Two weeks ago, I talked about how video is not a new medium, but rather an old one that has evolved with the coming of the internet and online journalism. While we typically associate video with television and film, it seems that the internet is the medium that video was waiting for.
When it comes to journalism, news broadcasts are great for getting our news fast while we're busy doing other things around the house. But on the internet, you don't only find news broadcasts, but also featured videos, mainly on newspaper sites. Yesterday, Ricardo Lopez, videographer from the Miami Herald, showed us two videos he has done. One feautured a comical 6-year-old boy selling lemonade, and the other featured a high school student who competed in rodeo. Perhaps the most famous video put out by the Herald is "Chicken Chasers," a video about men who go around Miami-Dade catching chickens. All of these stories could not have been told without the internet simply because no other medium provides the space for such supplemental work. Supplemental not because it is less important, but because video is used to add on to a print story or as part of a larger interactive feature. Before the internet, there was no medium for such creative work to exist.
So while a topic such as a little boy selling lemonade made seem trivial to traditional journalists, those of us in the 21st century see these stories as opportunities for videographic genius.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
The Wonders of Wireless...
Today, at about 1:10 p.m., I was about to get in the elevator to go up to my seventh floor dorm when the power went out. I walked up to my room, ate some lunch, and headed out to go to class. When I got downstairs, I found out that the power was out everywhere and turned right around. With cell phone service down and the TV obviously not working, where did I turn to find out what was going on? The Internet, of course.
Similar to the September 12th example I gave in a previous blog, today's power outage will already be yesterday's news by the time the Miami Herald reaches your doorstep. Without online news sources, and a powered up laptop computer, I would have had no idea what the extent of the outage was or how long it was going to last (admittedly, I had some flashbacks to the 2003 blackout in the Northeast that lasted over a day). But on the other hand, what about all of those people who don't have a laptop, or even a computer at all? What if the news providers' backup generators failed to provide enough power to deliver the news? The truth is, while online news came in handy for me today, for a lot of people it probably didn't. So while online journalism is innovative and, in the eyes of most, better than any other medium, it is important to note that it is not always an effective source of delivering the news. And if it isn't, what is?
Similar to the September 12th example I gave in a previous blog, today's power outage will already be yesterday's news by the time the Miami Herald reaches your doorstep. Without online news sources, and a powered up laptop computer, I would have had no idea what the extent of the outage was or how long it was going to last (admittedly, I had some flashbacks to the 2003 blackout in the Northeast that lasted over a day). But on the other hand, what about all of those people who don't have a laptop, or even a computer at all? What if the news providers' backup generators failed to provide enough power to deliver the news? The truth is, while online news came in handy for me today, for a lot of people it probably didn't. So while online journalism is innovative and, in the eyes of most, better than any other medium, it is important to note that it is not always an effective source of delivering the news. And if it isn't, what is?
Friday, February 22, 2008
Political Satire
Yesterday I attended a presentation by Craig Minassian on the intersection of politics and comedy in the media. Craig is the former assistant press secretary for President Clinton and now is a consultant for political satire programs The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and The Colbert Report on Comedy Central.
One point he kept making throughout the presentation was that the hosts of both shows, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, are both aware that their shows are jokes, not real news. However, he also pointed out that The Daily Show averages one million viewers a night. That's one million people who are receiving some sort of news from Jon Stewart. Certainly many of these people watch other nightly news programs or read some sort of news online or in the newspaper, but it has been proven that many young people rely on these satirical shows as their main source of news.
What does this mean for the future of news and the future of the audience? Only recently has political satire earned the popularity it receives today. If this popularity continues to grow, could it prove to be another distraction from hard news? Will journalists begin to be replaced by comedians? For the benefit of journalists, and of our nation, I would certainly hope not. But hey, I love The Daily Show too.
One point he kept making throughout the presentation was that the hosts of both shows, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, are both aware that their shows are jokes, not real news. However, he also pointed out that The Daily Show averages one million viewers a night. That's one million people who are receiving some sort of news from Jon Stewart. Certainly many of these people watch other nightly news programs or read some sort of news online or in the newspaper, but it has been proven that many young people rely on these satirical shows as their main source of news.
