The right ending for a series?

Posted on April 12, 2014 by Ryan Henseler

By RYAN HENSELER

Everyone has their favorite TV shows. Everyone knows those shows that draws you in and makes you genuinely care about the characters. Shows that you mindlessly binge watch on Netflix and end up knocking out multiple seasons in a weekend.

“Breaking Bad,” “The Wire” and “Game of Thrones” are dramas that keep you on the edge of your seat. “Scrubs,” “The Office,” and a few other comedies achieve an interesting and great balance of laughs and genuine emotions.

One conundrum that all writers and creators must face at some point is the question of how to end a beloved show. Some opt to go with the classic happy ending. Some look to add a twist and shock viewers. Some, like “Breaking Bad,” end the series sadly, but remain true to the main character of the show.

This problem is thrown into the national spotlight and debated every time a long-running series reaches its conclusion. The most recent example came with the ending of CBS comedy “How I Met Your Mother” last week.

If you haven’t seen the ending and want to, you may want to stop reading now.

The creators of the show, Carter Bays and Craig Thomas, opted to try for the twist ending, and opinions are highly mixed on whether or not they succeeded. The creators opted to kill off the titular mother. The main character, Ted, was telling the story to his children six years after her death as a veiled way of asking their permission to ask out their “Aunt Robin,” one of the shows main characters and Ted’s off and on girlfriend during the show’s run.

The show has come under heavy fire from both viewers and critics for the finale. Those that disliked the ending have complained about the mother’s death itself and were also extremely disappointed to see Ted revert to a woman he supposedly “got over” many times and who also happens to be his best friend’s ex-wife.

The creators have said that this was the plan for the finale since the beginning and a final scene with the kids was shot during Season 2, before the actors outgrew their roles. However, many have said that the direction of the show has changed since then and the writers failed to account for it in the finale.

Essentially, this question proves that it’s impossible to please everyone, even those people who have remained loyal to a show for a long time.

Colbert shocks media as new host

Posted on April 11, 2014 by Nicole Lopez-Alvar

By NICOLE LOPEZ-ALVAR

Since the announcement of David Letterman’s retirement from “late night” last week, rumors of who the new host for “The Late Show” on CBS would be went viral. After much speculation about Chelsea Handler and SNL alumni Amy Poehler, the network confirmed on Wednesday morning that the host would be Stephen Colbert.

This, unsurprisingly, took the news and entertainment media by storm.

What is so refreshing and bold of CBS’ choice is the host himself — he’s a satirist, comedian, writer, host, and producer — not many hosts have that on their resume. The network is hoping he will be the perfect competition for the neighborly network of NBC, which offers “The Tonight Show” with Jimmy Fallon and “Late Night” with Seth Meyers in its lineup — all three being hosts who represent a younger demographic of political, progressive, comedic, and sharp audience members.

In a classic “Colbert-esque” public statement, the comedian said,

“Simply being a guest on David Letterman’s show has been a highlight of my career. “I never dreamed that I would follow in his footsteps, though everyone in late night follows Dave’s lead. I’m thrilled and grateful that CBS chose me. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to go grind a gap in my front teeth.”

This latest shake up in late night has received mostly positive reviews from the media and from social media, which is where I first heard of the news. However, Colbert’s infamous character from the show he hosted on Comedy Central for the past two decades, “The Colbert Report,” was quite a controversial one.

Suey Park, a writer and activist, who wrote an opinion post on Time.com about the matter, stated that,

“The main thing we’ve learned from #CancelColbert, and the outcome we now see as Colbert is elevated once again, is that the belittling the voices, activism, and writing of women of color is a profitable venture.”

Colbert’s portrayal as a satirical conservative has caused him to be as hated as he is loved due to his racist, stereotypical, and prejudice remarks—all made under the assumption that he is playing a “character” but, after 20 years, this has become a blurred line.

One thing is for sure, he will definitely be stirring up the “plain as toast” comedy routine that is “The Late Show” and the media are sure to love it.

Store sued for tweeting actress photo

Posted on April 10, 2014 by Sofia Ortega

By SOFIA ORTEGA

The actress Katherine Heigl sued the drugstore chain Duane Reade for tweeting a picture of her shopping at the store.

The former “Grey’s Anatomy” actress filed a lawsuit of $6 million claiming that the picture was used for advertising purposes without authorization.

