The Baltimore Sun is the "illustrious" newspaper from my hometown. Baltimore has taken on the self proclaimed nickname of "The City That Reads." From these two statements, one would assume that the Baltimore Sun has been holding readership in this age of floundering print media. This would be a false assumption.
As of April 2009, readership was down almost ten percent from the previous year. The Sun hasn't released any more recent statistics because, one can only assume, they are not getting any better. As someone from Baltimore, I can safely say that I do not lament my parents decision to cancel our subscription. When my father called the hotline to cancel, he was essentially begged to downgrade to a weekend-only subscription for a fraction of the price. The Sun is not informative. Half of the daily paper is comics and sports.
This brings us to the question of whether or not Baltimore can any longer justify being called The City That Reads. It seems like a more fitting slogan is the ever-popular "City That Reeds" in recognition of the Baltimore Raven's Pro-Bowl Safety, Ed Reed.
One thing that I know is that The Sun has been trying to put an emphasis on its Web site.,pparently looking to become the City That Browses. Because of this I took some time to browse through the site and I was not impressed. My last post was all about the world of blogging. I decided to take an in depth look at The Sun's blog page. Once again, I was not impressed. The majority of the posts are extremely short and uninformative. It's more like an opinion blog than a professional news site. A few of the posts that were linked on the Web site were fantastic and I thoroughly enjoyed reading them, but the vast majority were an extreme letdown.
I love Baltimore with all my heart. I have been a devoted reader of The Sun since entering high school. I am afraid however, that Baltimore is no longer the City That Reads, and it's going to take much more effort to turn it into the City That Browses. For now, let's stick with the City That Reeds.
Posted by Jordan Powell
Monday, April 12, 2010
Monday, April 5, 2010
What is it with this whole blogging thing?
This is a question I found myself asking repeatedly over the past year or so. I thought that blogs were something that, well, weird kids did do share their emotions with each other. It was just another outlet for goths and loners to be angry at the world.
This might've been true when blogs first appeared years ago, but it is far from the truth now. Sure there are people who use blogs as a personal diary or journal or diary, but who am I to judge them for that? It turns out that they were far ahead of the curve.
I've had to write this blog for a journalism class and it has been a blessing in disguise. I can safely say after a couple months at this that blogging is the future.
Here's a couple reasons why I say this:
1. Blogging is easy.
If you have a computer and internet, you can become a blogger.
2. Blogging is free.
The simplest forms of blogs, like the one I'm using now, is completely free. Once you get into more advanced blogs with advertisements that could change.
3. Blogs are accessible everywhere.
It's just as easy, if not easier, to access a blog as it is to write one. All you need is an internet connection--Starbucks has this for free too--and you can read any blog you'd like.
Now it may be a little confusing when I say "the future." What I mean to say is that blogging is quickly becoming the future of media.
In class last week, we met two journalists that had started a community blog pro bono. Their blog, Chapel Hill Watch, covers topics such as town meetings and local events all for free! It really is an amazing advancement in media.
This is just one example of the endless supply of news blogs that are on the internet.
Some of the more notable sites include the Huffington Post and Michelle Malkin's blog.
Blogging infinitely expands the capabilities of media. The problem will be finding people like Don Evans or Nancy Oates--from Chapel Hill Watch--that will do it for free or finding a way to make blogging profitable.
We've already found the next medium. Now we just need to make it work.
Posted by Jordan Powell
This might've been true when blogs first appeared years ago, but it is far from the truth now. Sure there are people who use blogs as a personal diary or journal or diary, but who am I to judge them for that? It turns out that they were far ahead of the curve.
I've had to write this blog for a journalism class and it has been a blessing in disguise. I can safely say after a couple months at this that blogging is the future.
Here's a couple reasons why I say this:
1. Blogging is easy.
If you have a computer and internet, you can become a blogger.
2. Blogging is free.
The simplest forms of blogs, like the one I'm using now, is completely free. Once you get into more advanced blogs with advertisements that could change.
3. Blogs are accessible everywhere.
It's just as easy, if not easier, to access a blog as it is to write one. All you need is an internet connection--Starbucks has this for free too--and you can read any blog you'd like.
