisting things. So, I have to suffer through the Thor 2 gifs until I can finally see it.

These are the main reasons why movies are still around. And as long as new movies premiere, people will still see them. So long as there is Benedict Cumberbatch, so long as there's movie adaptions of books, so long as sci-fi and fantasy and superheroes exist, people will go to movie theaters.

CLASS RESPONSE: Internet Wins The World

The Internet was created in 1969, with the first message sent: LO. What started as a way to send and share information has become the myth-busting, world-saving, super-sharing mass media that changed all before it. Capable of starting revolutions, sparking unrest, and spreading information unlike any other media, Internet is unique because it immediately creates a public forum.

When you read something on the Internet, you can instantly type a reply. Or post a video reply, or a reaction .gif. No media before has allowed for this to happen. Actually, .gifs weren't even a thing until the Internet came along. The Internet opened the doors to new forms of interaction: interactive videos, interactive games, interactive articles. The Internet is like a big bear hug, uniting everyone through the wonder of interaction like radio, television, and magazines failed to. For example, social networks work harder than ever to bring people together.

The Internet also makes getting news faster. When something happens, it's immediately on your phone, on a million websites, on Tumblr with reaction .gifs and (at least) 10 blogs specifically dedicated to the event. (I wish this was an exaggeration.) Also, because of its size, basically nothing is censored. When you watch television, so much is hidden, so many stories cut out because of lack of time or just stupid censorship. The Internet helps educate, the Internet, glorious Internet, spreads this news. (This idea is the basis of the movie The Fifth Estate, which I totally did not see just because of Benedict Cumberbatch.)

Remember hearing about the Arab Spring? Many protests and such of this movement were planned through the Internet and social media. Look at the map. That alone can represent the sheer power of the 'Net movement.

The Internet is so powerful, all mass media before it had to move onto the Internet. Miss a radio show? It's online. Want to catch the news? Online. Movies? Online. TV shows? Online. Even online shopping and banking is a thing now. The Internet holds all other media in its hand, and it laughs over its control and power over the others.

"Why should Internet get to stomp around like a giant while the rest of us try not to get smashed under his BIG FEET? Whats so great about Internet? Hmm? Television is just as smart as Internet. Television is just as cute as Internet. People totally like Television just as much as they like Internet. And when did it become okay for one mass media to be the boss of everybody? Huh? Because that's not what mass communication is about! WE SHOULD TOTALLY JUST STAB INTERNET!"

CLASSMATES' BLOGS RESPONSE: Let Me Teach You About Formatting and Reader's Engagement, Son

I know this does not fit the typical classmate's blog response criteria, but there's a reason. This response goes out to all of my classmates, as they embark on their long and tragic journey through internet blogging.

I've seen on a few different people's blogs some formatting issues. When you are making posts, remember that people will not read them on Blogger's drafting form. When you make decisions about font colour and highlighting in a post, it will show up on your blog that way. Copy-pasting text into your post? Make the highlighting transparent and the font colour the same of that you use on your blog. (Some examples of mistakes in this are Christopher Collina, Will Lake, etc.) Inconsistencies in font colours and highlights are distracting to the reader and create a blockade between their receiving of your information. Especially if you have a white highlight with white lettering, or white on a black background, etc.

Also, I don't know about my other classmates, but I am tired of seeing the same theme on every blog. Same colour schemes, same format, etc. I mean, I know I use the default base format, but I added a header and changed the colours and layout a lot. But to have the same right sidebar or the same white-on-black colour scheme is very boring if one is reading multiple blogs in a row. Be creative with your theme! It's the blogger's responsibility to make the theme engaging for the reader, and for it to reflect the writer as much as possible. Mine looks more serious, but mine is a more serious blog (mostly, except  for the occasional Swagenburg). Don't use default backgrounds, don't keep the sidebar the same (i.e. blog post archive, then "about me" with your picture and G+ account). It's boring. Honestly, I'd list examples, but it's basically everyone. (I pick on Jamie because I can.) Change it up! Get creative!

I know Blogger doesn't have much variation in themes. I know all the free themes suck. I know no one makes good, free themes for it. This is because no one uses it much. But there could at least be an attempt.

Tumblr. Now that website has some good themes, but I digress because we should definitely not try to tie school in with Tumblr.

Yeah, definitely not.

