WLKY Media Critique

     After watching WLKY's content for a couple of weeks now, I have begun to conclude that there are many stories that target human interest or include celebrity fluff. Recently on the WLKY website, a story was posted that did not regard the 10 elements and 7 yardsticks of journalism. The story titled "Woman announces pregnancy with a little help from Paul McCartney." An Indiana woman who wanted to creatively announce her pregnancy. She convinced her number 1 idol, Paul McCartney to announce that she was pregnant for her. The story is heartwarming but it is absolutely not newsworthy which violates the 1st yardstick of journalism. This story does not have a long lasting impact on many people. Its the kind of story that you glance at and say "Aw," then go on with your day. There is nothing significant about knowing how one woman announced her pregnancy. The insignificance of the article also ties in with the 7th element of journalism which is make the important interesting not the other way around. Another yardstick of journalism the story does not regard is the 4th yardstick which is how the story affects the audience. In this case, the story does not affect its audience at all. Only the woman, her family and friends would be affected by this event. The other people reading it would not have a need to read it because it is useless information.

Link: http://m.wlky.com/news/paul-mccartney-pregnancy-announcement-indiana-womans-dream-come-true/36009882

In Response to Jalyn's Television Post

     I enjoyed reading Jalyn's blog and seeing her perspective on the lecture about television.She brought up many great points throughout the post like how at the beginning of television caused a rift between classes. I'm glad that now many people can have TVs not just the rich. In her post, she also told about the reasons why people spend most of their time watching TV. Jalyn mentions how TV is omnipresent meaning that it is present in our homes 24/7. I think she did a great job explaining why more people use TV than any other medium. I liked how said that TV sets cultural standards because within the show they may show what is "accepted" and what is not. If we didn't see the trends that TV sets, then it would be harder to keep up with the latest fad. Overall, I loved how she connected the information we received in the lecture with her own thoughts.

Link: http://jaytfarrow.blogspot.com/2015/10/television-response-to-lecture.html

In Response to Arianna's Radio Post

     Throughout Arianna's post, she gave a great amount of detail on how she viewed the lecture and it was very interesting. I liked the way she described how the Hindenburg incident made listeners feel. I agree that they must have been severely shocked with the event because it was one of the first live broadcasts at such a horrendous event. Without live broadcasts, the world would be constantly receive old information. I also think that radio's invention of live broadcasts was one of its huge impacts on society. Afterwards, she talks about how radio's saved rock and roll due to its demassification. Another point that I agree with is how rock and roll created the stigma around what a teenager is. I think that was the one point people don't consider and she did a great job explaining how. Her blog post was unique because she mentioned points that others failed to mention which made it interesting to read.

Link: http://themoyaknow.blogspot.com/2015/10/radios.html

In Response to Emma's Television Post

     After reading Emma's blog post about television, I felt that I could definitely relate to it. Even though some people watch television on a daily basis, I particularly don't. When Mr. Miller said guess how many hours a day that the average American watched, I was shocked that it was 7 hours because I watch TV for 2 hours at the most. I could definitely agree about the amount of political ads on TV because I have seen so much that I can almost memorize them. I liked how she described why ads are so critical to politicians. She basically said that the advertisements discourage people from voting which allowing the candidate with voters, who will vote no matter what, will win. I mean in the great scheme of things, everything serves a purpose, even annoying political advertising. I thought it would also be helpful if we watched a clip or two of old television shows to get a visual interpretation of the impacts of television. We really did not spend that much time on how television progressed over the years and instead focused on more present television. Overall, I enjoyed her post and it was very relatable.

Link: http://freshoffthepresswithemma.blogspot.com/2015/10/televsision.html

Television Lecture Response

     In class we learned about the impacts of television on the world. Since television is more omnipresent, it was more convenient for people. I thought of how you'd have to drive all the way to the theater just to watch a movie, while all you had to do to watch TV was to grab a remote. Honestly, this has made us more lazy and causing us to stay indoors. I remembered how my mom would say stop watching TV and go play outside. This is true because people are not attending community events and instead watching them on television. An example I thought of during the lecture was the Churchill Downs races. Instead of physically going to the races, people usually stay at home and turn on the news station covering the event. Due to television, we are missing events in our community and we watch them from a 3rd person perspective. 

