"Newspapers have prospered for one reason: the trust that comes from representing their readers' interests and giving them the news that's important to them."
In Rupert Murdoch's article for The Wall Street Journal he discusses new technology and the press. I agree with Murdoch. Trust is quote possibly the number one philosophy that newspapers should abide by. I personally feel that today, newspapers have strayed from this idea of trust. Readers want to read about what is going on in their community.
Murdoch also writes that "Some newspapers and news organizations will not adapt to the digital realities of our day-and they will fail." Change can be scary. The future can be scary. We're not completely sure in what direction the Internet and social media will take us. The key is to embrace it at this point. News organizations may as well try it out. Try something new. It may be a risk worth taking.
I also agree with Murdoch's statement about people being willing to pay for quality. We already pay for quality. A reliable, study laptop will cost more. A nicer car means paying more for it. Quality news is no different. And it may very well soon be something we have to pay for.
In today's age it is important to be well-rounded. The same goes for news organizations. Utilize everything you can in an effort to be successful. Accept that things are going to change.
It all comes down to what Murdoch concludes his article with. "To make informed decisions, free men and women require honest and reliable news about events affecting their countries and their lives."
The full article is available at
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107104574570191223415268.html
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
The Power of Friendship
On November 3, 2009 Magic Johnson and Larry Bird were interviewed on National Public Radio's All Things Considered. The main focus of the podcast was to discuss Johnson's and Bird's new book When The Game Was Ours.
First, I enjoyed this podcast because it was not too long, about nine minutes. And it covered two of basketball's great athletes. The overall podcast was about the book but it really focused on the friendship between Johnson and Bird. They were rivals in college basketball as well as in the NBA. After a photo shoot for Converse shoes which both appeared in their friendship took off. Bird was also one of the first people that Johnson called after he was diagnosed with HIV/AIDS.
Host Michele Norris did a nice job of detailing the book and interviewing Johnson and Bird. She was professional and spoke in a way that everyone could understand. The broadcast included several soundsbites. There was a soundbite of an announcr during one of Johnson's games and a bite of an announcer during one of Bird's games.
Both Johnson and Bird provided commentary during the podcast. Norris asked questions which they eagerly answered. When she talks about the Converse commercial a soundbite of the commerical can be heard as well.
A more dramatic soundbite that was p.ayed during the podcast was of Johnson's announcement to the public that he would be retiring from the NBA because of HIV/AIDS. This clip brings a different tone to the podcast. It goes from a friendlier one to a more somber one.
The podcast ends on a high note though because once again Norris emphasizes the friendship between the two.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120053152
First, I enjoyed this podcast because it was not too long, about nine minutes. And it covered two of basketball's great athletes. The overall podcast was about the book but it really focused on the friendship between Johnson and Bird. They were rivals in college basketball as well as in the NBA. After a photo shoot for Converse shoes which both appeared in their friendship took off. Bird was also one of the first people that Johnson called after he was diagnosed with HIV/AIDS.
Host Michele Norris did a nice job of detailing the book and interviewing Johnson and Bird. She was professional and spoke in a way that everyone could understand. The broadcast included several soundsbites. There was a soundbite of an announcr during one of Johnson's games and a bite of an announcer during one of Bird's games.
Both Johnson and Bird provided commentary during the podcast. Norris asked questions which they eagerly answered. When she talks about the Converse commercial a soundbite of the commerical can be heard as well.
A more dramatic soundbite that was p.ayed during the podcast was of Johnson's announcement to the public that he would be retiring from the NBA because of HIV/AIDS. This clip brings a different tone to the podcast. It goes from a friendlier one to a more somber one.
The podcast ends on a high note though because once again Norris emphasizes the friendship between the two.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120053152
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Around the World with Coca-Cola
Social media has managed to weave itself into our society and culture. It is not uncommon to hear conversations related to Facebook or Twitter or MySpace. Sure, it may be a great way to interact with friends, but what about the usefulness of social media for large corporations and enterprises?
