What does the name, Johannes Gutenberg mean to you? Chances are you've probably heard of him before and rightfully so. Gutenberg's innovation of the printing press was very helpful, but in order to appreciate it to the max extent, we have to go back in time a bit.
The year is 3500 BC, the place, Mesopotamia. This is when and where the first idea of printing something came about. Stamp seals were a marvel at this time. Only people in power had one. But like any antique invention, it had it's disadvantages. See the thing about stamp seals is they served a double purpose, rings. People of royalty would where them as rings and stamp important document using these seals once they were filled with ink. So, as you can imagine stamp seals were kind of small.
Fast forward. It is now the 1st C.E. and the Romans have invented a screw press. While this enables people to print larger documents, there is no way of knowing for sure how to get it just right. If someone cranked the press too much the wood would break, too little and it wouldn't print.
A little later in China it is the 3rd C.E. and the middle of the Han dynasty. Someone had the idea of printing with wooden blocks. Egypt has the same idea but they're about 1 C.E. late. Like all the innovations before it the wooden blocks are fragile and inefficient.
Finally we get back to China in 1040 C.E. A man by the name of Bi Sheng has invented movable type. Now all too often Gutenberg is credited for the first one to create movable type, but this is not the case. While Sheng's invention was smart it just wasn't smart enough. He still used wood! Wood can break and crack and is just too fragile.
During the 15th C.E. is when Gutenberg comes along and has the great idea of taking Bi Sheng's movable type and making it metal. This way printing is cheaper faster and efficient. And there we have it folks, the innovations of the printing press.
Thursday, September 18, 2014
Tuesday, September 16, 2014
Yardsticks and Principles
The most basic guidelines of all journalism are the 9 principles and 7 yardsticks of journalism. Journalists are expected to follow these principles and yardsticks in everything they do in order to be credible and considered a "good journalist."
The first principle is truth. Telling the truth is a journalist's first obligation.
The second principle is loyalty. A journalists loyalty isn't to their boss, customers, or audience, but is to the citizens. Journalists must always choose the people.
The third principle is verification. Verification is the absolute essential discipline in the world of journalism. A good journalist should have multiple sources and is encouraged to use witnesses as sources if they are available.
The forth principle is independence- of spirit and mind that is. A good journalist avoids devotion
The fifth principle and my favorite is watchdog- keeping an eye on those in power. The courts recognize this and the citizens rely on it. It is not only our right but it is also our obligation to be responsible enough to use this principle correctly by not exploiting it for their own well being.
The sixth principle is forum. Without a forum the audience would have no way of criticizing the journalism piece thus enabling the journalist to make the same mistake twice or more.
The seventh principle is make the important interesting. I know we've all seen that one news station that blows every unnecessary thing out of porportion and leves like ten seconds at the end of the show to break the news of something that actually matters. That news station would be an example of a media not following this principle.
The eighth principle is inclusive. In my opinion inclusive can kinda fit in with the most recent principle. Being inclusive means giving every detail the appropriate amount of emphasis. if a detail doesn't have an appropriate amount then it should not be shared.
The ninth principle is room for dissent. This means speaking up for what you think is right. Im sure we've all seen that one poster that says, "Wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it and right is right even if no one is doing it." That quote is pretty much this principle in a nutshell.
The first yardstick of journalism is newsworthiness. Basically what this means is, if people don't care about something don't make them suffer and listen to an hour long report on it.
The second yardstick of journalism is context. Sources are important. In order to get the full accurate story you must get all sides of the story. If your reports are consistently under-sourced people are likely to stop reading/ listening to them.
The third yardstick is explanation. Instead of focusing on one tiny detail that just blows your mind, a good journalist should step back and take a look at the whole event and then analyze how important each detail is to this event, thus putting the importance on the story itself and not just one aspect of it.
The forth yardstick is local relevance. This is most likely where the phrase "what does that have to do with the price of tea in china" is derived from. So if news station in Texas reported about an abandoned puppy from Michigan that was adopted by somebody hours before it was supposed to be put down they would be violating local relevance. I mean sure the story is cute and all but how does that affect the citizens in Texas in any way shape or form?
