Tuesday, June 3, 2014

Blog #9 That Satire Crap

Talking about satire, I didn't really understand it at first. I am a heavy sarcasm user, and I usually pick up on it right away, but I just didn't get satire when we first looked into it. Wanting to understand it, I looked into it, watched videos, and got it. And in the process learned I loved it. I understand sarcasm better than anything and when news is in the form of sarcasm, I actually can comprehend it and relate to it. 
If I had it my way, I would have all the news I watch be satire. All of the media outlets. Except, of course, the serious, dangerous news that we need to hear and take seriously. 
Scratch that. 90% of me would love to have satire as our news, but the other 10% think it could be a disaster. Because, we have people like Jon Stewart, who just shit on TV shows. People like that, I feel would take it too far sometimes, and it could most definitely get out of hand. People would take things too seriously, and get offended at little things. Especially those people that just don't understand sarcasm. 
One of the questions you asked us to think about, is "good news" being produced that doesn't actually matter, is a no brainer for me. I hardly ever even watch the news because the news, to me, is so pointless. All you hear about on the news is bad things happening. Something went wrong in politics, another earth quake down on the coast, more people killed in a mass murder, etc. To me, that is not good news, and it doesn't matter to me. It's horrible that those things are happening, but I don't need to know about them. 
One other thing I don't really like about satire is people can be idiots and take it to far. It isn't even satire to them, it's just really harsh words that they think is satire, but really it's just plain mean. 
When Satire can be used in good ways and bad ways. I think it would be a great thing to use, if everyone knew how to use it. But, sadly, we have those people in the world that will take it too far, or get offended by the stupid stuff. 

#YesAllWomen - Blog #10

#YesAllWomen
Trending in twitter now, something that can be very controversial and can confuse a lot of people. Especially me.
Looking at tweets, and blogs, and articles, the conclusion I've come to, is #YesAllWomen is women speaking up on social media voicing their opinion on how women shouldn't have to feel uncomfortable around men like they do.
When you hear the word "rape" what do you think of? I bet it's not a girl forcing a boy to have sex with her.
When you're walking down the street, do you see a girl checking out a boy and slapping his butt? No.
I'm not saying this is always the case. One of the things I really don't like about #YesAllWomen is that they place all men under the category of creep. Whether is be a rapist or just a guy slapping a girls butt, they are saying every boy is a pig and every boy should be punished.
So, one side of this I agree with. Women are taught to dress modestly, carry pepper spray with us when we go to the cities, and take defense classes, but men aren't taught to not look at girls that way. They aren't taught to treat us with respect, and that we aren't just figures.
On the other hand, not ALL men are evil. There are good men in the world, so why are they putting all men under this category?
I found this article, and it really put the subject in perspective for me. It makes a lot of sense, and even though we don't like admitting it, especailly boys, I feel it is true.


My questions for you:
How do you feel about this subject?
Do you think women should have the right to use #YesAllWomen against all men?
Do you think men (not all men) are to blame for girls feeling unsafe or uncomfortable in public?
Do you think we need to educate men more on respecting girls and controlling their hormones instead of teaching girls how to run away and be safe from men?






Friday, May 16, 2014

Blog #8 My reality

I'm gonna be honest here, this past week I've barely understood what we've been talking about. Media ownership and all it's assets and rules and definitions really confuses me. Media ownership, as I understand, is basically where less people control mass media, because the big companies do. I think.
Even though digital media has taken over traditional print almost completely, I believe it still serves a purpose. I know my family and I don't use it much, but my grandparents still use the newspaper as their main news source, besides the news on TV. They're old, they don't know how to work all this new technology, and I'm guessing neither do a lot of old people. 
When we had our discussion about media ownership, and how on sites like Facebook, people can analyze your profile and determine a lot about you just from your likes, or your pictures, or even your friends likes, personally, I don't really know how I feel about it. Yes, it's creepy, and yes it's a violation of privacy, but has it ever directly affected me? No. Never have I actually been concerned about it, until we talked about it and I got weirded out. 
One of the questions you asked us to think about is What's the job of a reader in the digital age? and I don't think reader's have ever had a "job". But, in this time period, the way that we get things around is through sharing, and re-posting, and liking, tweeting, favoriting, you name it. That's the way we get things around and how we share them with other people, and get them popular. 

Friday, April 25, 2014

Blog #7 Where do we get our news from?