CLASSMATE'S BLOG RESPONSE: Television Did Not Create A "Gay Issue"

To quote John Green, "There's only a few things in this world that turn me into a Giant Squid of Anger."

Alyssa Durbin recently wrote about our class discussion of television and how it affected politics, social issues, etc. Her response was obviously well thought-out, and she hit many good points in her resummarization of the discussion. However, there was one part of her response that made me a little upset, and I would like to address it.

"I think it was interesting to learn about how TV caused social issues to become important and relevant. Before television, gay people did not publicize their stand on relationships. However, when people began to be gay on television, it became okay and accepted, although still critiqued. People could be more open with their feelings after seeing something being done by someone famous."

Alyssa says from the start of this paragraph that television makes social issues "become important and relevant." She then goes to list the "social issue" of homosexuality. Now, I'm not the Bearer of Mean Refutations here, but come on. The war on the LGBTQIA+ community was already important and relevant before television. Yes, television helped spread awareness, but there's much TV didn't tell people.

Do you remember learning about World War II? If so, you probably remember that the Nazis punished Jews. But what textbooks don't say and television documentaries don't tell you is that they also captured and punished homosexuals, as well. They were forced to wear pink triangles as a symbol of their "abnormality" and were treated no different than the rest of their prisoners. Gruesome, right? Still irrelevant or unimportant? Never.

Alyssa, you said that gay people did not publicize their stand on relationships before TV. However, that is simply not the case. The earliest known gay rights organization (the Society for Human Rights in Chicago) was formed in 1924. Television was invented in 1927.  While television was still diffusing and becoming a trend, the LGBTQIA+ movement was already well in the making. (A timeline for the major points of the movement is available here.)

Another point I'd like to make is that of your poor phrasing, Alyssa. You said "when people began to be gay on television." How does one "be gay"? Is there a cut-out notion. Must I be flamboyant and burst out singing? Must people kiss the same gender to pass the notion that they are, in fact, not straight? There were gays on television before. People have always been 1) gay and 2) on television. They just didn't publicize it, but you can bet that they WERE, in fact, gay. It is estimated that gay representation in media trickled in slowly around 1980. However, about 25% of the world's population is gay. One-fourth. Wow. So it's almost as if 25% of people starring in TV shows are gay, were gay, etc. Some people were always gay on television, there was not a "when" it started happening.

I agree that people felt more comfortable coming out when they realized that a bunch of celebrities weren't straight; that does ease the feeling of alienation, of course. But that's only logical. As the spread of information about the normalcy of this "social issue" increased, people felt safer to be themselves without fear of rejection or confusion.

Alyssa summed up her response with: "Social issues, such as the gay issue, also were affected by television and people's change of opinion." Again, poor phrasing. "The gay issue," as if it is an issue when, in fact, it is an issue of opinion and bigotry and not the fact that people are gay. Yes, it was affected by television, but more so by the part about "people's change of opinion". You could've expanded on this a lot, I feel, except that doesn't tie in to television that much. More so the internet, but I digress.

So, Alyssa, no offense, but the next time you write about (perceptibly) sensitive things like this, please don't use poor phrasing or say things that are not really true. Swagsexual, outtie.

MEDIA CRITIQUE: Making The Unimportant Interesting

One of the most basic principles of journalism is to “make the important interesting”. According to the Pew Research Journalism Project (journalism.org), significant stories must be made “interesting and relevant”. This basically means that important stuff should be the focus and trivial matters should not. One of the seven basic yardsticks of journalism (gradethenews.org)  is local relevance. This means that news stories played on a local news station should some how affect the inhabitants of the viewing area.

Crime is a big problem nowadays. It has the potential to shock and capture the interest of the community. It can influence many people’s daily decisions. But do we really need to spend that much time discussing it on our daily news?

These pie charts show the topics covered by four local news stations (WLKY, WHAS, WDRB, and WAVE) over the course of one month. The top chart shows the data recorded this year, and the bottom shows last year’s data. The largest slice of the pie in each chart, the constantly obnoxious piece, represents the amount of time our local news stations spend on crime. This year, crime took up 40.5% of all news stories aired, an increase from last year’s 28%.

Crime is important. Sometimes, crime cases can influence a large portion of our community. However, it should not be the most discussed matter on our local news stations.