The fifth yardstick is civic contribution. The principle equal of civic contribution is watch dog with an exception. That exception being that civic contribution is keeping an eye on people in the government while watch dog is keeping an eye on anyone with power.
The sixth yardstick is Enterprise. Enterprise is looking at how efficient reporters are in getting the hottest stories. Someone who gets the breaking news every time is going to have a better measure of enterprise than that journalist who hasn't had a breaking story in over a year.
The seventh yardstick is fairness. In fairness journalists are expected to get more than just one side of the story. A journalist who follows fairness doesn't just take someones word for it. They chase it until they find another source that matches the controversy.
The first principle is truth. Telling the truth is a journalist's first obligation.
The second principle is loyalty. A journalists loyalty isn't to their boss, customers, or audience, but is to the citizens. Journalists must always choose the people.
The third principle is verification. Verification is the absolute essential discipline in the world of journalism. A good journalist should have multiple sources and is encouraged to use witnesses as sources if they are available.
The forth principle is independence- of spirit and mind that is. A good journalist avoids devotion
The fifth principle and my favorite is watchdog- keeping an eye on those in power. The courts recognize this and the citizens rely on it. It is not only our right but it is also our obligation to be responsible enough to use this principle correctly by not exploiting it for their own well being.
The sixth principle is forum. Without a forum the audience would have no way of criticizing the journalism piece thus enabling the journalist to make the same mistake twice or more.
The seventh principle is make the important interesting. I know we've all seen that one news station that blows every unnecessary thing out of porportion and leves like ten seconds at the end of the show to break the news of something that actually matters. That news station would be an example of a media not following this principle.
The eighth principle is inclusive. In my opinion inclusive can kinda fit in with the most recent principle. Being inclusive means giving every detail the appropriate amount of emphasis. if a detail doesn't have an appropriate amount then it should not be shared.
The ninth principle is room for dissent. This means speaking up for what you think is right. Im sure we've all seen that one poster that says, "Wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it and right is right even if no one is doing it." That quote is pretty much this principle in a nutshell.
The first yardstick of journalism is newsworthiness. Basically what this means is, if people don't care about something don't make them suffer and listen to an hour long report on it.
The second yardstick of journalism is context. Sources are important. In order to get the full accurate story you must get all sides of the story. If your reports are consistently under-sourced people are likely to stop reading/ listening to them.
The third yardstick is explanation. Instead of focusing on one tiny detail that just blows your mind, a good journalist should step back and take a look at the whole event and then analyze how important each detail is to this event, thus putting the importance on the story itself and not just one aspect of it.
The forth yardstick is local relevance. This is most likely where the phrase "what does that have to do with the price of tea in china" is derived from. So if news station in Texas reported about an abandoned puppy from Michigan that was adopted by somebody hours before it was supposed to be put down they would be violating local relevance. I mean sure the story is cute and all but how does that affect the citizens in Texas in any way shape or form?
The fifth yardstick is civic contribution. The principle equal of civic contribution is watch dog with an exception. That exception being that civic contribution is keeping an eye on people in the government while watch dog is keeping an eye on anyone with power.
The sixth yardstick is Enterprise. Enterprise is looking at how efficient reporters are in getting the hottest stories. Someone who gets the breaking news every time is going to have a better measure of enterprise than that journalist who hasn't had a breaking story in over a year.
The seventh yardstick is fairness. In fairness journalists are expected to get more than just one side of the story. A journalist who follows fairness doesn't just take someones word for it. They chase it until they find another source that matches the controversy.
Monday, September 15, 2014
The Breakdown of Communication
What is communication? There are unlimited ways to answer this question. There are three types of communication, individual, mass, and group.
Individual communication is One person communicating to another person or a small group of people rather than a mass audience. Mass communication is one person talking to a mass audience. There are three qualifications that a way of communication must pass for it to be considered mass communication. First off there can not be any immediate feedback. Secondly, there must be the potential to reach a mass audience. Finally, it must travel through space and time. For example, this blog is a way of mass communication. Since it is online I cannot see my audiences initial reaction. If someone copied and pasted this whole article and put it on a public social media profile anybody could view it giving it the potential to reach a mass audience. This entry is being transferred from my computer to blog spot and can be viewed from any computer at any time until I delete it. Thus traveling across space and over time. The third type of communication is group communication. In group communication a person and a certain audience are communicating back and forth. If I were to stand up in front of an audience and read this to a group of people and the whole first row starts to fall asleep they are communicating to me that to them this entry is boring.