Now it may be a little confusing when I say "the future." What I mean to say is that blogging is quickly becoming the future of media.
In class last week, we met two journalists that had started a community blog pro bono. Their blog, Chapel Hill Watch, covers topics such as town meetings and local events all for free! It really is an amazing advancement in media.
This is just one example of the endless supply of news blogs that are on the internet.
Some of the more notable sites include the Huffington Post and Michelle Malkin's blog.
Blogging infinitely expands the capabilities of media. The problem will be finding people like Don Evans or Nancy Oates--from Chapel Hill Watch--that will do it for free or finding a way to make blogging profitable.
We've already found the next medium. Now we just need to make it work.
Posted by Jordan Powell
Monday, March 29, 2010
Ignorance is Ignorance
We all know the cliche "Ignorance is Bliss." Well I'm here to tell you that ignorance is not always bliss. In fact, most of the time it's just damn ignorance.
Where the real question comes in here is who's to blame for ignorance. In this particular instance I am ranting about the general public's ignorance with regard to politics. This is particularly true in younger citizens. A recent poll in North Carolina showed that less than half of the voters could name the party in charge and that younger voters are least able to answer basic questions about state politics and to get out and vote.
As someone who only very recently became of voting age, this kind of infuriates me. However sadly I have experienced this apathy firsthand.
In the most recent presidential election I was too young to vote by a couple months. This was the first election that my brother could vote in. The magnitude of this election, as everyone knows, was huge. Obviously I was a little peeved that my vote wouldn't count and jealous that my brother's did. However, my brother could not have cared less about voting. I heard every excuse from "what difference will one vote make" to "Maryland always goes Democratic anyway."
I guess I can take some consolation in the latter argument because it is true that Maryland always goes blue. I was finally able to convince him that of any election to not vote in this would be the worst.
Is it his fault that he doesn't care about politics? Yes and no. Each person needs to take a minimal amount of initiative but also the people around him and the media need to take some sort of attempt to engage him in politics.
The solution that my friends and I have found is to become a little informed about a broad range of topics and argue until we're blue in the face. As someone who is fairly stubborn this is not only fun for me, but also helps me become more informed and strengthen my views. What the media lacks in engaging me I make up with friendly debate.
The problem with our generation is the perpetual thought that our parents care enough for all of us and as long as they're voting why should we care. The obvious fallacy in this argument is that we will one day be our parents. If we don't learn to start caring now when do we? Is there some point in life when we decide that we should start caring about politics? We have to start now or our country's political activeness will slowly fall by the wayside. This is not an option.
Ignorance is no longer an option for citizens. Whose fault it is is sort of a moot point now. We are in a red alert and something--either by the media, our peers, ourselves or a combination--needs to change the political mindset of our generation.
Posted by Jordan Powell
Where the real question comes in here is who's to blame for ignorance. In this particular instance I am ranting about the general public's ignorance with regard to politics. This is particularly true in younger citizens. A recent poll in North Carolina showed that less than half of the voters could name the party in charge and that younger voters are least able to answer basic questions about state politics and to get out and vote.
As someone who only very recently became of voting age, this kind of infuriates me. However sadly I have experienced this apathy firsthand.
In the most recent presidential election I was too young to vote by a couple months. This was the first election that my brother could vote in. The magnitude of this election, as everyone knows, was huge. Obviously I was a little peeved that my vote wouldn't count and jealous that my brother's did. However, my brother could not have cared less about voting. I heard every excuse from "what difference will one vote make" to "Maryland always goes Democratic anyway."
I guess I can take some consolation in the latter argument because it is true that Maryland always goes blue. I was finally able to convince him that of any election to not vote in this would be the worst.
Is it his fault that he doesn't care about politics? Yes and no. Each person needs to take a minimal amount of initiative but also the people around him and the media need to take some sort of attempt to engage him in politics.
The solution that my friends and I have found is to become a little informed about a broad range of topics and argue until we're blue in the face. As someone who is fairly stubborn this is not only fun for me, but also helps me become more informed and strengthen my views. What the media lacks in engaging me I make up with friendly debate.