What does this mean for the future of news and the future of the audience? Only recently has political satire earned the popularity it receives today. If this popularity continues to grow, could it prove to be another distraction from hard news? Will journalists begin to be replaced by comedians? For the benefit of journalists, and of our nation, I would certainly hope not. But hey, I love The Daily Show too.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Newspapers: Outdated and Overrated
An important thing we must ask ourselves as journalists in today's era is, "How can we keep readers reading yesterday's news in print when they could have already seen it on the web the day before?" I'd like to think this isn't something for me, as a web person, to figure out; leave it to the old school print journalists. But hey, people buy the print newspaper, and as web people, we need money to stay in business too.
The first time I noticed this problem was on September 12, 2001. The newspapers (the Staten Island Advance and the New York Daily News) arrived at our house with huge headlines and photos from the events of the day before (no need to go into detail). I remember thinking at 12 years old, "What's the point of this being in the newspaper? Hasn't everyone already heard about it?" 6 1/2 years later, I'm still not sure of the answer to this question. Did anyone read those stories? I'm sure somebody did, but after everyone had already seen the images on television (a thousand times), was it really worth all the effort to write a long, detailed story? Probably not. Then again, if the newspapers hadn't covered the biggest news of not only the day, but possibly the decade, they would have been ripped apart for not doing so. Looks to me that this is a lose-lose situation for newspapers; either don't bother with a big story, or waste money and time putting together a story that every person in the industrialized world has already heard about. Either way, the newspapers come out behind.
Perhaps that day was a foreshadowing of what's to come. It was really the first time, at least that I can think of, in which the newspaper was out of date before it hit the press. How will newspapers continue to report the most up to date news and keep readers reading once the Baby Boomers fade out? I wish I had the answer for this. All I can say is that it's not looking good for our old friend the newspaper.
The first time I noticed this problem was on September 12, 2001. The newspapers (the Staten Island Advance and the New York Daily News) arrived at our house with huge headlines and photos from the events of the day before (no need to go into detail). I remember thinking at 12 years old, "What's the point of this being in the newspaper? Hasn't everyone already heard about it?" 6 1/2 years later, I'm still not sure of the answer to this question. Did anyone read those stories? I'm sure somebody did, but after everyone had already seen the images on television (a thousand times), was it really worth all the effort to write a long, detailed story? Probably not. Then again, if the newspapers hadn't covered the biggest news of not only the day, but possibly the decade, they would have been ripped apart for not doing so. Looks to me that this is a lose-lose situation for newspapers; either don't bother with a big story, or waste money and time putting together a story that every person in the industrialized world has already heard about. Either way, the newspapers come out behind.
Perhaps that day was a foreshadowing of what's to come. It was really the first time, at least that I can think of, in which the newspaper was out of date before it hit the press. How will newspapers continue to report the most up to date news and keep readers reading once the Baby Boomers fade out? I wish I had the answer for this. All I can say is that it's not looking good for our old friend the newspaper.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Everything Old is New Again...
Yesterday, I attended a panel discussion on new media, which includes video, audio, photography, text; pretty much anything. I must admit, I'm a little bothered by this term "new media." What's so new about them? Photography has been around since the 19th century, moving pictures and radio since the early 20th century, and text since the invention of the printing press in 1436.
Yes, the videos you can find today on the internet are vastly different from the ones you could watch on TV throughout the second half of the 20th century. Yes, journalists use new audio techniques and combine audio and photographs into slideshows. Yes, digital photography allows for better images than ever before. These media have evolved, but they are not new. What's new is the medium in which they are delivered.
What the internet allows is for journalists to combine these media and use them in ways other mediums could not. In the past, the audience could watch the evening news then read the printed stories in the morning paper. Today, they can watch, read, view, and interact all at once. So while the method of delivering the news is new, the media which we are delivering can hardly be considered new at all. In other words, what we should be referencing is news convergence, not new media.
Yes, the videos you can find today on the internet are vastly different from the ones you could watch on TV throughout the second half of the 20th century. Yes, journalists use new audio techniques and combine audio and photographs into slideshows. Yes, digital photography allows for better images than ever before. These media have evolved, but they are not new. What's new is the medium in which they are delivered.