Now there is a whole lot more to communication, in fact there is a whole process. A process that starts with stimulus and internalization. Now lets say I have an idea for a new T.V show. In order for your mind to digest my idea it has to go through encoding, transmission, and decoding for you to be able to internalize it. So i have this idea for a show right? Well during encoding I must write the script, hire the actors, and burn it to a tape. During transmission the audience must have something like Netflix or cable. Then during decoding the audience must turn on the T.V and watch my show.
During the communication process there are filters and impediments. There are three of each, I'll start with filters first. The physical filter says "I cant" and happens during decoding and internalization. The psychological filter says "I wont" and happens in the brain. The informational filter says "I don't know how." Now the impediments. The first is semantic noise which happens in encoding. The second is channel noise which happens during transmission and the third is environmental noise which happens during decoding.
So hopefully through this whole entry you've at the least learned the communication is not such a surface word. It has more depth than most people realize.
Individual communication is One person communicating to another person or a small group of people rather than a mass audience. Mass communication is one person talking to a mass audience. There are three qualifications that a way of communication must pass for it to be considered mass communication. First off there can not be any immediate feedback. Secondly, there must be the potential to reach a mass audience. Finally, it must travel through space and time. For example, this blog is a way of mass communication. Since it is online I cannot see my audiences initial reaction. If someone copied and pasted this whole article and put it on a public social media profile anybody could view it giving it the potential to reach a mass audience. This entry is being transferred from my computer to blog spot and can be viewed from any computer at any time until I delete it. Thus traveling across space and over time. The third type of communication is group communication. In group communication a person and a certain audience are communicating back and forth. If I were to stand up in front of an audience and read this to a group of people and the whole first row starts to fall asleep they are communicating to me that to them this entry is boring.
Now there is a whole lot more to communication, in fact there is a whole process. A process that starts with stimulus and internalization. Now lets say I have an idea for a new T.V show. In order for your mind to digest my idea it has to go through encoding, transmission, and decoding for you to be able to internalize it. So i have this idea for a show right? Well during encoding I must write the script, hire the actors, and burn it to a tape. During transmission the audience must have something like Netflix or cable. Then during decoding the audience must turn on the T.V and watch my show.
During the communication process there are filters and impediments. There are three of each, I'll start with filters first. The physical filter says "I cant" and happens during decoding and internalization. The psychological filter says "I wont" and happens in the brain. The informational filter says "I don't know how." Now the impediments. The first is semantic noise which happens in encoding. The second is channel noise which happens during transmission and the third is environmental noise which happens during decoding.
So hopefully through this whole entry you've at the least learned the communication is not such a surface word. It has more depth than most people realize.
Saturday, September 13, 2014
Magazines
One word, nine letters, magazine. The history of the magazine is quite more complex than one would think so buckle up your seat belts because this one's a page turner. The first magazine was published in 1741 by the great historical figure, Ben Franklin. This magazine was anything but the type of magazine we have today. The name of the magazine, General Magazine, alone drops clues about the content it contained. General Magazine had something for everybody. I challenge you to go to any old grocery store and look at the rack of magazines by the cashier to see if you can find one that has that kind of content. Everything you can imagine was crammed into one tiny, shiny magazine. Containing everything from puzzles to news its no wonder General Magazine was a hit! A few 80 something years later someone else had tried their hand in this new way of communication. Saturday Evening Post would change life as we knew it. Magazines had become a national medium, had a national audience, were nationally advertising, and had a national identity! 58 years after the publish of Saturday Evening Post the postal act of 1879 was passed. Magazines were now selling at 1 cent per pound! The government had subsidized the magazine industry as a whole. With the magazine there were innovations of photojournalism, Investigative journalism, and personality profiles. But like all good things it came to an end... well more like a pause. The magazine industry had a decision to make: Find a niche audience or find a new job. So they decided to take the earlier option. Believe it or not, the gradual demassification of magazines led us to those thing that stock the shelves in our bathroom today.