The problem with our generation is the perpetual thought that our parents care enough for all of us and as long as they're voting why should we care. The obvious fallacy in this argument is that we will one day be our parents. If we don't learn to start caring now when do we? Is there some point in life when we decide that we should start caring about politics? We have to start now or our country's political activeness will slowly fall by the wayside. This is not an option.
Ignorance is no longer an option for citizens. Whose fault it is is sort of a moot point now. We are in a red alert and something--either by the media, our peers, ourselves or a combination--needs to change the political mindset of our generation.
Posted by Jordan Powell
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Why should I care?
Why should I care?
This is a question we hear all too often in our day-to-day lives. Not only do we hear it from others' mouths, but each of us are culprits of using this dreaded phrase.
This crisis of apathy has hit the local politic world especially hard. In our Journalism course, we recently did a study of several newspapers from around the state of North Carolina. The numbers are disturbing:
83--newspapers studied
5209--articles in said papers
6--percent of articles covering local politics
5--percent of articles covering state politics
11--percent of articles covering national politics
27--percent of articles covering sports
The Wilmington StarNews seems far ahead of the curve with 9.1 percent of its articles covering local politics, while the Winston-Salem Journal lags behind the rest with only 4.6 percent. The rest of the papers--Greensboro News & Record, Charlotte Observer, Raleigh News & Observer and the Fayetteville Observer--all hover around 6 percent.
Who takes the blame for this? Are the newspapers shirking their responsibility? Or do we just not care enough for the papers to validate including more information?
This question may prove impossible to answer. Yes, newspapers should have an obligation to report the news as it is, but in an age when papers are hurting already they can't take s chance of losing more readers by reporting news that people don't want to read.
Why should I care? As a population we care more about baseball and gossip than town hall meetings. This is an absolute truth. But one of the fundamental roles of the media is that of GateKeeper. This is to say that the media has complete control over the information that we get and by not giving us the whole scope of information the papers are essentially keeping us in the dark.
Why should I care? Local politics directly affect each of us. If we don't care then the system doesn't working. Our current political structure relies on us caring and us caring relies on the papers and other media relaying the best information.
We should care we're just not being allowed to.
Posted by Jordan Powell
This is a question we hear all too often in our day-to-day lives. Not only do we hear it from others' mouths, but each of us are culprits of using this dreaded phrase.
This crisis of apathy has hit the local politic world especially hard. In our Journalism course, we recently did a study of several newspapers from around the state of North Carolina. The numbers are disturbing:
83--newspapers studied
5209--articles in said papers
6--percent of articles covering local politics
5--percent of articles covering state politics
11--percent of articles covering national politics
27--percent of articles covering sports
The Wilmington StarNews seems far ahead of the curve with 9.1 percent of its articles covering local politics, while the Winston-Salem Journal lags behind the rest with only 4.6 percent. The rest of the papers--Greensboro News & Record, Charlotte Observer, Raleigh News & Observer and the Fayetteville Observer--all hover around 6 percent.
Who takes the blame for this? Are the newspapers shirking their responsibility? Or do we just not care enough for the papers to validate including more information?
This question may prove impossible to answer. Yes, newspapers should have an obligation to report the news as it is, but in an age when papers are hurting already they can't take s chance of losing more readers by reporting news that people don't want to read.
Why should I care? As a population we care more about baseball and gossip than town hall meetings. This is an absolute truth. But one of the fundamental roles of the media is that of GateKeeper. This is to say that the media has complete control over the information that we get and by not giving us the whole scope of information the papers are essentially keeping us in the dark.
Why should I care? Local politics directly affect each of us. If we don't care then the system doesn't working. Our current political structure relies on us caring and us caring relies on the papers and other media relaying the best information.
We should care we're just not being allowed to.
Posted by Jordan Powell
Sunday, February 21, 2010
In God We Trust?
Contrary to the principle of separation of church and state, "In God We Trust" is plastered all over our currency. There is not too much controversy over this, either. But if we trust in God, in whom else do we trust? Reporters? Family, friends? Neighbors? Our pastors?
