I was at first uncomfortable using images in my posts. I had no idea how to approach it. I went back and examined my “Did I mention my Pulitzer” post. In the Pulitzer post I saw a couple of places where an image would enhance my writing.
I really want the text to be the focus of this most so I do not think it would have been appropriate to have a picture at the very top. I was torn about this decision because I believe visuals do help draw readers in. I could have incorporated a picture of the Hudsucker Proxy but that may confuse readers because it is not really the subject of the post.
The main place I saw that should have had a picture was in the section about the of winners of the Investigative Journalism Pulitzer. I spend time talking about them and it would help the audience to see who I am describing. The picture should be medium and at the right of the text discussing them. Like so. This way the reader sees the text first and then looks at the picture second to see who I am discussing.
David Barstow and Alejandra Xanic von Bertrab with Lee C. Bollinger.
My motivation in writing that post was curiosity. I was curious and I figured maybe other people would like to learn what I have learned, so I put it out there. I am not sure if that is a good enough motivation or not. The Pulitzer is a prestigious award, and anyone who wants to be a journalist should be aware of the top writers in this field.
Exploring the relationship between news media and digital media is the whole purpose of my blog. I found the picture of a hand holding this world of media and though it was perfect. The hand holding the world of information conveyed the message to readers that both they and I hold this world in our hands. Using digital media we can shape our news experience in ways we never could before. The other aspect I liked most was the hand being a glowing, digital looking part of the image. It just serves to reinforce the idea of the reader interacting with this digital world.
While following the reports on the Boston Bombings
, I could not help but be intrigued by the amount of footage that was sent in by viewers. People close to the action still ran for cover but while doing so they pulled out their cell phones and recorded what was happening. Instant live footage is not the only addition to the industry of journalism: It is also common for people to look to their cellphones for the latest headline. I have the CNN app on my phone and it alerts me when there is breaking news. It is even more popular to view the news on a laptop or tablet. My curiosity inspired me to read up on mobile devices and the news.
Mobile Devices and News Consumption
The Pew Research Center published “Mobile Devices and News Consumption: Some Good Signs for Journalism”
They claim that News is a big part of what people do on their mobile devices.
State of the Media
A growing number of Americans are becoming multi-platform digital news consumers. I view the news on both my phone and my laptop. I was comforted to read that the reputation of the news organization played a larger part in where people go for the news. With Facebook and Twitter becoming popular for breaking news, it is good that most people can differentiate between reliable and unreliable sources.
How is this useful?
While writing this, I started to ask myself what does this mean for the news industry. It is possible to apply just about every text we have read so far to this question. So, I am going to follow the advice of William Zinsser and keep it simple and clear. It changes just about everything. Different materials means a different approach. The world of news media has to adapt to the increasingly popular digital platform.
I must confess I still do not have a Twitter account; mostly because I haven’t figured out what to do with it yet. I don’t want to activate an account just to read random people talking about random events in their life. I love my friends but I don’t even want to follow their every tweet. However, when you partner the struggling news industry with Twitter, it becomes clear what it can be used for. Twitter is the perfect forum for breaking news, and it would reach a large audience of people very quickly. It is speculated that Twitter will bring change to the news media
. Many, if not all, of the news stations have Twitter accounts where they display short headlines of breaking news and advertise their TV shows.
The big question is does Twitter work in a meaningful way? Paul Farhi from the Washington Post provides the unsatisfying answer: It all depends. He does raise the good point that it mainly depends on the situation that it is used in. Reporters using Twitter during speeches and federal court cases is useful. It provides first-hand information to readers while the event is actually happening.He also acknowledges that it is tedious to sort through all the useless tweets to get to that useful piece of information.
Ultimately, I think the good outweighs the bad. I believe Twitter has and will continue to impact the news industry. It will be interesting to see where these impacts take the currently morphing news industry.
Miss USA Winner Erin Brady
I was tipped off by my husband that the Miss USA questions and answers were worth checking out. It was amusing. The competition does not require a talent, and it is painfully obvious that none of these contestants has a talent for answering questions. Don’t get me wrong: I would not want to be interviewed in front of millions. Talk about pressure, but I didn’t enter the pageant. They knew what they were getting into.
The news reporting on the situation in Turkey did not fully satisfy me. Every report touched on a certain aspect but did not capture every aspect. This blog gathered all the information and made it easier for me to understand the story. Hope you have the same experience.
Explanation of events in Turkey
Examining links in class the other day really opened my eyes. I cruise the web on a pretty regular basis but rarely notice the ad links. I have become accustomed to tuning them out, and only noticing the bright flashing icons in my peripheral vision. Since I am interested in journalism, I thought it would be fun to really close read the home pages of two very different news sites. I chose NPR.com and usatoday.com.
The home page reminds me of an actual newspaper. It is set up in a grid system with the text being the main focus instead of pictures. Also, there are no ads, which is very uncommon on a website. It actually made the home page seem a little bland. I am so accustomed to seeing bright flashing ads. The focus is aimed at the text itself and not pictures.
The home page was not like a traditional newspaper because it was very visual based rather than textual based. There was also one ad for some online casino, and it was not as obnoxious as some. It was a more interesting home page, but I was not as interested in the actual head lines. The main headline read “Brennan: More heartbreak for Phil at U.S. Open.” I am not a golf fan, so I could care less. I was much more drawn in by NPR’s headline “Why Both Sides Want Gay Marriage Settled by the States.”
Both sites had interactivity with the readers; however, in different ways. NPR draws the audience in with text and USA Today draws them in with pictures. It is most likely that the readers of the NPR site are different from the readers of USA Today. So, I feel like the methods of interactivity change with the audience.
Yeah right! In my dreams. While viewing the awesome movie Hudsucker Proxy, the scene between the news chief and the reporter Amy really inspired me. I cant help but chuckle when she can’t help but mention her Pulitzer. I was embarrassed to realize that while I know the Pulitzer is a prestigious award given to writers, I have absolutely no idea who was nominated this year or what the categories even are.