Everything started when Duane Reade posted a tweet that said “Love a quick #DuaneReade run? Even @KatieHeigl can’t resist shopping #NYC’s favorite drugstore.” The tweet also contained a link of a story from JustJared.com featuring a picture of the artist leaving the drugstore with two bags.

As well, the company posted the same picture on Facebook quoting “Don’t you just love a quick #DuaneReade run? Even Katherine Heigl can’t resist shopping at #NYC’s most convenient drugstore!”

The drugstore chain erased all evidence and has not commented about the situation.

But aren’t artists as public figures exposed to paparazzi and these kinds of circumstances all the time?

In this century, it just takes few seconds for something to be published in social media; therefore, whatever makes news will be published.

If Heigl wins the lawsuit, she will donate the money to a charity she created in memory of her bother that died on a car accident. Even though the money would be transferred to a good cause, it is no less than taking advantage of something that prior wasn’t as much news as it is now.

Bring pay for play to campus

Posted on April 9, 2014 by John Rioux

By JOHN RIOUX

Shabazz Napier is at the top of the sports world right now. After being named All-American, NCAA tournament MVP and leading the University of Connecticut to a national championship, he is having celebrities such as LeBron James tweeting about his game. This, however, does not prevent him from going to bed “starving” some nights.

In an interview prior to the Monday night’s NCAA championship game, Napier was quoted saying “there are hungry nights that I go to bed and I’m starving”.

After the win, Napier will get a few free t-shirts and even his jersey retired, but not any money.

Connecticut Coach Kevin Ollie will almost certainly get a significant raise from his $1.2 million salary he earned this year, leaving the players as the only ones not profiting from this multi-million dollar event.

Many players agree with Napier’s sentiments about “when you see your jersey getting sold and things like that, you feel like you want something in return.”

The fact that college athletes do not make money is “obscene,” said Connecticut Rep. Matthew Lesser. Coaches, presidents and schools reap the benefits of these individuals’ talents, yet those who are actually producing on the court, field or track do not see any.

Recently Northwestern University’s football team has been discussing a union among its players similar to the NFL’s players union. This would allow them to be involved in discussions that have a direct affect on the team’s football decisions.

Coaches and presidents alike are urging the team against unionization, as it takes money out of their pockets. It has come to the point where enough is enough. NCAA student-athletes deserve fair treatment.

The media must continue to push the NCAA to usher changes in how they run their business.

Players do not always have the luxury of speaking out their opinion on this specific matter. Certain coaches monitor and discontinue social media outlets such as Twitter and Facebook, ensuring their players do not speak against their university.

It is time to open your eyes, NCAA President Mark Emmert. Help the players who generate the income and, ultimately, your $1.7 million salary.

Over-sexualization of magazine covers

Posted on April 9, 2014 by Kelly Brody

By KELLY BRODY

The May issue of Golf Digest magazine is garnering some serious press attention, due to its unlikely cover star. Instead of featuring an actual golfer, it instead has Maxim model and Wayne Gretzky’s daughter, Paulina, on the cover. The model poses seductively with a golf club and is wearing curve-hugging white spandex pants and a sports bra.

Paulina Gretzky on the cover of Golf Digest (Source: huffingtonpost)

Clearly, Golf Digest is banking on the advertising technique of “sex sells.” But the cover has LPGA golfers up in arms. LGPA pro Angela Stanford says, “Nobody can argue with [the fact that sex sells]. It’s just the way it is. But the LPGA has some attractive women and very fit women, so why not use them? I’m just baffled by it.” Stacy Lewis, a two-time LPGA Champion stated, “Obviously, Golf Digest is trying to sell magazines. But at the same time you’d like to see a little respect for the women’s game.”

The last time Golf Digest featured a LPGA player on their cover was in 2008. Since then, the only other women who have been featured on the cover have been Kate Upton and Holly Sonders, a Golf Channel anchor.

Many magazines and news outlets stray from their topic and use sex to sell. The Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue is a prime example of that. What do bikini clad women have to do with sports?

The use of using sex to sell is an element that relates to the greater issue of the over-sexualization of women. Putting a scantily clad female on a magazine cover versus one who is well-clothed will sell more issues, but is the feature story going to be as intriguing?