It's safe to say that trust has always been extremely highly valued, but today especially, it is becoming harder and harder to come by. Richard Nixon proved that the government isn't always trustworthy. There are daily apologies on the back pages of newspapers proving that they aren't always trustworthy. So who do people trust these days?
This general question parallels the more narrow question of who people trust for their news. Both questions are founded in people's ideals.
With the constantly expanding reach of social media, groupthink is becoming a greater contributor to where people get their news. Does this make news more or less reliable?
This isn't a straightforward question to answer. It also doesn't necessarily dictate the sources that people trust.
With social media, people can find out news from their friends, a source that most people can trust. However, if a friend gives you faulty information, versus a newspaper, you are probably more likely to lose trust in the paper before your friend. This stems from the idea that newspapers are assumed to be experts in their field.
For example, a friend of mine just this weekend posted to his facebook page that Dino Gregory made the buzzer beater for Maryland against Georgia Tech to win the game. Seeing this I looked at the Maryland athletics page and found out that it was Cliff Tucker who made the shot. Knowing this, I still trust this friend--because if I didn't, what's the point of friendship? However, if the Maryland athletics page reported this stat incorrectly I would be wary every time I got information from there.
Expertise is what differentiates my friend and the Web site. This is also what makes social media difficult. If you're not careful, you can mistake a novice for an expert. You have to be careful when getting your information. Trust in a source is something that you build up over time. You know your friends and most likely you're friends with them because they haven't proven that they are untrustworthy.
The sources that you trust are the ones closest to you and the ones closest to the source. When a source proves their expertise, they assume a responsibility to remain trustworthy.
So the final verdict on groupthink? Well what's the source? Groupthink doesn't always have accurate information, so it's important to remain on your toes. But it's also important to know the source of the information. If the source is close to the content in some way--an expert--they are probably more reliable.
How someone builds up their trust in a source or person varies by each person, but closeness to the subject and closeness to you are two major determinants in trusting a source.
Posted by Jordan Powell
It's safe to say that trust has always been extremely highly valued, but today especially, it is becoming harder and harder to come by. Richard Nixon proved that the government isn't always trustworthy. There are daily apologies on the back pages of newspapers proving that they aren't always trustworthy. So who do people trust these days?
This general question parallels the more narrow question of who people trust for their news. Both questions are founded in people's ideals.
With the constantly expanding reach of social media, groupthink is becoming a greater contributor to where people get their news. Does this make news more or less reliable?
This isn't a straightforward question to answer. It also doesn't necessarily dictate the sources that people trust.
With social media, people can find out news from their friends, a source that most people can trust. However, if a friend gives you faulty information, versus a newspaper, you are probably more likely to lose trust in the paper before your friend. This stems from the idea that newspapers are assumed to be experts in their field.
For example, a friend of mine just this weekend posted to his facebook page that Dino Gregory made the buzzer beater for Maryland against Georgia Tech to win the game. Seeing this I looked at the Maryland athletics page and found out that it was Cliff Tucker who made the shot. Knowing this, I still trust this friend--because if I didn't, what's the point of friendship? However, if the Maryland athletics page reported this stat incorrectly I would be wary every time I got information from there.
Expertise is what differentiates my friend and the Web site. This is also what makes social media difficult. If you're not careful, you can mistake a novice for an expert. You have to be careful when getting your information. Trust in a source is something that you build up over time. You know your friends and most likely you're friends with them because they haven't proven that they are untrustworthy.
The sources that you trust are the ones closest to you and the ones closest to the source. When a source proves their expertise, they assume a responsibility to remain trustworthy.
So the final verdict on groupthink? Well what's the source? Groupthink doesn't always have accurate information, so it's important to remain on your toes. But it's also important to know the source of the information. If the source is close to the content in some way--an expert--they are probably more reliable.
How someone builds up their trust in a source or person varies by each person, but closeness to the subject and closeness to you are two major determinants in trusting a source.
Posted by Jordan Powell
Monday, February 15, 2010
Perfection with a little help from your friend
With the possible exception of The Beatles' music, nothing in life is perfect. This includes the internet. However, with a little practice, it comes pretty close.
You can find almost anything on the internet. Whether or not you want to believe everything you find is a personal choice, but the beauty of the internet is that you have the ability to cross check almost any information that you find.