Some companies are have embraced social media as another way to push a product or service. Social media is free so why not give it a try? Take Coca-Cola for example. To help with their "Open Happiness" campaign Coca-Cola is sending three bloggers to all of the 206 countries where Coca-Cola is sold. Beside updating a blog, the travelers will also post updates on Twitter, add videos to YouTube and update the website.
Coca-Cola will also pay for travel expenses and pay them a salary as well. The participants, chosen through voting, will spend the entire year traveling to all of the countries. They will also have the opportunity to take part in many events, like the Winter Olympics in Vancouver. The trip begins January 1 in Madrid, Spain and ends December 31 in Coca-Cola's headquarters in Atlanta.
Sounds Fun! but will it work?
This expedition sounds like an adventure of a lifetime for the three participants. But, will it be advantageous for Coca-Cola? The travel expenses alone for the three bloggers will be tremendous and then each of their salaries must be added on as well. According to Adam Brown, director of Coca-Cola's Office of Digital Communications and Social Media, ''It's not about having the Coca-Cola brand first and foremost, center of the screen. "It's about telling the story that involves Coca-Cola, that involves the attributes of what Coca-Cola is about, optimism and joy.''
The "Open Happiness" campaign is meant to appeal to those looking to spend less money, which these days, everyone is.
The whole concept is appealing. Social media is meant to be interactive. This project allows followers to do that. Consumers can make suggestions as to what the bloggers should do in each location. The use of Twitter and YouTube allows viewers to make comments.
I think that this could be a successful campaign for Coca-Cola but I wonder how they are going to advertise the project. I don't watch much television so maybe I have missed any ads announcing the project. Coca-Cola wants to attract consumers from around the world so the company will definitely need to advertise in other countries in other languages. Coca-Cola is doing a good job of incorporating social media into this which could be very advantageous for them.
For more info check out this NY Times article:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/10/21/business/AP-US-Coca-Cola-Fan-Trip.html?_r=1&scp=16&sq=social%20media&st=cse
Some companies are have embraced social media as another way to push a product or service. Social media is free so why not give it a try? Take Coca-Cola for example. To help with their "Open Happiness" campaign Coca-Cola is sending three bloggers to all of the 206 countries where Coca-Cola is sold. Beside updating a blog, the travelers will also post updates on Twitter, add videos to YouTube and update the website.
Coca-Cola will also pay for travel expenses and pay them a salary as well. The participants, chosen through voting, will spend the entire year traveling to all of the countries. They will also have the opportunity to take part in many events, like the Winter Olympics in Vancouver. The trip begins January 1 in Madrid, Spain and ends December 31 in Coca-Cola's headquarters in Atlanta.
Sounds Fun! but will it work?
This expedition sounds like an adventure of a lifetime for the three participants. But, will it be advantageous for Coca-Cola? The travel expenses alone for the three bloggers will be tremendous and then each of their salaries must be added on as well. According to Adam Brown, director of Coca-Cola's Office of Digital Communications and Social Media, ''It's not about having the Coca-Cola brand first and foremost, center of the screen. "It's about telling the story that involves Coca-Cola, that involves the attributes of what Coca-Cola is about, optimism and joy.''
The "Open Happiness" campaign is meant to appeal to those looking to spend less money, which these days, everyone is.
The whole concept is appealing. Social media is meant to be interactive. This project allows followers to do that. Consumers can make suggestions as to what the bloggers should do in each location. The use of Twitter and YouTube allows viewers to make comments.
I think that this could be a successful campaign for Coca-Cola but I wonder how they are going to advertise the project. I don't watch much television so maybe I have missed any ads announcing the project. Coca-Cola wants to attract consumers from around the world so the company will definitely need to advertise in other countries in other languages. Coca-Cola is doing a good job of incorporating social media into this which could be very advantageous for them.
For more info check out this NY Times article:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/10/21/business/AP-US-Coca-Cola-Fan-Trip.html?_r=1&scp=16&sq=social%20media&st=cse
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Boo the BCS
“Some people think football is a matter of life and death. I assure you, it's much more serious than that.” Although this quote by Bill Shankly, a Scottish soccer player, is in reference to soccer, it still captures what people think of American football. It breeds competition whether you are a player or a fan. For NFL fans Sunday is the best day of the week. For college football fans it is Saturday. Nothing is more exciting than a down to the last second game when your team pulls out the win and it is just as devastating when the field goal kicker misses an easy shot to lose the game.