On October 23rd and 24th, all the local news stations’ top stories were about the David Camm trial. While it was important to learn the verdict, considering the trial’s controversy on double jeopardy and related topics, that does not excuse the fact that, before the 24th, the Camm trial was featured in basically every segment. On WLKY, Camm stories were featured 8 times in the 10 30-minute segments watched for this study. But Camm was not the only overused crime story. Pawn shop shootings and pastors murdering took precedence over other important topics such as health, economy, social issues, things people need to know.

Citizens do not need to know about crimes unless they are directly related to the crime. It is just that news media has elevated the supposed importance of crime news to the point where everyone wants the scoop on crimes. It’s human nature; if a story is made to be interesting, people will assume it’s important.

Another thing to point out on the charts is that the celebrity fluff percentage has risen as well in a year, going from 6.1% to 8.3%. This is another example of how local news stations are becoming increasingly more populous with their content, airing what they think will capture people's interests.

This blatant negligence of one of the most important principles of journalism is a problem because it makes citizens more uninformed. If people believe that crime stories are important to them, they will watch the crime stories. If they feel like celebrity fluff is what's most important, they will pay more attention to that. Since news media has been recently reinventing what they consider important, locally relevant news, people have been spoonfed new ideas of what they need to know. Since news media is becoming more and more populous as television scrambles to reclaim money lost to the internet, they will report anything that gives them money. They’ve drilled the idea of what’s important into people’s heads just to collect their money from it.

This is unfortunate because many people still rely on the local news to get news they need to know. Not many families have a newspaper subscription anymore, so some people just catch the news on their TV before heading to work. If there’s only crime and fluff on the TV, important things will be missed out on.
Another unfortunate picking at the “local relevance” yardstick is the fact that this year, only 8.2% of news was government-related, down 2% from last year’s data. Last year was the presidential election, so that percentage makes sense. But the national government shut down when this data was being taken and yet, government was talked about less than celebrity fluff was.

No one really needs to know about celebrity lives, or about crimes on the other side of town. It’s just information fed to everyone with the impression of it being important. “David Camm Murder Trial Almost Ended!” was a top story. It was a useless reminder and it annoyed people who wanted actual, important news to no end.

In conclusion, local news stations are spending too much time stressing irrelevant matters in their newscasts, thus breaking the principle of  “make the important interesting” and the yardstick of  “local relevance”.

CLASSMATE'S BLOG RESPONSE: Why CNN Might Have Been Right

Sarah Schmidt recently posted her media critique, in which she had a few valid points, but also seemed to be a bit misled in her reasoning. The article is question, she said, is "completely irrelevant to the rest of the world". This, I would argue is not exactly the case with this article.

Sarah, you first mentioned that this took place in London, England. This was no doubt an implied question of "Why would CNN, an American news station, write about an event happening in England?" To refute this, I would like to make it clear that CNN is an international news service, as you can see by viewing the top bar of their website. There's CNN U.S., CNN International, CNN Mexico, and CNN Arabic. So their reporting of this is relevant in that sense. CNN's "about" page even says, quote: "The international edition of CNN.com is constantly updated to bring you the top news stories from around the world. It is produced by dedicated staff in London and Hong Kong, working with colleagues at CNN's world headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia, and with bureaus worldwide." Besides, you said it was one of CNN's top world stories. Not national stories.

You also pointed out that this story talked about an attempted robbery, and said "there is no way a wide audience was affected by this..." Well, to put this into perspective, yes, it was only "attempted", but they were still held at gunpoint. And Sarah said a wide audience could not be affected by this, but to be honest, if one of George W. Bush's children were held at gunpoint, I feel like a lot of Americans would like to know. You're not expected to want to know this information, because you are not the targeted audience, Sarah. English people, true Brits, are the target audience of this piece. Yes, "no one was hurt and nothing was stolen", but people still care for some inane reason. So it's newsworthy.

You also mentioned that this article was incomplete. This could be of many factors, some of which could be:

• This article was posted almost right after it happened (or at least after information was released about it to the public).
• The information was given to the writer by the government. They are experts at simplifying details to the max in order to stifle any political controversy. Of course it won't be detailed.

Finally, I don't mean to completely through your ideas under a bus, but this story could not be a human interest story. To quote Wikipedia: "In journalism, a human interest story is a ... story that discusses a person ... in an emotional way ... Human interest stories may be 'the story behind the story' about an event, organization, or otherwise faceless historical happening..." This story fits none of those molds.