To test the power of the internet, I was given three things to find: Governor Perdue's campaign finance report, NC Voter registration information, and the salary of a UNC Professor.
The first was a little tricky solely because I couldn't figure out if the information I found was about the most recent campaign. I found that as of July 10, 2008, she reported a campaign finance of $2.34 million and $1.4 million in cash on hand. All I had to do was a quick Google search of Beverly Perdue's campaign finance and I found this data. There was a lot of other information because, apparently, there's a lot of controversy surrounding the governor's campaign finance so I had to filter through some stuff but it didn't take more than five minutes of looking to find what I needed.
The second was much easier to find. After a search of NC voting registration info, I could find any information on North Carolina voters that I wanted. As recently as this past week, North Carolina voters totaled over 6 million, 1.9 million Republicans and 2.7 Democrats. I also found gender and race break-downs.
The third was probably the hardest to find and to fact check. I found a Raleigh News&Observer Web site one which I could search for any university employee in the state. On this site I could see their salary, title, hire date and more. I found that Professor Thomas Thornburg in the UNC Chapel Hill School of Government makes $187,055 a year. I couldn't really find anyway to fact check this number besides actually emailing the associate dean and asking him.
The moral of the story? The internet rocks. It's easy to use. It may take a little practice to figure out how to find your way around, but practice makes perfect. Well, at least as perfect as possible until Yoko finds you. ONO!
Posted by Jordan Powell
You can find almost anything on the internet. Whether or not you want to believe everything you find is a personal choice, but the beauty of the internet is that you have the ability to cross check almost any information that you find.
To test the power of the internet, I was given three things to find: Governor Perdue's campaign finance report, NC Voter registration information, and the salary of a UNC Professor.
The first was a little tricky solely because I couldn't figure out if the information I found was about the most recent campaign. I found that as of July 10, 2008, she reported a campaign finance of $2.34 million and $1.4 million in cash on hand. All I had to do was a quick Google search of Beverly Perdue's campaign finance and I found this data. There was a lot of other information because, apparently, there's a lot of controversy surrounding the governor's campaign finance so I had to filter through some stuff but it didn't take more than five minutes of looking to find what I needed.
The second was much easier to find. After a search of NC voting registration info, I could find any information on North Carolina voters that I wanted. As recently as this past week, North Carolina voters totaled over 6 million, 1.9 million Republicans and 2.7 Democrats. I also found gender and race break-downs.
The third was probably the hardest to find and to fact check. I found a Raleigh News&Observer Web site one which I could search for any university employee in the state. On this site I could see their salary, title, hire date and more. I found that Professor Thomas Thornburg in the UNC Chapel Hill School of Government makes $187,055 a year. I couldn't really find anyway to fact check this number besides actually emailing the associate dean and asking him.
The moral of the story? The internet rocks. It's easy to use. It may take a little practice to figure out how to find your way around, but practice makes perfect. Well, at least as perfect as possible until Yoko finds you. ONO!
Posted by Jordan Powell
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
The end of the world? Or just the end of an era?
The world as we know it is changing as we know it. The world today is much different than the one our parents grew up in and this change doesn't seem to be stopping. Everyone is constantly having to upgrade something just to stay on top.
This may be hard for some people to grasp, and a hard adjustment to make for others, but it is certainly not a bad thing. We found out that Americans were ready for a political change in the last presidential election. The time is now to embrace the swiftly changing media as well.
Facebook, Twitter and other social networking sites of the sort are becoming increasingly more important in the world of media. Just like newspapers, radio, and television each saw their popularity boom almost overnight, social media sites are finally hitting their stride.
It's extremely easy to get news from these sites. Americans especially, but most people in general today love convenience. When I can use the same device to make and receive phone calls, send and receive text messages, check up on what my friends and acquaintances are doing, AND get my news...Wow. What could possibly be easier?
Many news sources (such as CNN, NPR and more) already post breaking news to their Twitter pages with links to articles. These "tweets" can be sent directly to someone's mobile device.
Facebook is turning out to be just as good a source for news. Most young adults spend approximately 80%* of their free time checking their Facebook page. News sources are taking advantage of this.