I myself prefer to watch NFL game (Go Chargers!). And because I have my rugby games on Saturdays I miss many college games. As I am not a Pennsylvania native I like seeing Penn State lose and seeing how devastated their fans are. But what teams I support and don’t support is a different topic.
What I really dislike about football is the Bowl College Series at the collegiate level. It does not make sense. Most other sports use a logical playoff system like NCAA basketball and the NFL. In the BCS the two teams that play in the championship game are based upon rankings at the end of the season. Tournament style playoffs are much more exciting. Rankings or records are utilized to determine the initial matchups and then the winners move on.
With the BCS there is not as much excitement. There are more upsets with tournament style playoffs like in NCAA basketball for example. It is extremely exciting when an unranked team upsets a higher ranked team. This style of playoffs also allows more teams to reach the playoffs. In NCAA basketball 65 teams reach playoffs so every conference gets a bid. A play-in game brings the field to an even 64 teams. Every year there is always at least one upset. There are overtime games and games that come down to the buzzer. There are incredible shots, like ones made from half court.
The NFL also has tournament style playoffs. There are two divisions with four conferences in each: the NFC North, South, East and West, and the AFC North, South, East and West. With this as well there is more than one playoff game. Playoffs are much more exciting when there is more than one game to be played.
There is more competition with tournament style playoffs. It’s so exciting to win a game and know you’re moving on to the next round and it all culminates in the final championship game. I should know. The Shippensburg women’s rugby team is the 2008 and 2009 Division II Women’s National Champions. We work hard in the fall season when we play in our league games. In November we play our first round of playoffs. By winning in November we move on to the next round in the spring. It takes several more rounds to reach the national championship game. It is so exciting and exhilarating to reach the championship game. And when you win, it makes all those hard practices and tough games and endless sprints worth it.
With the BCS, a team works hard to try to make it to the bowl championship game. There are no other playoff games to try and make it to that final game. NCAA teams shouldn’t have an easy way out by only playing one game and then being declared national champions. The NCAA needs to move to a tournament style of play. Simple as that.
I myself prefer to watch NFL game (Go Chargers!). And because I have my rugby games on Saturdays I miss many college games. As I am not a Pennsylvania native I like seeing Penn State lose and seeing how devastated their fans are. But what teams I support and don’t support is a different topic.
What I really dislike about football is the Bowl College Series at the collegiate level. It does not make sense. Most other sports use a logical playoff system like NCAA basketball and the NFL. In the BCS the two teams that play in the championship game are based upon rankings at the end of the season. Tournament style playoffs are much more exciting. Rankings or records are utilized to determine the initial matchups and then the winners move on.
With the BCS there is not as much excitement. There are more upsets with tournament style playoffs like in NCAA basketball for example. It is extremely exciting when an unranked team upsets a higher ranked team. This style of playoffs also allows more teams to reach the playoffs. In NCAA basketball 65 teams reach playoffs so every conference gets a bid. A play-in game brings the field to an even 64 teams. Every year there is always at least one upset. There are overtime games and games that come down to the buzzer. There are incredible shots, like ones made from half court.
The NFL also has tournament style playoffs. There are two divisions with four conferences in each: the NFC North, South, East and West, and the AFC North, South, East and West. With this as well there is more than one playoff game. Playoffs are much more exciting when there is more than one game to be played.
There is more competition with tournament style playoffs. It’s so exciting to win a game and know you’re moving on to the next round and it all culminates in the final championship game. I should know. The Shippensburg women’s rugby team is the 2008 and 2009 Division II Women’s National Champions. We work hard in the fall season when we play in our league games. In November we play our first round of playoffs. By winning in November we move on to the next round in the spring. It takes several more rounds to reach the national championship game. It is so exciting and exhilarating to reach the championship game. And when you win, it makes all those hard practices and tough games and endless sprints worth it.