Which would sell more? An issue of Golf Digest with an overweight PGA player on its cover or a Maxim model? The editors at the magazine asked this question and clearly, came up with their answer. Yet, does an avid golfer, someone who would be reading and purchasing Golf Digest want to hear about how Paulina Gretzky missed the ball completely at her dad’s golf tournament or would they rather hear tips from an actual PGA pro?

Photographer CyCyr’s mocking of Paulina’s cover using men (Source: huffingtonpost).

While sex may sell covers, it certainly doesn’t garner respect for a publication.

A photographer named CyCyr even mocked the Golf Digest by posting a series of photos of men dressed in the same revealing outfit Gretzky wore on the cover. The results are a perfect commentary on the ridiculousness of over-sexualizing a woman on a men’s magazine cover.

Magazines should stick to their target readers versus using quick, “easy” tactics to sell issues. That’s the way publications earn respect. Vogue, for example, is the most respected fashion magazine in the world. But then again, they did just put Kim Kardashain on the cover.

‘Game of Thrones’ audience skyrockets

Posted on April 8, 2014 by Jenna Johnson

By JENNA JOHNSON

First, I have to start out by saying that I have waited years to be able to actually write a school assignment regarding “Game of Thrones.” So I will try my hardest to stay unbiased and keep this post about the media. (No promises.)

Sunday marked the season premier of the fourth season of the show, with more than 6.6 million viewers tuning in on HBO. The final count was 8.2 million after viewers watched the reruns on HBO Go.

“Game of Thrones” has steadily increased its viewership since its inception in 2011. Additionally, it is the most successful HBO show since “The Sopranos.”

In this digital age, the media have to measure audiences in a variety of ways. Not only do they record the number who tune in to the show “live,” but also the reruns, on-demand services, and streaming services such as Netflix or HBO Go.

Did I mention that the amount of viewers watching HBO Go crashed the server?

Yeah. It’s that good.

What is interesting about “Game of Thrones” is that it is exclusive to HBO. It cannot (legally) be watched anywhere else. So that means, all 8.2 million viewers who watched the show Sunday night paid for it.

In an earlier blog post, I agreed with the notion that consumers don’t care about the platform they receive the entertainment from, as long as they receive it. However, I was mostly thinking about platforms that are free.

A total of 9.3 million viewers tuned in for the 10th season premier of ABC’s top rated show, “Grey’s Anatomy.” And that show is broadcast over the air. Viewers don’t even have to have cable to watch it.

Thus, “Grey’s Anatomy” grossed just more than a million viewers beyond that of “Game of Thrones,” even though it’s free to watch.

Apparently audiences are willing to cough up the dough for uninterrupted access to their favorite shows. This can also be seen from the success of subscription based entertainment companies such as Netflix, which has been used more widely for streaming than actually sending DVDs, its intended purpose.

So what is it that is making “Game of Thrones” so incredibly successful?

It may have to do with the fact that HBO Go allows audiences to watch the shows available on HBO on-demand, albeit an hour later than the live premier (but who watches live now anyway? Well, except for the 6.6 million who tuned in to GoT live, of course).

However, most television shows have a live premier and some sort of service similar to HBO Go that allows the episode to be watched later so that it can count toward the audience measurement.

To me, Game of Thrones is almost certainly the exception, not the rule for HBO viewership. The makers know they have something so great that people will pay HBO to watch it.

And, the reason for that has an exceedingly simple, irrefutable, probably-not-media related answer: “Game of Thrones” is awesome.

Pharrell praises women in album

Posted on April 7, 2014 by Nicole Lopez-Alvar

By NICOLE LOPEZ-ALVAR

Pharrell Williams, the award-winning producer, rapper-singer songwriter and recent Oscar nominee, has taken the media by storm due to the recent explanation of the title of his newest album, “G I R L.”

Columbia Records released the album on March 3, and although it has mixed reviews, its message is progressive. In comparison to the saturation of demeaning albums produced by rap and R&B artists of this decade, “G I R L” is a breath of fresh air.

The concept of the album was explained by Pharrell in an interview with GQ magazine , where he stated, “Women and girls, for the most part, have just been so loyal to me and supported me.”

This may seem like a shallow attempt to please a new and younger audience, yet it is still an impressive motive.

In contrast to his latest hit with Robin Thicke titled, “Blurred Lines,” which is a sexist song that sexually objectifies women, the album aims to focus on society’s skewed image of female sexuality rather than exploiting it.