     I found that it was ironic that we talked about how TV ads were critical for politicians because before the lecture, a friend and I were talking about how almost all the ads were about the election for governor and attorney general. The ads are on so many times that you can even memorize them. I honestly did not know that we were electing a governor until the ads started to appear everywhere. This would be the reason that all of these advertising are critical to the politicians. If you don't introduce yourself to the public, then no one will know who you are and that equals no votes for them. Today, you can not win a political race with hardly any advertisements because many people have television and it would be easier to introduce yourself to the public. To me, the advertisements were annoying and repetitive, however I now know that they actually do have a significance.

In Response to Cameron's Recorded Music Post

      I couldn't agree more with Cameron's blog post about how internet is hurting the recording music industry. Internet is causing the gradual loss of the usage of many forms of mass communication, and recorded music is no exception. I noticed that all the mass communication mediums we've learned, like newspapers and magazines, had an invention that declined it's use. This makes me anticipate for the future because I wonder what new invention will cause the decline of internet use. The record label companies are being severely wounded due to the internet and more specifically YouTube. Many talented people put themselves out there on YouTube, which makes it easier for music producers to find them. Instead of going through the normal path and getting a record label, it seems now that they just walk around that step in the process.  I liked how she provided an example of a celebrity who became famous by YouTube. The celebrity would be none other than the well-known Justin Bieber because if it wasn't for YouTube, he wouldn't be as famous.

Link: http://cameronsjournalismblogs.blogspot.com/2015/10/2nd-6-weeks-response-to-lecture-of.html?m=1/

Radio Lecture Response

      I liked how this lecture provided radio broadcasts that helped us create images in our head. We listened to the live broadcast of the Hindenburg incident, where a giant blimp crashed and exploded. I could not imagine how terrifying it must have been for the listeners because people were still stunned with the idea of radio. Another broadcast we listened to was "World of the Worlds," where the listeners thought Martians were attacking the world. However, at the beginning of the broadcast it says that its an episode of the Mercury Theatre of the Air series. This example reminded me how gullible we can be when facing new technology. At the time of these broadcasts, it was the golden age of radio. The number of radios had increased rapidly up to 40 million radios, which is insane because not many people listen to radio anymore. The decline of the usage of radios was due to television. This makes me wonder what the next big invention will be and how will it affect our lives.
     The technology that threatened radio was television. A couple of years after the first TVs were sold, all of radio's talent were gone. Like every mass medium, radio demassified and due to this demassification, rock and roll was saved. The outputs of radio were targeted towards the youth (teenagers), whom were interested in this new music. I thought that this was very interesting because not many other mass mediums had demassifyed this way.

In Response to Lucy's Movie Lecture Post

      I enjoyed reading Lucy's response to the movie lecture. Her blog post made me remember that Thomas Edison tried to take credit for the invention of motion pictures. I never  knew that Edison put his name on many inventions that were created by his employees. Putting your name on other's ideas is called plagiarizing. I find plagiarizing immoral and simply rude but many people still do it. People may make up excuses like, "Oh, its not completely the same or I just adopted the idea and I thought of the rest." However, you shouldn't have to plagiarize someone else's ideas because your brain is just as capable of other brilliant ideas. At the end of her post, she included a mini reflection where she asked herself about if she had been responsible towards her own actions. I thought the end was a real nice touch to the post because it gave the reader insight on what you were thinking after the lecture.

Link: http://livinginthefastlucy.blogspot.com/2015/10/in-response-to-lecture-8-movies-main.html?m=1/

Movie Lecture Response

      This lecture caused me to reminisce about my childhood experiences with movies. Throughout my childhood, my family would watch various old movies. I would watch a collection of Chaplin movies with my family and would always wonder why the actors walked so weird in the movies. I never dwelled on the question, so I did not know the real reason behind their weird movements until this lecture. In the past, movies were hand cranked and not automatic meaning it was hard to keep up the same rhythm. This was because eventually the person would get tired and the movie would slow down or they would get excited and speed it up. Another experience was my aunt watching tons of old Hindi movies in the romance genre. She would always say "Why won't guys be more like this?" and this is the case where women who watch a lot of romantic movies tend to have higher standards. I noticed that no matter the culture, movies set standards for the world to achieve. When I learned about the demassification solutions that movies tried to offer, I thought of the old wild west movies that my dad used to watch. Under the title it would say, IN TECHNICOLOR, or sometimes it would just say in color. I liked how this lecture related to any experience we had with movies and gave us background information to clear any confusion we had about movies in the past.