Survival of the Fittest

Breaking Up 

I'm sorry to say that our lovely dose of daily television did have some unintended side effects. One of them being being the demassification of magazines. After the introduction of television, magazines lost a lot of their consumers to the new platform. In order to keep up with the now competitive market magazines were forced to demassify to continue making a profit. After some time pondering,that led me to make my own theory as to how demassification allowed magazines to survive. A topic which we hadn't covered all that well in class.

Before the TV, magazines acted as a mass media that produced something for everyone and a section to meet the needs of every niche possible. The allowed them to maximize the amount of viewers they had make the greatest possible profit. However, when the TV took the spotlight their little niche section in the magazine no longer satisfied them. The overall price wasn't worth it for a magazine that was full of a lot of things that either didn't pertain to or interest readers but for a small section. TV was a much better option.

My theory is that in order to forgo that problem magazines broke up to target a variety of different audiences to increase the draw for magazines. Now, different niches had whole magazine publications customized uniquely to them which significantly increased their probability to buy them. That does still technically mean that there was less people buying the magazines as there was before; however, it was the best possible strategy for magazines to maintain a standing in the media world and popularize the photojournalism sector.

Pineapple Pizza vs Hate Crimes

"Why is it that hate is overpowering love."

-"72 Hours of Hell" by Yaara

   It goes without saying that the all the events of the past week have been horrendous."Why is it that more and more people are fearing there lives when they walk out on the street rather then feeling safe?" questioned Yaara in reference to all the hate crimes that have occurred in such a short span. Her questions were beautifully written in way that changed my perspective from merely considering solutions to the problem but also the reason why. Why has there been so much hate crime recently?

  When I thought about it I started by re-evaluating my personal definition of hate. Hate can mean a variety of things ranging from I hate pineapple pizza to I hate all Muslims. Obviously these are two completely different hatreds. One stems for your personal taste and flavor preferences, but what sparks the other. The more I thought about it the more I realized how generalized it is. You can hate both your arch enemy and cats in totally different ways, and two people can hate pineapple pizzas for two different reasons.

  Personally  I believe the term "hate crime"  is a pretty generalizing term and therefore the solution is not as straightforward as it may seem. If I'm generalizing it I've always viewed the cause of hate crime to be similar to that of bullying. You know the preppy anti bullying videos we watch. Well they don't just apply to school life. I see hate crime perpetrators as bullies times ten. They blame others for problems they find in themselves and/or the world to make themselves feel better. No this is not the only reason but it's my generalized opinion.

   Call me a pessimist but I'm in the boat that believes that hate crimes will never be completely eradicated. There will always be someone who wishes to blame others for their problems; however, there are ways to significantly reduce that number and spread the love. You know the saying love is blind. If thats true then those who commit hate have 20/20 vision. All they see is our differences. I say we cut the labels, and cut our tendency to divide. Obviously this not something that can be done quickly however being united in humanity (while keeping our individuality of course :^) ) and shedding truth on our own personality can help. There will be no happily ever after but there may be a better atmosphere for diverse future generations.
 

 

   

Netflix trumps War?????

                                        A Wave 3 Revelation

    Earlier today I was doing my routine examination of Wave 3 news when I had reached the national section of the news when I noticed an article titled "Netflix to Give 3 Films an exclusive run in Theaters". At first I made nothing of it filed it off as interesting enough and hurried on to finish my assignment. It wasn't until a little while later when I received a notifications from New York Times regarding an article titled "How the War in Yemen Became a Bloody Stalemate"........think about that. Needless to say my whole perspective changed after that.

    I can not label Wave 3's National Section as interesting enough or relatively relevant because that is just not okay. The world has no lack of stories that need to heard and problems hiding beneath the surface without representation. Their ranking of whats newsworthy and whats not is completely off wack. It goes without being said that the majority of us would rather live in a perfect world where the most important thing we needed to know about the world around us is new Netflix shows going into theaters but that's just not the case. Though they did have a few noteworthy stories such as "Israel's Netanyahu warns Europe of Possible Attacks by Iran" however, that does not excuse them for neglecting other stories.