What the internet allows is for journalists to combine these media and use them in ways other mediums could not. In the past, the audience could watch the evening news then read the printed stories in the morning paper. Today, they can watch, read, view, and interact all at once. So while the method of delivering the news is new, the media which we are delivering can hardly be considered new at all. In other words, what we should be referencing is news convergence, not new media.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Blogs In, News Out
Every morning, when I first sign onto the Internet, I follow the same routine. Check my Gmail account, catch up on my message boards, and check my AOL Mail account. But before I can reach my AOL mail, I must pass through the homepage where I check on the day's news and features. Now I'll be the first to admit that AOL probably isn't the best place to get my daily news, but they present the day's headlines in an easy-to-read manner, accompanied by feature stories that usually catch my interest. Generally, I spend about half an hour on AOL.com, and its partner sites, a day.
What I've noticed lately is the increasing presence of blogs on AOL's homepage. With the election season now in full swing, there is typically something new going on in politics everyday. Sometimes, usually on days of primaries, the day's main political headline gets the front spot on the page. However, other times a different news story gets the top spot and is accompanied by a small link at the bottom of the same frame. This link is related to the election, but isn't a link to a news story. Rather, AOL features a different blog on the first frame each day and that blog is usually accompanied by a poll. For instance, today's featured blog is by Mark Halperin of Time magazine and is about Barack Obama's increasing momentum. It then asks readers to answer a poll about the main reason for Obama's success in February.
In 2008, are political blogs replacing political news stories of past elections? How will this affect voters who are now reading other people's opinions daily rather than "unbiased" news stories? I guess we'll have to wait until November to find out.
What I've noticed lately is the increasing presence of blogs on AOL's homepage. With the election season now in full swing, there is typically something new going on in politics everyday. Sometimes, usually on days of primaries, the day's main political headline gets the front spot on the page. However, other times a different news story gets the top spot and is accompanied by a small link at the bottom of the same frame. This link is related to the election, but isn't a link to a news story. Rather, AOL features a different blog on the first frame each day and that blog is usually accompanied by a poll. For instance, today's featured blog is by Mark Halperin of Time magazine and is about Barack Obama's increasing momentum. It then asks readers to answer a poll about the main reason for Obama's success in February.
In 2008, are political blogs replacing political news stories of past elections? How will this affect voters who are now reading other people's opinions daily rather than "unbiased" news stories? I guess we'll have to wait until November to find out.
Friday, February 8, 2008
Do You Hear What I Hear?
Text, graphics, animation, colors, videos, pictures, word art. There are many elements on the internet to visually catch our attention; the list goes on and on. So with our eyes permanently focused on increasingly better visuals, what role could pure audio play on the internet?
Audio went out when video came in. In the 1950s, old radios were replaced with new television sets. People no longer relied solely on their ears for news and entertainment (and with the coming of MTV, music, but that's a whole different issue) when they could actually see what was happening right in their own living rooms. But is it possible that 50 years later, the internet is bringing back the audio our grandparents and great grandparents listened to when they were young?
Not exactly. For one, audio is far improved from the days of FDR's fireside chats. New recording equipment, such as the Edirol machine popular amongst journalists, records clear sounds, and digital technology allows for an infinite amount of copies to be produced that sound just like the original. Secondly, as I said before, we are a visual society. If you expect to keep a web surfer on your site, you can't expect them to listen to minutes and minutes of pure audio. That's where photography comes in. Another [seemingly] ancient art form that the internet is bringing back. Combining audio and photography into a short slideshow can be an effective method of expressing emotion and conflict, and it's just one more way for us journalists to get our message out there into cyberspace.
Audio went out when video came in. In the 1950s, old radios were replaced with new television sets. People no longer relied solely on their ears for news and entertainment (and with the coming of MTV, music, but that's a whole different issue) when they could actually see what was happening right in their own living rooms. But is it possible that 50 years later, the internet is bringing back the audio our grandparents and great grandparents listened to when they were young?
Not exactly. For one, audio is far improved from the days of FDR's fireside chats. New recording equipment, such as the Edirol machine popular amongst journalists, records clear sounds, and digital technology allows for an infinite amount of copies to be produced that sound just like the original. Secondly, as I said before, we are a visual society. If you expect to keep a web surfer on your site, you can't expect them to listen to minutes and minutes of pure audio. That's where photography comes in. Another [seemingly] ancient art form that the internet is bringing back. Combining audio and photography into a short slideshow can be an effective method of expressing emotion and conflict, and it's just one more way for us journalists to get our message out there into cyberspace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