In an interview with Zane Lowe backstage of the Brit Awards, Pharrell explained in clarity his reasoning for the album’s title and theme by stating,

“The reason why I named it “G I R L” in capital letters is because when you look at it, it looks a little weird. And the reason why it does is because society is a little unbalanced. And I just thought like, if I’m gonna make an album, I need to make an album that says everything that I’ve ever wanted to say, like dreamt of.”

The 41-year-old father and husband has made it clear that his new focus for 2014 and the future is to influence future generations of hip-hop and R&B artists to approach albums in a more progressive light. Pharrell added,

“I admire women in a lot of ways, but I needed to make sure that everyone knew that. On the surface, I do look and I do like them and I appreciate them in my little dirty ways here and there, but at the core, is what I’m telling you. We need them. Every living breathing human being on this planet regardless to your sexual orientation benefits from two things from a woman: the agreement to enter the act and the agreement to have you. So they have the power.”

Pharrell has managed to become one of the most influential hit makers in pop history, and his positive impact on pop culture, media, and entertainment is incomparable.

The first female late-night host?

Posted on April 6, 2014 by Kyla Thorpe

By KYLA THORPE

David Letterman announced this week that he will be retiring from the “Late Show with David Letterman” in 2015.

This will definitely be a big change, as Letterman has been the longest serving late-night host in TV history, marking 32 years in 2014.

“Late Night” hosts are the fun journalists to me. They have to keep up with current events, and present it to their audiences with a humorous or interesting twist on things. Whether late-night talk show hosts began their careers in journalism or not, they have contributed significantly to the journalism world, staying honest with their opinions and keeping society informed.

The only thing that late-night hasn’t had yet is a female host.

Recently, talk show host and comedian, Chelsea Handler announced that she would be leaving her show “Chelsea Lately” on E! Network. Many of her adoring fans were afraid that she would disappear forever, but now there are rumors that she might possibly replace Letterman for his coveted late-night spot.

She might get it. If we’re following the trend of late-night, then she probably won’t. Handler would do well though. She’s funny, honest and knows what she’s talking about. There aren’t many women out there who could do late-night like she could.

Her show on E! Network was already late-night, but moving to a prime-time network would raise her to the top.

This would definitely be a shake-up, still. While she is adored by both men and women, late-night talk shows are predominately male. If she did get a slot, it would better represent a diversified journalism world. It’s not like the only editorial writers we respect are male. Late-night TV should start to reflect that.

It’ll be interesting to see where she eventually ends up. Her fans can at least be comforted that though she will be leaving E! Network, she’s not leaving television for good.

James Franco scandal: Publicity stunt?

Posted on April 5, 2014 by Clara Bendayan

By CLARA BENDAYAN

It’s no surprise that one’s privacy is becoming almost non-existent in this social media day and age.

Celebrities, especially, face major issues with their privacy being violated as there are paparazzi on virtually every corner waiting to snap a shot of their daily activities — no matter how trivial.

Many celebrities try to maintain private lives and tend to not divulge much personal information to the news media. However, some are known for their attention-seeking nature and try to pull publicity stunts to garner more fame.

This seems to be the question with the latest story involving a celebrity and a social media woe that has been unfolding for the past two days.

Actor James Franco, 35, allegedly exchanged phone conversations with a 17-year-old Scottish girl asking her to meet him at a hotel in New York.

Images of the phone conversation surfaced online shortly thereafter, as the girl was eager to share the evidence of conversing with a celebrity, placing Franco in a very awkward and unwanted position.

Screenshots of the Instagram video that fueled the scandal (Photo courtesy of HollywoodLife).

She’s since then deleted all of her social media accounts, no doubt due to the overwhelming attention she’s been receiving thanks to this scandal. However, pictures of the leaked conversation are still swirling around the Web.

Their interaction reportedly began when the Scottish teen, Lucy Clode, met Franco outside of his Broadway show, “Of Mice & Men.” She took an Instagram video of him and he reportedly told her to “tag him.”

They exchanged messages where Franco allegedly asked her how old she was, when her 18th birthday was, and what hotel she was staying at.

Franco then appeared on “Live! With Kelly and Michael” on Friday night and addressed the scandal.