With the BCS, a team works hard to try to make it to the bowl championship game. There are no other playoff games to try and make it to that final game. NCAA teams shouldn’t have an easy way out by only playing one game and then being declared national champions. The NCAA needs to move to a tournament style of play. Simple as that.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Grad School or Bust
As a senior in college I've struggled with the fact that I will be graduating in May and must begin to make big kid decisions. Do I join the workforce? Do I go to graduate school? Should I put grad school off for a year?
After much debate, I have decided that I want to go to grad school and being in the Fall 2010 semester. One decision down...many more to go. Next step: what school do I want to go to? My top two choices are Georgetown and American in Washington DC. I have my eye on these schools for several reasons. One is the curriculum. I was immediately drawn to Georgetown's Master's in Public Relations and Corporate Communications. There are many courses to choose from and many sound very interesting, like the crisis communications course. This would definitely be a useful class.
American has a good reputation as well. My internship advisor from this summer completed his master's degree at American. By talking with him and hearing his opinion of the university I became interested. It is always helpful to hear from someone who has firsthand experience and give both positives and negatives for me to consider.
The DC area also hold another draw for me. Over the summer I met with the Vice President of Corporate Communications and Creative Services of Altegrity, Michael John. He is a very accomplished man, having spent many years in the Navy, some of which were spent in public affairs. He was also a speech writer and has worked with John McCain. He spoke with me about the communications field, grad school, etc. He basically offered me a paid internship if I end up coming to the DC area for grad school. I am extremely interested in this internship because I would have an opportunity to learn more about the communications field. I feel that Michael John would be a fantastic person to learn from. This would also help me get my foot in the door and hopefully lead to a job opportunity at some point (fingers crossed!).
But back to grad school. In October I am taking the Graduate Record Exam (GRE). Hopefully that goes well and my scores are fairly good. It is going to be a stressful semester because of studying and taking the GRE as well as trying to come up with a list of schools I want to apply too. And of course the application process will not be easy.
I am trying to remain optimistic about everything and hope that I will get into at least one of my top two schools. Ideally, I would like to know what I am doing before graduation so I can breathe a little sigh of relief.
After much debate, I have decided that I want to go to grad school and being in the Fall 2010 semester. One decision down...many more to go. Next step: what school do I want to go to? My top two choices are Georgetown and American in Washington DC. I have my eye on these schools for several reasons. One is the curriculum. I was immediately drawn to Georgetown's Master's in Public Relations and Corporate Communications. There are many courses to choose from and many sound very interesting, like the crisis communications course. This would definitely be a useful class.
American has a good reputation as well. My internship advisor from this summer completed his master's degree at American. By talking with him and hearing his opinion of the university I became interested. It is always helpful to hear from someone who has firsthand experience and give both positives and negatives for me to consider.
The DC area also hold another draw for me. Over the summer I met with the Vice President of Corporate Communications and Creative Services of Altegrity, Michael John. He is a very accomplished man, having spent many years in the Navy, some of which were spent in public affairs. He was also a speech writer and has worked with John McCain. He spoke with me about the communications field, grad school, etc. He basically offered me a paid internship if I end up coming to the DC area for grad school. I am extremely interested in this internship because I would have an opportunity to learn more about the communications field. I feel that Michael John would be a fantastic person to learn from. This would also help me get my foot in the door and hopefully lead to a job opportunity at some point (fingers crossed!).
But back to grad school. In October I am taking the Graduate Record Exam (GRE). Hopefully that goes well and my scores are fairly good. It is going to be a stressful semester because of studying and taking the GRE as well as trying to come up with a list of schools I want to apply too. And of course the application process will not be easy.
I am trying to remain optimistic about everything and hope that I will get into at least one of my top two schools. Ideally, I would like to know what I am doing before graduation so I can breathe a little sigh of relief.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Yesterday's and Today's Journalist
“At its core, the job of the [working] journalist [today] is unchanged.”