In my current town of Chapel Hill, there is a plethora of local news available to me via Facebook. The Town of Chapel Hill has a page for government updates. A local talk radio news station, 1360, even has a page.
Social networking is revolutionizing the media work like cable TV before it, network TV before that, etc.
Hop on the bandwagon if you want. But if you don't, don't be surprised when the train leaves without you. This isn't the end of the world. It's just the end of the world as we know it. One might even say this is only the beginning...
Posted by Jordan Powell
*statistics estimated
Facebook, Twitter and other social networking sites of the sort are becoming increasingly more important in the world of media. Just like newspapers, radio, and television each saw their popularity boom almost overnight, social media sites are finally hitting their stride.
It's extremely easy to get news from these sites. Americans especially, but most people in general today love convenience. When I can use the same device to make and receive phone calls, send and receive text messages, check up on what my friends and acquaintances are doing, AND get my news...Wow. What could possibly be easier?
Many news sources (such as CNN, NPR and more) already post breaking news to their Twitter pages with links to articles. These "tweets" can be sent directly to someone's mobile device.
Facebook is turning out to be just as good a source for news. Most young adults spend approximately 80%* of their free time checking their Facebook page. News sources are taking advantage of this.
In my current town of Chapel Hill, there is a plethora of local news available to me via Facebook. The Town of Chapel Hill has a page for government updates. A local talk radio news station, 1360, even has a page.
Social networking is revolutionizing the media work like cable TV before it, network TV before that, etc.
Hop on the bandwagon if you want. But if you don't, don't be surprised when the train leaves without you. This isn't the end of the world. It's just the end of the world as we know it. One might even say this is only the beginning...
Posted by Jordan Powell
*statistics estimated
Sunday, January 31, 2010
State of the Media
President Barack Obama addressed America as to the state of our union. People wrote articles about it. People wrote blogs about it. In an ideal world, all three of these media would portray the same ideas. However, the speech, the articles and the blogs may relay different messages. It was our job as a class to get to the bottom of this dilemma.
Newspapers across the country produced articles covering President Obama's speech the morning after. I read articles from The New York Times, Politico, and the Raleigh News & Observer without watching the speech to figure out how well the papers portrayed the speech's overall message.
After reading a total of six articles - 3 Times, 2 Politco, 1 N&O - I finally felt that I had a good sense of the message of the speech. Each article portrayed a fairly similar sense of the president's tone. They all seemed to portray that the president let down his usually proper tone to be more colloquial. From the articles, I deduced that the president was trying to please everyone. He chastised both parties, while not really introducing any new sweeping agenda. None of the articles went in depth as to the policy that he put forward, but I was able to piece it together by reading them all. It basically seemed as though the president was "downsizing his ambitions" as one article put it. The articles all gave the impression of a "don't give up on me" tone from the president.
From listening to a summary of the actual speech from a group of my peers who only watched and didn't read any reviews, the articles more or less captured the overall feel of the speech while coming up a little short on policy points.
Reading solely articles about the speech without watching the speech was an effective way of getting an idea of what the speech consisted of, but was certainly not the most effective way. With links to the full audio of the speech and a readable file, I was able to access the speech through these online articles.
People who read only blogs about the speech seemed to think that they were rather effective after reading more than one blog. Reading only one was too one-sided, they said.
I think, if given the choice, I would prefer to watch the speech and not read any commentary. Although it is nice to get a different perspective and some background information through the blogs and articles, I trust myself enough to filter through what's being said in order to get the meat of the message. The best option would be to combine all three methods however, getting the ambiance of the live speech, the research of the articles and the down-to-earth style of the blogs.
I also would've liked to watch the live speech because I haven't been able to sit through an entire SoU Address for the last eight years. This is not to say that I disagree with everything that the former president did while in office, his rhetoric was just not something I agreed with. The new president, despite what he has or has not done in his first year, is a captivating and enthralling speaker - something that America has missed out on since President Clinton.
Overall, the article approach, the blog approach and the live speech approach all seemed to be fairly effective. The most effective route would be to combine the three media. Personally, I would have preferred to watch the speech because I like to formulate my own opinions, be them right or wrong, and I actually like to listen to this president.
