The idea of the Interlocking Policy talks about how there are three kinds of people when it comes to the news. First, there are the interested. They read any and all articles about a particular subject, pro or con. They know both sides and takes on a topic and are highly educated. If one were to ask them about their particular interest they could give them thorough, opinionated answer. They tend to be highly judgmental. Then there's those who are some what interested. They might read the headline or the first couple lines of an article but they don't have a lot of time. They don't get too involved with anything seeing as they don't have enough time or aren't truly passionate about one thing in particular. They float through the newspaper. They get by through reading some things but they get to nothing into super detail. Then there's those who aren't interested at all. The don't read the article in the newspapers. They don;t listen to the news reports on Fox television. They have no clue what is going on in the news world and they don't care to know. So the question remains. Do you cater to the specific audience whom you know will read your article? Why bother reaching those you know will never pick up the paper? In the eyes of a good journalist, they will try to target all kinds of people. They will make those who don't pick up the newsprint, pick one up. They will catch their interest and create a change in their daily patterns. Not only will a good journalist make those not interested, interested he will make the involved even more involved and the semi interested more interested. Easier said than done right. I think there are ways that you can target a wider audience not be based strictly on the content matter. I think a lot of it deals with how you present the material. Video media is the way which is why I wanted to demonstrate that point in class. I had someone read this contemporary artist in the New York who was being arrested for his acts but stopped a class mate abruptly to show the video clip which was more engaging and interesting.
Another point I wanted to make was about our role as journalists. right now tons of people are blogging and tweeting. People in the mass media are using that as their source of information. Instead of turning on the news or reading the newspaper they are looking to these venues. If people are emphasizing this role of citizen journalism so strongly, if all we seem to be talking about in our journalism class is the trend of blogging, tweeting, and facebooking and if its a required assignment even for the class to be doing these things then why have journalism? Is there a need for it? After all people are out their, voices are being hear, and people believe these sources to be credible. While all of these things are true, there still is an important role for journalism. While people can look to all these other outlets to find out information, journalism and what is printed in black ink is what is credible. not everything you see posted on people's facebook chats are necessarily true. They could have heard it through the grapevine, heard it from an unreliable source and they haven't looked up the facts or done their homework. A journalist would have. They would have gone out into the field and pieced everything together in order to produce a story. I think these outlets are good because if people aren't going to pay attention to the news at least they will get it somehow and if someone is interested in it enough they will do something about it. They will follow up and look on that news website to verify the truth. Journalists, tweeters and bloggers all have a place in the journalistic society.
I learned a lot during this presentation those are just two points I wanted to emphasize. While the procedures and way of delivering messages are evolving through time the need for journalism still exists and will always exist in my opinion.
No comments:
Post a Comment