One of the leaked conversations via Instagram. (Photo courtesy of HollywoodLife)

“I mean I guess, you know, I’m embarrassed, and I guess I’m just a model of, you know, how social media is tricky,” said James Franco. “It’s a way people meet each other today. But what I’ve learned I guess just because I’m new to it is like, you don’t know who’s on the other end. You meet somebody in person and you get a feel for them but you don’t know who you’re talking to, and, you know? So I used bad judgment. I learned my lesson.”

The final question here is if this was a publicity stunt or if Franco actually used bad judgement and became another victim of social media. On the same day that the scandal occurred, the official trailer for his new film, “Palo Alto” hit the Web. Some people think it’s ironic that both things happened on the same day, leading many to believe that it’s a hoax for publicity.

Regardless of the final verdict, this incident clearly exemplifies the darker, more negative side of social media. Once something is released through social media, it’s irretrievable. Although the teen erased her social media accounts, the leaked conversations and photos exchanged are plastered all over the web, and it seems like this incident won’t be long soon forgotten.

How Aereo could change television

Posted on April 3, 2014 by Jenna Johnson

By JENNA JOHNSON

Since its debut in February 2012, Aereo has been a bone of legal contention among big broadcast networks. Aereo is a subscription-based service which allows users to stream live and time-shifted over-the-air signals to virtually any device — television, cell phone, or tablet.

The big names in broadcast television, such as ABC, NBC, CBS, and Fox, expressed animosity toward Aereo, claiming that the service violates copyright laws and undermines the long-standing tradition of cable companies paying retransmission fees to the networks.

The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear the case beginning April 22, 2014.

However, some small and independent broadcasters (SIBs) and low power TV stations recently claimed that they back Aereo. They enjoy the exposure that Aereo gives their businesses.

Some of these stations told the court that they “depend heavily on such user-friendly viewing technologies to reach audiences, especially audiences who may not have viewing equipment, cable, or satellite television.”

The fate of SIBs is in the hands of the Supreme Court. If Aereo is found to not violate copyright laws (meaning their streams are not found to constitute as public performances), it could be a game changer.

No broadcast networks have ever really been able to compete with the “Big Three” with the exception of Fox, which came onto the scene in 1996. Since then, even with the availability of news from other platforms, the four biggest networks have reigned supreme.

But, if Aereo allows for streaming at a rate cheaper than cable, the large networks may lose some of their power. This is not to say that SIBs will trump the media giants, but they will definitely have the opportunity to offer a little competition.

Additionally, it is interesting to note that cable and broadcast networks were at odds when cable was first introduced. Aereo may create an alliance against a common foe. Both networks and cable companies will lose money and audiences with Aereo, and at least cable networks pay retransmission fees to the networks.

I personally doubt that the Supreme Court will find Aereo legal, unless networks and Aereo work out some sort of retransmission deal.

On the other hand, if Aereo is approved, the way we watch television could change forever. In today’s digital age, few care about the platform of entertainment or information as long as they get it, which makes the convenience of Aereo an increasingly appealing option.

Make room for obscenities in journalism

Posted on April 2, 2014 by John Rioux

By JOHN RIOUX

A recent phone conversation was leaked involving United States Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland saying “F*** the EU”.

Nuland was referring to the European Union and her belief that in order for a solution to occur in Ukraine, they will need to be of assistance.

I am not concerned on Nuland’s views, but why it is still necessary to replace profane language in journalism?

The barriers of using offensive language have broadened in society, yet journalism lags behind with no intention of change.

Yes, there are some situations in which explicit language is unnecessary. However, it is often essential in understanding the context of the message.

The actual visibility of an obscene word allows us to understand the message better than filling the space with asterisks.

Euphemisms and other similar tactics do not provide justice to the reader in seeing the honest story.

Many blogs and more progressive outlets allow their writers to publish content with obscenities. If we want mainstream journalism to continue it must keep up with the changing of society.

When New York Congressman Michael Grimm threated to throw a reporter of a balcony, much of his language had to be bleeped out.

Although we were able to understand what was said, the videos and recordings do not do justice to the fearfulness the reporter must have felt.

So please mainstream publications, start writing what you actually mean and put an end to patronizing your audiences.

Will Ultra be cancelled in 2015?

Posted on April 2, 2014 by Nicholas Carra

By NICK CARRA

Ultra Music Festival took place last weekend and, despite a pretty smooth weekend, some bumps were hit along the way.