Thursday, September 11, 2014
Response to Laurie Johantan
http://dreaminreality14.blogspot.com/2014/09/literacy-is-power.html
I really appreciate your use of similes and metaphors in this entry. The examples you wrote about were probably some of the most relatable examples I've heard in a while! For awhile "The Hunger Games" was the biggest craze so i think it was super clever to use Katniss Everdeen as a simile. Great job!
I really appreciate your use of similes and metaphors in this entry. The examples you wrote about were probably some of the most relatable examples I've heard in a while! For awhile "The Hunger Games" was the biggest craze so i think it was super clever to use Katniss Everdeen as a simile. Great job!
Resonse to Kaelyn Harris
http://bluerthanink.blogspot.com/2014/09/those-glossy-pages-response-to-lecture-5.html
Oh my gosh I feel like i just have to respond to this. While scrolling through blogs looking at what I would be able to contribute through a response I came across this article and i have one thing to say... absolutely amazing. I love your writing style and you expressed immense knowledge. Everything from the way you involve the audience in your writing to your paragraphing in this entry is just awesome awesome awesome! I actually found myself learning from this absolutely phenomenal entry. I have nothing but praise for this article. Bravo!
Oh my gosh I feel like i just have to respond to this. While scrolling through blogs looking at what I would be able to contribute through a response I came across this article and i have one thing to say... absolutely amazing. I love your writing style and you expressed immense knowledge. Everything from the way you involve the audience in your writing to your paragraphing in this entry is just awesome awesome awesome! I actually found myself learning from this absolutely phenomenal entry. I have nothing but praise for this article. Bravo!
Response to Olivia Evans
http://evansolivia.blogspot.com/2014/09/binary-code.html
I really liked the way you worded this entry. I had the same thought in my mind about how society is mindlessly accepting whatever is fed to us. Unfortunately that's the way the ball rolls in today's society. I agree with your statement that the majority of the population listens to whatever the "big people" say, however, as journalists, it is our lawful duty to comply with the nine principles and seven yardsticks of journalism, one of them being "watchdog." What that means is we need to keep an eye on these "big people" and wait for them to trip up.
I really liked the way you worded this entry. I had the same thought in my mind about how society is mindlessly accepting whatever is fed to us. Unfortunately that's the way the ball rolls in today's society. I agree with your statement that the majority of the population listens to whatever the "big people" say, however, as journalists, it is our lawful duty to comply with the nine principles and seven yardsticks of journalism, one of them being "watchdog." What that means is we need to keep an eye on these "big people" and wait for them to trip up.
Response to Olivia Dawson
http://oliviadawsonjc.blogspot.com/2014/09/lecture-today-we-learned-about.html#comment-form
I agree with your viewpoint on this lecture. I, myself was also surprised that the newspaper had so much history. Who would've thought that such a standard media had such a complex background. No doubt everybody involved in the development of the newspaper went to great lengths to better today's world of news.
I agree with your viewpoint on this lecture. I, myself was also surprised that the newspaper had so much history. Who would've thought that such a standard media had such a complex background. No doubt everybody involved in the development of the newspaper went to great lengths to better today's world of news.
Tuesday, September 2, 2014
Why WAVE3 is unreliable
As many of you are aware the "Louisville Purge" story took practically the whole country by storm. Thanks to the the devoted reporters and magnet leaders at duPont Manual High School, the general public was exposed to the truth about the mastermind behind this whole fiasco. The least that is expected from any media corporation is to give credit where it is due. It is to my dismay that I inform you that local news station, WAVE3, falls short in this particular category. When WAVE3 caught wind that a high school broke the news, instead of covering the story and giving Manual credit they took the story for their own. While they may have been praised by those who believed their lies, they tarnished their credibility as a media corporation. Not only did they steal this story but they also violated one of the principles as well as one of the yardsticks of journalism. They blatantly ignored everything that honest journalism stands for. By claiming this story they completely failed to comply with the principle of truth and the very important guideline of context. If they were tested on their credibility of this story, their grade would be a big, fat, zero. They deceived the citizens by allowing them[the citizens] to think they[WAVE3] were the ones who discovered this information. The abuse of power displayed in this situation is despicable. They should've been responsible and said the information reported on was derived from a local high school. That one little sentence would've stopped all this damage from happening and their credibility would still be intact.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)