In 1828, in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, journalism was defined as “the collection and editing of news for presentation through the media.” I think that this statement is, for the most part, true. Journalism encompasses finding and disseminating information. For news stories, interviews are conducted, information is researched. The story is then printed in a newspaper or broadcast over the radio, etc. What we consider media has changed though. In the past media was print journalism. Eventually radio, then television was incorporated. Now, the internet is the fastest and easiest way to obtain news.
What has changed, however, are the number of outlets to distribute news to as well as the speed at which journalism runs at. The internet is probably the biggest factor in these changes. Newspapers are not only in print form but also online. Radio and television are online. Blogs and social media also contribute to more news outlets. The internet also affects how fast news is distributed. Everyone must constantly be monitoring what is being said on the web. Journalism is a 24/7 business. It never rests.
Journalism has become more active as well. As consumers we still want factual and accurate news. We still place trust in various news outlets. We do not want to be misguided or misled. We still hold the media accountable for any misinformation they disseminate. Now, though, the speed at which this is done is sometimes almost immediate. A member of the public may write a blog in response to a piece of incorrect news. Others may link to this blog and so on. The medium that originally reported the news item must then act quickly and correct and respond to it in order to maintain a positive image in the eyes of the public.
I do agree with the statement that “the job of the [working] journalist [today] is unchanged.” Where I find some unclear lines is with the word “journalist.” I always thought of a journalist as a professional employed by a newspaper, radio or television station. Today, a journalist can really be anyone. People who are not communications professionals can write anything they want and put it on the web. Merriam-Webster Dictionary states that a journalist is “someone who keeps a journal.” So basically anyone could be considered a journalist at some point. When all media was prohibited from entering Iran around election time the world was not completely in the dark about what was going on. People used their phones to capture the events.
The scale of what we report the news on has also changed. News is no longer just local. News is reported on at the national and international levels. Journalists are sent all over the world to get the story. News at every level has to be monitored.
Overall, the core of a journalist has not changed. Their job is still to find the news and share it. The magnitude of how that is done has changed and the rate at which it is done has changed as well.
In 1828, in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, journalism was defined as “the collection and editing of news for presentation through the media.” I think that this statement is, for the most part, true. Journalism encompasses finding and disseminating information. For news stories, interviews are conducted, information is researched. The story is then printed in a newspaper or broadcast over the radio, etc. What we consider media has changed though. In the past media was print journalism. Eventually radio, then television was incorporated. Now, the internet is the fastest and easiest way to obtain news.
What has changed, however, are the number of outlets to distribute news to as well as the speed at which journalism runs at. The internet is probably the biggest factor in these changes. Newspapers are not only in print form but also online. Radio and television are online. Blogs and social media also contribute to more news outlets. The internet also affects how fast news is distributed. Everyone must constantly be monitoring what is being said on the web. Journalism is a 24/7 business. It never rests.
Journalism has become more active as well. As consumers we still want factual and accurate news. We still place trust in various news outlets. We do not want to be misguided or misled. We still hold the media accountable for any misinformation they disseminate. Now, though, the speed at which this is done is sometimes almost immediate. A member of the public may write a blog in response to a piece of incorrect news. Others may link to this blog and so on. The medium that originally reported the news item must then act quickly and correct and respond to it in order to maintain a positive image in the eyes of the public.
I do agree with the statement that “the job of the [working] journalist [today] is unchanged.” Where I find some unclear lines is with the word “journalist.” I always thought of a journalist as a professional employed by a newspaper, radio or television station. Today, a journalist can really be anyone. People who are not communications professionals can write anything they want and put it on the web. Merriam-Webster Dictionary states that a journalist is “someone who keeps a journal.” So basically anyone could be considered a journalist at some point. When all media was prohibited from entering Iran around election time the world was not completely in the dark about what was going on. People used their phones to capture the events.
The scale of what we report the news on has also changed. News is no longer just local. News is reported on at the national and international levels. Journalists are sent all over the world to get the story. News at every level has to be monitored.
Overall, the core of a journalist has not changed. Their job is still to find the news and share it. The magnitude of how that is done has changed and the rate at which it is done has changed as well.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