   Though they may be but a local news site; many citizens only ever take the time to go through but one news site a day meaning if you were checking only Wave 3 everyday you would be getting but a small portion of what you need to know about the world. I am in no way claiming that Wave 3 has to find a way to publish absolutely every important story in the news. They do have their limitations after all. What I'm trying to stress is wasting valuable space on your site to feature information easily overshadowed by more important stories.

   

         

90.5 FM and Enrique Iglesias Galore

                  The Universal Language

     Regardless of where or when you'd lived, music is known to have the power to move one to tears of joy or of despair.  Since the beginning of the art form, it has grown and developed in countless ways that have shaped us more then any of us would realize. Sometime around the 1890's we discussed a facet of the development of music that particularly caught my eye. When new recording techniques were discovered, music made the transition to be a multicultural art form that breaks the barriers of time and space.

  No longer was music restricted by regional boundaries. It could be shared across the world and evolved to a form of mass media that could be saved throughout generations. Due to this globalization of music, I believe it played a major role in introducing a new culture birthed by the the mixture of world music. No longer was the divide of music defined by regions for it now found a new divide in genre.

   People young and old, eastern and western, can now listen to the same exact music which was not possible before recorded music. I found this completely incredible in terms of culture and society. It  acts as a way to meld society and gaps between differences among people. Now everyone has access to the same messages found in music as every one else and slowly but surely, it further connects humanity as a whole and are core human values. Regardless of where your from and what language you speak you can now be moved my music from around the world allowing us to bond and connect of something worldwide.

   Despite all the changes in pop culture throughout different generations, the introduction of recorded music has allowed us to retain a very significant part of our history. I am unapologetic to say I am one of the people who cherishes old and classical music in all its forms(90.5 on the radio if you were wondering). Had it not been for recorded music I wouldn't be allowed this insight into society's past. We would not know what people had listened to back then, nor would we understand the changes that caused our culture to shift towards different forms.

Fillers Don't Belong in News

             A Big Round of Applause For Wave 3🙄

      "Every day I watch and scroll through Wave 3 news and I'm blown away by how very much essential their information is to my life. They provide just the newsworthy information I need to hear about and keep it relevant. Every singly day I scroll through their unproportional category distribution and truly appreciate how important it was to my day......" said absolutely no one ever.  

    It is in no way far fetched to say that wave 3 contains many articles that are nothing but mindless fillers that could be replaced by much more worthy ones. Through an alternate schedule of 5 days of research, I've already noticed an imbalance of stories with more leaning towards the sports category. 4 of the 5 days, sports was the leading category on the live show with the only exception being  10/24 in which crime made a top appearance with all the acts of violence(ex. Kroger shooting) going around.

   No, it's not because it was a slow news day. Especially not four slow news days. There is plenty of important news on the National if not Local level that can be featured instead. However, they still lead towards more sport based stories. They are not a sports based platform, and the move on their part is merely to draw in and please a larger audience.

   Now for the fillers, the mindless, near comical stories found on the site that are there merely for entertainment. I'll admit that I myself could not help but enjoy and remember a number of articles under this category. For instance "Man accidentally sets house on fire after using a blowtorch to kill black widow spiders" and "Behind the Scenes of Aladdin". However, no matter how entertaining, they take away from time better spent on more important stories.

   Of course all this is not to say that Wave 3 is failing as a publication. Overall, through comparison with other groups, they do manage to find ways to put out the major stories that should generally be published;however, that's it. They do the minimal amount of needed important news and the rest is merely standard news that they believe will draw in the most viewers. 

The true extent of defamation laws....

 

                         Watch Your Tweets

Libel is by definition, a published false statement that is damaging to a persons reputation; a written defamation. The requirements of libel were seemingly clearly laid out. In order to accuse of libel, you must prove its false, they perpetrator knew it was false, and it hurt your reputation. What we didn't focus on however, was what was classified as a published false statement.