Newspapers across the country produced articles covering President Obama's speech the morning after. I read articles from The New York Times, Politico, and the Raleigh News & Observer without watching the speech to figure out how well the papers portrayed the speech's overall message.
After reading a total of six articles - 3 Times, 2 Politco, 1 N&O - I finally felt that I had a good sense of the message of the speech. Each article portrayed a fairly similar sense of the president's tone. They all seemed to portray that the president let down his usually proper tone to be more colloquial. From the articles, I deduced that the president was trying to please everyone. He chastised both parties, while not really introducing any new sweeping agenda. None of the articles went in depth as to the policy that he put forward, but I was able to piece it together by reading them all. It basically seemed as though the president was "downsizing his ambitions" as one article put it. The articles all gave the impression of a "don't give up on me" tone from the president.
From listening to a summary of the actual speech from a group of my peers who only watched and didn't read any reviews, the articles more or less captured the overall feel of the speech while coming up a little short on policy points.
Reading solely articles about the speech without watching the speech was an effective way of getting an idea of what the speech consisted of, but was certainly not the most effective way. With links to the full audio of the speech and a readable file, I was able to access the speech through these online articles.
People who read only blogs about the speech seemed to think that they were rather effective after reading more than one blog. Reading only one was too one-sided, they said.
I think, if given the choice, I would prefer to watch the speech and not read any commentary. Although it is nice to get a different perspective and some background information through the blogs and articles, I trust myself enough to filter through what's being said in order to get the meat of the message. The best option would be to combine all three methods however, getting the ambiance of the live speech, the research of the articles and the down-to-earth style of the blogs.
I also would've liked to watch the live speech because I haven't been able to sit through an entire SoU Address for the last eight years. This is not to say that I disagree with everything that the former president did while in office, his rhetoric was just not something I agreed with. The new president, despite what he has or has not done in his first year, is a captivating and enthralling speaker - something that America has missed out on since President Clinton.
Overall, the article approach, the blog approach and the live speech approach all seemed to be fairly effective. The most effective route would be to combine the three media. Personally, I would have preferred to watch the speech because I like to formulate my own opinions, be them right or wrong, and I actually like to listen to this president.
Monday, January 25, 2010
NC Blogosphere
Two of North Carolina's most prominent political news blogs, BlueNC and CivitasReview, have obvious opposite slants, but are also very proficient in their news coverage. BlueNC is a more leftward-leaning blog, while CivitasReview is more to the right. They both cover political news in the state with their own style.
Civitas seems to be very opinionated and colloquial in the terminology of those who post. However, the news proves quite reliable when checked with other sources. Therefore it is an effective way for rightward leaning citizens of North Carolina to attain political news. The slant may be too strong for someone who is more moderate or liberal to stomach, however.
BlueNC functions in much the same way. The leftward slant is fairly obvious when reading the blogs on this site. It doesn't seem to be too strong to drive people away from the site, but it is definitely apparent. The stories on BlueNC seem to be a little more in depth than those of Civitas, with many of them having "read more" options that navigate the reader to another page with the full story. BlueNC, like Civitas, seems to be a little conversational in tone.
Something that would make both of these sites a better source of important political news would be a "headline" feature. Creating a link that could navigate the reader to a page with only blogs with headline worthy news would make the process of catching up on news much easier. Both sites seem to be updated with new blogs/stories at least every weekday and often more than once daily. Sifting through these many stories involves a lot of effort and, though each story has its own merit, there are stories that readers are collectively more interested in than others. Granted, it will be difficult to decide which stories would be headline worthy, but such a feature would make reading easier for everyone who visits the site.
Overall, both sites are very effective in their coverage of news, each having their own slant, but lack an easy way for readers to view top stories.
Civitas seems to be very opinionated and colloquial in the terminology of those who post. However, the news proves quite reliable when checked with other sources. Therefore it is an effective way for rightward leaning citizens of North Carolina to attain political news. The slant may be too strong for someone who is more moderate or liberal to stomach, however.