This past week, every one of us has been assigned to a certain news source. I picked yahoo.com. Yahoo isn't a very elaborate news source. They do cover certain news, and a most of it is stuff they would cover on an actual news site, but they had a lot of gossip sections, and celebrity news. I would say the purpose for yahoo isn't really to inform readers, like WCCO  or KARE11 would, but mostly for entertainment. For readers to go to the site, and if they wanna read the important news, they can, or they have the option of reading the other, not so newsy, stories and catch up on their gossip. 
With all this talk of news this week, and all of the discussions we've had, I believe that the point of news can't have one definition. There are so many different types of news out there, and they all have different purposes. For example, my generation is very big on twitter, instagram, etc., and those can be considered news sources. They provide information, like a newspaper, but in a different way and to a different audience. The StarTribune, on the other hand, provides news, but to a different audience. All of this news is important, but in different ways to different people. 
I don't really have a solid, I'm gonna object to your opinion because I believe so strongly in mine, opinion. News is news, whether or not you want to look at it or not. I feel taht it IS possible to live without it, despite what people say. 
Throughout my years, watching and reading different news, I've noticed that a lot of news is sad news. Natural disasters, murders, deaths, and so forth. You asked us to consider this question in our bog, why news is so depressing, and the only conclusion I can think of is pretty dark. I think that we, as a human race, had an option to hear about good things or bad, we would choose the bad. For some reason we like hearing about the bad things that happen. I don't know if this is true, or if it's just completely far off from what the actual reason is, but it's just an idea. I know that if it involved our school, I would rather read about a teacher getting fired for doing something promiscuous then a group of kids doing good for the community. 
in my opinion, I really don't think news benefits us all that much. I bring up this point a lot, but at one point, we DID get a long without news. We got by without twitter, and the newspaper, and the celebrity gossip shows. 
News, overall, can be a good thing, but it can also be a bad thing. It depends on how you use it, and what for. I believe that I can get a long just fine without it.  

Monday, April 14, 2014

Blog #6 Design

Before


After

While working on this project, I clearly learned quite a few things. This was my first time working with indesign, so it took me a while to get used to it, but after playing around with things I got the hang of it. The biggest difference I see in the before and after is my alignment, and contrasting things. I learned how to make things fit together and look right, and how contrast works into design. Whenever I looked at a magazine I never really thought about all the work that goes into designing and making it. 

Design elements in a magazine affect a reader's experience immensely I think. Personally, I look for magazines that stand out, catch my eye and make you look at it. As much as I hate to say it, a lot of people these days don't care about what's in the article, they care about how the article looks, and how it's put together. Like we discussed earlier this week, the difference between a good and bad article determines whether or not a person reads the article. Now that I've experienced working with design and learned what really goes together and what really doesn't, I look at design much differently. I don't look just at the pretty colors and fonts that have the little curly on the end, but at how things work together and contrast and how they align. This project has really changed my perspective on design and I definitely got a lot out of it. 


Friday, March 14, 2014

Blog #5- A Good Story of Injuries




*For part 2, start at 1:57 




These are the pictures of the dents in my dad's legs; top two are from the car pinning him, third one is from bike accident. 







Tuesday, March 4, 2014

Blog #4 Choice

When it comes to journalism, there are endless choices. As a reader, you have the choice of how you get your news, what news you read, when you read it and where. As a journalist, you have the option of how you report on news, whether or not you include a picture, what the picture's going to be, if you want the story to be opinionated or not, and many many more choices. Overall, journalism comes with choices, and you make those choices. 
In Barry Schwartz's talkhe was saying that too many choices lead to paralysis. If you have too many choices, you just won't pick any of them because you have too many to choose from, and you don't want to make the wrong decision. This can apply to journalism in certain cases. Having the choice to decide what you read when you read it is a good thing for most people. On the other hand, how you get your news these days is a choice most people don't like to make. Newspapers, online, mobile apps; there are so many options, and people don't want to choose the wrong option, because what if one of the other options is better? 
These days, people can customize everything about the news they receive. They decide what stories they read, where they get their news from, and when they read it. This can be a good thing because more people are reading the news, because it's what they want to read, but at what point does this turn into a bad thing? I feel that it really wouldn't be a bad thing. There are so many different opinions and personalities in the world, and people have such different taste, that'd it would be very rare that a certain story doesn't get much attention. Giving the option to people to read what they want is a good thing because not everyone is going to want to read the same thing. 
In my opinion, I don't think that there are things people need to know. Once upon a time, we lived without news. We were okay without the daily gossip, and the morning news telling us we have a storm coming. Yes, it was probably not easy to live like that, things most certainly weren't as simple, but we survived. I feel that if someone doesn't want to listen to something that people are saying is a "necessity" to know, that's okay. It's their choice. 
The "paradox of choice" has been brought up a lot this week, and how we've talked about it is if too many options are presented to us, it repels us. While we call it "feeling overwhelmed by our choices," economists are calling it "complete hogwash". In this article, they talk about how if the paradox of choice were real, why does Starbucks promote their 80,000+ drink combinations, and why do supermarkets offer so many varieties of cheese? These companies took a look at choice and learned that less isn't always more, more is more. 
I completely agree with the article, in that if you give people more options, you're going to get more people. Give them more to choose from, and you get more buyers. If Starbucks only offered a caramel frappe, and they only offered one size, people would get bored. They would find somewhere else to go that had more options, because not everyone wants a caramel frappe. 
The same applies to news. If you give people one way of receiving news, not everyone is going to want that option. People have different preferences and having limited options isn't going to satisfy their needs.