So... sorry, Sarah, but I feel like CNN was in the right here.

CLASS RESPONSE: Magazines and the Good and Bad of Demassification

Magazines are both the most annoying things in the world and the most awesome things in the world. Magazines, often considered one of the most unreliable sources of gossip and celebrity glamour tips, didn't start off badly. Actually, they never were bad. Magazines, in fact, are what should be considered one of the great inventions of pioneering in journalism.

When we discussed magazines in class, Mr. Miller asked the class who first invented magazines. I whispered "I dunno, Benjamin Franklin?" jokingly under my breath to the other people sitting at my table. Then Mr. Miller announced "Ben Franklin," really loudly when no one raised their hand and I almost fell out of my chair. So, yes, in 1741, Benjamin Franklin published the first magazine, General Magazine. The popularity was astounding. Magazines only required one thing: literacy. In 1821, the Saturday Evening Post was published, and became an instant hit.

Magazines did a lot of things no other media did before. Due to the 1879 Postal Act, the cost of shipping was only $0.01 per pound, making it quickly become a national medium. Magazines also invented investigative reporting and personality profiles. Another big hit with magazines was photojournalism. Now, full-page spreads of pictures showed a story within themselves. Some magazines also published serialized fiction. The concept of a magazine was overall revolutionary!*

Magazines are also one of the prime examples of demassification in media. Now, you can find a magazine for literally anything. I saw a magazine in Kroger's the other day about how to raise chickens. And there are loads of sci-fi magazines, and cat magazines, and dog magazines. Or if you're not into that stuff, there's fashion magazines, and building magazines, and celebrity gossip magazines, and gardening magazines.So are you annoyed at those teenage girls who flip through magazines with makeup ads and barely-dressed girls on the cover to read about beauty tips? Not a problem! There are so many more magazines. You just have to find one you like. Personally, I prefer Doctor Who Magazine and Cat Fancy over any other magazines. This gives magazines a clear advantage over other news media formats. Magazines are far more specific to a certain topic than any other print media.

Overall, the invention of the magazine is one the media should be proud of. So thanks, Benjamin Franklin. OR SHOULD I SAY, Swaggamin Frankwin.

*(#RevolutionaryWarSwag)

CLASS RESPONSE: How Recordings Saved The World (And Still Do)

Mr. Miller talked the other day in class about recorded media, a subject which everyone in class seemed to relate closest to their hearts. I agree, music was a phenomenally important stepping stone in the bridging of communication gaps throughout history, and it still greatly impacts us today. But in order to fully appreciate the splendor of recorded media, one must think of the impact it shares, not only for us living today, but the impact it had before Edison invented the phonograph in 1877.

Before and during the 1800's, one popular way to spread information was through song. It was a catchier, and (supposedly) easier way to remember information. People would go from town to town, singing the news. But sometimes people would forget the lyrics, and they would spread a ripple of distortion in the information. Listening to someone's song for the news became unreliable.

So in 1877, Edison invented the phonograph. Thin metal cylinders would be incised by the phonograph to create recorded sound. However, the cylinders were very fragile, and irreplaceable. Which is why in 1887, Berliner invented the gramophone. The gramophone would incise ridges into large metal discs, which were easier to ship and distribute than the metal cylinders of the phonograph, and reproducible. The gramophone helped set the ground basics of today's CD's and audio recordings.

Why are recordings so important, anyways? Well, recorded media has significantly improved our culture, for one thing. Music now has a giant social influence, much more than it did back before the phonograph. It also bridges a generational gap. Now, people can listen to music from decades ago. They can listen to anything. The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, even Elvis. (I can dig Elvis.)

As the years pass, recorded audio has still been a significant factor in the spread of information and ideas. There's thousands of genres to choose from, and many ways to get music. Whether you like alternative rock, post-hardcore, or prefer a good, old-fashioned podcast, it just keeps getting simpler to obtain recorded media. Due to this, I know music and the recorded media industry is here to stay.

So thanks, Edison and Berliner. Or should I say, #Swagison and #YOLOner.

CLASSMATE'S BLOG RESPONSE: Conglomeration (And Why It Is Not Always Evil)

Earlier today, Kaylee Arnett wrote a nice, researched blog post on conglomeration. While the information she said was true, I believe that conglomeration is not, as she said, only [benefiting] the businesses...[so that] we don't get anything out of it".