BlueNC functions in much the same way. The leftward slant is fairly obvious when reading the blogs on this site. It doesn't seem to be too strong to drive people away from the site, but it is definitely apparent. The stories on BlueNC seem to be a little more in depth than those of Civitas, with many of them having "read more" options that navigate the reader to another page with the full story. BlueNC, like Civitas, seems to be a little conversational in tone.
Something that would make both of these sites a better source of important political news would be a "headline" feature. Creating a link that could navigate the reader to a page with only blogs with headline worthy news would make the process of catching up on news much easier. Both sites seem to be updated with new blogs/stories at least every weekday and often more than once daily. Sifting through these many stories involves a lot of effort and, though each story has its own merit, there are stories that readers are collectively more interested in than others. Granted, it will be difficult to decide which stories would be headline worthy, but such a feature would make reading easier for everyone who visits the site.
Overall, both sites are very effective in their coverage of news, each having their own slant, but lack an easy way for readers to view top stories.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
The Mason Dixon state (I know it's long, but bear with me)
Well then...My name is Jordan Powell. This is my first blog, so please excuse any ineptitude. I hail from the great city of Baltimore, Md. Over the years Baltimore has held the titles for both murder and heroin capital of the world, but it's by far my favorite murder/heroin capital of the world. Maryland is perennially a "blue" state, but my particular community is rather moderate. My father is a big advocate of Jon Stewart's and records his nightly show, The Daily Show. So for a few years that was really my only source of news--and for anyone who hasn't seen it, it is a great news source. Something great about Stewart is that he's not afraid to point out flaws in both sides of politics. He'll call out Republicans and Democrats without a flinch. I also enjoy Stephen Colbert's The Colbert Report. In my government class last year I was encouraged to watch a channel with an opposite bias, so, although we could debate media bias for hours, I began watching FoxNews. Now, to put on my most boring and cliche face, I feel that watching these programs really enlightened me and I encourage everyone not just to view what they're accustomed to, but to broaden their views and step out of their comfort zone in order to view the "opposing" side. This can be duelly helpful in that it could strengthen your own views by adding background information, or it could put into question and help you discover your True Identity! Okay, no more cliched advice from me.
WBAL is our local news station and the Baltimore Sun our newspaper. Both are pretty weak sources, in my opinion, but the Sun especially has deteriorated of late. We also have the Catonsville Times in which people can find out when the latest councilman received another DUI or how much money our mayor is stealing. The Sun is quickly diminishng its circulation and looks to be OB in another couple years (if it makes it that long). The Times is still relatively strong as a biweekly paper, but is not really a source for political and government news as much as who won the Catonsville High/Mt St Joe basketball game.
Just like almost everywhere else, people in Catonsville are beginning to look more and more to the Internet and cable television for their news. Something that I find great about Stewart and Colbert's shows is that I can get reliable information while enjoying what I'm watching. I can't honestly say that I enjoy watching FoxNews or MSNBC.
So if you're still reading, or if you just skipped to the end, the main points are that my home town's sources of political news comes from television (WBAL, FoxNews, etc), print(The Baltimore Sun and the Catonsville Times) and the good old Interweb.
But we all know that our favorite source of information is the gossip.
WBAL is our local news station and the Baltimore Sun our newspaper. Both are pretty weak sources, in my opinion, but the Sun especially has deteriorated of late. We also have the Catonsville Times in which people can find out when the latest councilman received another DUI or how much money our mayor is stealing. The Sun is quickly diminishng its circulation and looks to be OB in another couple years (if it makes it that long). The Times is still relatively strong as a biweekly paper, but is not really a source for political and government news as much as who won the Catonsville High/Mt St Joe basketball game.
Just like almost everywhere else, people in Catonsville are beginning to look more and more to the Internet and cable television for their news. Something that I find great about Stewart and Colbert's shows is that I can get reliable information while enjoying what I'm watching. I can't honestly say that I enjoy watching FoxNews or MSNBC.
So if you're still reading, or if you just skipped to the end, the main points are that my home town's sources of political news comes from television (WBAL, FoxNews, etc), print(The Baltimore Sun and the Catonsville Times) and the good old Interweb.
But we all know that our favorite source of information is the gossip.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)