The Contemporary Service Corporation provides security for the music festival and employee Erica Mack, 28, suffered a trampling incident Friday night while trying to stop a mob of unauthorized people from entering the concert ground. The crowd of people overran her and the fence between them, which collapsed on top of her causing head trauma and a broken leg. She is now at Jackson Memorial hospital and is slowly recovering.

Officials and leaders of the City of Miami was very displeased with the accident.

The madness doesn’t stop there. A total of 84 arrests were made, 22 on Friday, 33 on Saturday, and 29 on Sunday. Undercover cops also go to the festival as a way of combating the frequent use and sale of drugs to festival-goers. In addition to the arrest, 24 people left Ultra Music Fest to go to the hospital this weekend, an unfortunate turn in a weekend meant to share the love for a genre of music among thousands of people.

Miami officials are now stating that they plan to cancel ultra next year. City Commissioner Marc Sarnoff expressed his opinion when he said “I think they have overstayed their welcome.” Last year, officials tried to cancel to festival due to gridlocked traffic, rowdy fans and increased drug usage during Miami Music Week. Ultra Music Festival may have seen the last of its days at Bayfront Park.

In terms of business Ultra should be fine. Although Ultra began in Miami, festivals have launched in Ibiza, Chile, Buenos Aires and Tokyo. On top of that, ticket prices reached up to $500 for a general admission ticket, and $800 for a VIP ticket. Ultra also has a music label which produces electronic music across the globe.

Pistorious v. South Africa’s legal system

Posted on March 31, 2014 by Sofia Ortega

By SOFIA ORTEGA

It has been more than one year since the Olympic runner Oscar Pistorious was accused of killing his girlfriend on last year’s Valentine’s Day.

However, the trial that started on March 3 has been postponed until April 7 since one of the two assessors is hospitalized.

But the world knows the truth: Oscar Pistorious did kill Reeva Steenkamp. What is unclear is whether he did it intentionally or fired his gun because he confused her for an intruder?

The difficult trial raises questions that are very difficult to answer. Pistorious was the only one in the house at the time of the shooting; therefore, the lack of witnesses may prevent the jury from knowing the truth.

Yet as the trial proceeds, Pistorious is not the only one in the spotlight; the effectiveness of South Africa’s legal system has also been put into doubt.

Since 2009 investigations have proven that 1529 people have been part of corruption related crimes. More than 80 officials were criminally charged for corruption and more than 298 were charged in their departments.

Indeed, if the people that serve in the department of justice are corrupt, how can justice be served?

Advertising in news reporting

Posted on March 29, 2014 by Kerrie Heckel

By KERRIE HECKEL

Product placement isn’t a new concept in advertising.

Most of us see the giant Coca-Cola glasses in front of “The Voice” judges — that are most definitely not inconspicuous- and accept it for what it is. But would people be more sensitive to product placement or advertising in general if it were integrated into our news?

There was a time where advertisements made up a majority of the newspapers. Those who could read would grab a paper and the lead story may very well be that Greg is finally selling his old goat. Well maybe not; but the point is over time we have moved into wanting to know less about what our neighbors are selling and more about what is going on in the world around us.

We also have evolved to wanting our news to be honest. By this, I mean most people want their news in its purest form, unscathed by other opinions or influence. We want the facts.

However, advertising could be creeping its way back into our news sources.

I’ve noticed a trend in online news reporting where a company will tag its name onto a story. For example, you will read “insert headline here: brought to you by T-Mobile.” A tag line like this is to be expected from cites like Buzzfeed, maybe the Huffington Post; But CNN?

As a student majoring in advertising, I admire the idea to sponsor a news article. Especially for T-Mobile to sponsor one focused on technology and cell phones; it’s a great way to reach their target audience. However as a journalist student I don’t know if I support the advertisement. I think by having a company sponsor an article news and advertising move towards becoming too intertwined.

If the two begin to mesh more I can see problems with people not being able to distinguish facts from exaggerated advertising, or the message of the news being lessened by the distraction of an advertising campaign.

In my opinion, while the tag lines don’t seem to be an issue now, the integration of ads and actual news articles could lead to issues and will be an interesting development to follow.

This is how online journalism will survive

Posted on March 28, 2014 by Kyla Thorpe

By KYLA THORPE

There’s a lot of competition among news sources today. Whether it’s CNN sending your phone live updates or seeing the trending Tweets of the moment, a news source has to be pretty special to keep an audience.