      If a celebrity made a lie about another celebrity in an Instagram post would that be considered libel? Lets say they found it to meet all the requirements: it was false, the perpetrator knew it was false, and it hurt their reputation. Does a tweet classify as a publication? Is only mass media classified as libel? Or lets say perhaps someone said someone said said something false about someone and then later it was published . Would that classify as libel, and who would you prosecute; the person who said the false statement or the one who published it?

     After some research I found it undeniably clear that the law in terms of Twitter is clear, any form of defamatory statement can be charged of libel. In other words, any forms of libel on social media, blogs, websites etc can be charged of libel. It's not limited to professionally published material. Meaning if anyone from you to Trump were to post defaming false information in any medium can be prosecuted for libel.

   Though I couldn't find it directly stated, through analyzing, I could deduct that libel does not have to be mass media. What if an employer sent out an email to a another employer of one of their old employees falsely defaming them that can be prosecuted for libel. They have ruined their reputation in a way that could lose them a job opportunity.

    My final question, required me to distinguish between slander and libel. No, verbally defaming some one does not classify as libel; however, it is classified as slander which you may also sue under defamation law.

   If all of these different platforms can all leave you are risk for libel you may worry as to how to protect yourself. For that I leave you with the words of Andrew Hamilton, "Truth should be the greatest defense against libel."
 

   



   

"But it's my first amendment right!!!!".........

            Pride, Prejudice, and Outraged Supremacists           

      When I first learned what the freedom of speech was, I had merely thought it to be, as the name implies, the freedom to speak out as you wish. When searching up the freedom of speech, one of the very first definitions I actually found was "the right to express any opinion without censorship or restraint". However, growing exposure to media and new knowledge of the element of journalism "inclusive", my views shifted, and not for the better. 

     

        Constantly I would hear complaints and critiques of this journalist and this media outlet for being too biased and not proposing all the views. The lines of right and wrong in my head blurred and it led me to question the very concept of being inclusive. In truth, my very interest in journalism was sparked by the opportunity to fight for what I though was right and give power back to the people. So, you see why the threat of needing to give the view of a side so ridiculous as "white supremacy" representation in anything I wrote was very disgruntling.

        

          That's were the class discussion's revelation jumps in. By the right of the journalists themselves, they don't have to feature sides as inhumane as many that exist today. Though everyone may have the right to their opinion, we have the right of knowing when to draw the line of being inclusive and needn't take the time to give them an actual platform in the media. WE DON'T HAVE TO COVER THEM!!

      

           I learned this concept as a mere Freshman of high school in the very first journalism class I've ever taken. To genuinely believe that top media platforms didn't know what I had learned as a Freshman was preposterous to me. But if they know all this, why do a number of professional media platforms still fall subject to claims of "bias" and actually present such ridiculous ideals.

        This led me to the under-lying cause we hadn’t discussed in class. Money, money, and more money. No, I'm not claiming this to be the one and only reason cause nor am I suggesting it's the most prominent. However, it's the one that I saw click into place right away. It would be a lie to say that a lot of major news publications were not populist whatsoever. The majority of top news publications are looking to get as many viewers as possible in their telling of the news. Though maybe not on corrupt level, money is a factor.

      If money is a factor, then defamation due to supposed "bias" (especially if most of your viewers have similar views to the one you believe unworthy of a platform) is a big no no. While media outlets are mainly there to provide news, they are also influenced by the audience in many ways. 

     

      Of course, there are other reasons such as a genuine want to understand these views. That is one of the reasons why articles such as the much criticized New York Times “A voice of hate in Americas Heartland”(Read here) were published. Though before I may have seen the logic in this defense, I realized that what we discussed on platforms needs to be put into more consideration. To do a full interview on a white nationalist whether positive or negative, is to normalize the problem and give it a legitimate platform.

        We know about the problem and the problem shouldn't be there. So, let’s spend less time covering it as if it was viable hmmmm.