Conglomeration is when a larger company absorbs smaller companies. It can cause job loss, less competition, and less diverse content. Conglomeration also is efficient and brings in more money. While conglomeration has its flaws, I do not believe that is the sole reason behind no variants in today's media.

Kaylee, you listed some nice information about the most popular movies of 2012, but the thing is, I think you over-generalized the whole "no original movies" thing. Yes, they are produced by the same sort of people, however, they are all very original, in my opinion. Lets review:

• Avengers-- Yes, the concept has been used before, and overused in the process, but I can honestly say this film was not disappointing. Joss Whedon, Robert Downey Jr., Tom Hiddleston, and Scarlett Johansson are just some of the main reasons I'd say this movie was a major success. They each brought something original to the table through their acting, which made the over-used concept of superheroes something amazing. The conglomeration could've killed this movie, but it did not at all. And I await Avengers 2. 
• Skyfall-- Actually, this one was kinda bad. But I don't think conglomeration caused the failure. I think what killed it was the over-usage of James Bond's character without variation from former films. 
• The Hobbit and The Hunger Games-- Just because it's based off a book does not make it bad. They were actually really good movies. 
• Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 2-- Can we not bring Twilight into this? Conglomeration doesn't have anything to do with the quality of it. The quality of the concept, I'm afraid, never existed. 

Now, to be perfectly honest, you crossed one of my personal lines when you talked about TV crime shows. Because I am writing this response after watching the much-awaited season 11 premiere of NCIS, and I can tell you, these TV shows are not conglomerated to the point where they're the same. The writings are completely different. The characters are unique, the crimes are based around real-life situations, and the storylines are so well-organized and well-written. My sister and I have been obsessed for about two years, and the show just gets better with age. If conglomeration had an effect on NCIS, it wasn't a bad one. I mean, sure, the other shows listed are similar, but NCIS is unique because it is different. There's much more emphasis on character development and storyline than other crime shows, and before you say it is just alike the other shows, I urge you to actually watch it.

To summarize, I feel that conglomeration is a problem sometimes, just not with some of the examples you named. I mean, to go so far as saying there "NO original movies" is a big accusation, because the bigger problem you're focusing on is something known as "bad writing", not "lack of originality".

CLASS RESPONSE: Why We Shouldn't Bury Newspapers Just Yet

Heading to a more recently discussed topic, for my second response, I will talk about newspapers, their decline, and how they are still (hopefully) going to survive.

Over the past few years, the number of regular subscriptions to newspapers have gone down by some significant percents, according to a report by the Project for Excellence in Journalism. As you can see in the above graph, the paid circulations have dropped at a steady amount since 1990,  save for the weekday morning circulation, which appears to have stayed relatively close, if not gotten higher than the amount of circulation in 1990. This is because of many reasons, such as:

• the spread of other forms of news outlets, such as through the internet, through broadcast journalism, through podcasts and radio, through social networking sites, through smartphone, etc.
• the rising cost of ink and paper to print newspapers on

Of course, these two reasons sound simple enough to control, but they are very big problems for the print journalism industry. The internet has alienated the idea of print journalism. Now, when people want to know the news, they can get texts sent to their phone about current events. No longer are the days when people searched through their newspapers to find information. Stories can be found at the click of the button, at the blink of an eye.

So what do newspapers have going for them?

• Newspapers have more diversified content than any other media outlet, as it reaches a wider and more diverse audience. (x)
• Newspapers are far more credible than any other media outlet, as anything published is guaranteed to be authentic and well-researched.(x)
• Newspapers are right there in front of you to save and keep with you to reference or to hang it on a wall or something.
• Newspapers are affordable, available to people for sometimes cheaper than a dollar, depending on where you get them.
  
• Newspapers do not need to be read in order. You can read stories out of sequence without losing comprehension.
• Newspapers are user-friendly--the only thing you need is literacy, not internet connection, a smartphone, a TV, etc.
• Newspapers further research their topics in order to present more facts to the reader because they have a larger space than other outlets.
• Newspapers are favoured by older individuals, because of their respect to traditional journalism.

So the final question is this: is this enough to save newspapers? Right now, we just have to wait and see. But for me, at least, I feel that newspapers aren't going anywhere for a while.