So how would a news company stay alive, financially? When the news was only in print, it was easier for news companies to make money. Either people would buy subscriptions and have the paper delivered to their homes or they’d go to a newsstand and buy it after seeing an enticing headline.

Unfortunately, for the money-making aspect of journalism, many people now don’t have to pay to see breaking-news stories. While this is a good thing for society, to stay informed, this ties into why print journalism is going down. No one really has to pay to read the news anymore.

I am aware, though, that even when print was king, a major chunk of the paper’s income was from selling two-thirds of available space on their pages for advertising. This, I feel will keep content available online for the world to still enjoy.

Every news site today has advertising, even celebrity gossip sites. While readers are constantly jumping to different sources for information, other businesses recognize that even seeing their ad on a news site for five seconds is enough exposure for them.

Fore example, on The News York Times‘ site, AT&T is advertising itself next to the news source’s logo. Even more noticeable, on CNN’s site, the first thing that appears is a video that you then have the choice to skip after five or so seconds.

While many people can be agitated by ads, they really need to understand that advertisement is pretty much the only reason they can read the news sources they adore.

Yes, there are other profits. There are still people and businesses who invest in news companies. Also, The New York Times has a digital subscription available for their international paper for 99 cents. And then there are people who would still prefer to have the paper physically delivered to their homes.

But the winner is still advertising. Readers will most likely look at numerous sites for information, all for free. All online news sources have to do is make sure they have great content. Advertisers will gravitate towards the sources that have higher volumes, therefore taking care of the news company’s profits.

They will keep online journalism alive.

March Madness ratings grow

Posted on March 28, 2014 by Lonelle Lewis

By LONELLE LEWIS

The second round of the NCAA tournament showed higher ratings than last year’s coveted March Madness tournament. It is off to the best ratings in 23 years.

According to Nielsen ratings group, Turner and CBS Sports saw a three percent growth from last year to 6.0 nationwide household ratings this year.

Coverage of the first full day of games made NCAA tournament history as there were four overtime games. One game that took place during the day was No.11 seed Dayton’s upsetting No. 6 seed Ohio State.

This was a game where many predicted Ohio State would win by a considerable amount. Viewers, who might not have watched the entire game, may have tuned in during overtime. Games between noon to 4:45 pm saw a 12 percent increase from last year.

The NCAA has made games more accessible via the web and mobile devices which may have boosted the ratings. The overall tournament average rating is up eight percent from last year.

Coverage of Ultra lacks details

Posted on March 28, 2014 by Nicole Lopez-Alvar

By NICOLE LOPEZ-ALVAR

In 2013, about two dozen young adults were hospitalized after attending Ultra Music Festival in downtown Miami — but the media refused to cover these instances.

While rumors of overdoses, deaths and injuries rotate among numerous social media websites every year during Ultra Music Festival, no major news corporations seem to cover such events.

In order to find out whether the rumors are true, local Miami news organizations such as Miami New Times, investigated into the matter. Reporters discovered that Miami Fire Rescue did not have full information in regards to the matter other than that out of the 44 placed calls to 911, only 24 people were taken to the hospital. According to the Miami New Times:

“Police arrested 167 people at Ultra this year [in 2013], primarily for narcotics and gatecrashing. (Last year [in 2012], there were 78 arrests during the three-day event, 45 of them for narcotics, and more than 60 people were injured last year [in 2012].”

While these statistics are valid, they are not covered by the media nearly enough. People from the ages of 15 to 40 are attending this festival and many are doing so blindly of the health and safety risks the event entails. From the lack of transportation and water, to the non-existent cellular data service and overcrowding, the festival can be more dangerous than people think.

Yet, every year, thousands of electronic music fans from around the world continue to purchase $400 tickets for a three-day weekend where they most likely will get more sweat from surrounding attendees jumping to the beats of the music than they bargained for.

This weekend, March 28-30, there will most likely be ambulances on the festival grounds, but even more alarming will be the lack of reporters on the scene to document it.

DIGITAL NEWS REPORTING

Journalism and Media Management Department, School of Communication, University of Miami

The right ending for a series?

Colbert shocks media as new host

Store sued for tweeting actress photo

Over-sexualization of magazine covers

‘Game of Thrones’ audience skyrockets

The first female late-night host?

How Aereo could change television

Make room for obscenities in journalism

Pistorious v. South Africa’s legal system

Advertising in news reporting

This is how online journalism will survive

March Madness ratings grow