Interactive storytelling, our future

By DOMENICA A. LEONE

Journalism is certainly an industry that is suffering. Not that it will disappear, but the print field is pretty much condemned with a possible execution date. It is interesting how the evolution of the field has paralleled the transformation of society and the modernization of the different technologies. Thus, with the passage of time, it hasn’t been surprising that the industry and its professionals have had to adapt in order to deliver and enhance the value of the product they have to offer.

The New York Times has been extremely successful in doing so. After transitioning to the digital platform as many other newspapers have done as its plan B, the NYT had yet another plan A under its sleeve. The company was clever enough to take advantage of not only the technologies available, but the tools and opportunities the platform had to offer like no one else before. It embarked on a project, which ended up being an overwhelming success, thus changing the way of telling stories and challenging other media enterprises by setting a high standard to look up to.

image[2]“Snowfall” was released in December 2012 and it brought with it everlasting reviews hailing the piece as the future of journalism.

Based on the story of group of skiers and snowboarders trapped beneath an avalanche in Washington state’s Cascade Mountains; the piece is formatted in the form of an eye-popping multimedia feature.  At its peak, reportedly as many as 22,000 users visited “Snow Fall” at the same time. It also received around 2.9 million visits for more than 3.5 million page views.

Unlike a standard online article, which doesn’t diverge much from the original print layout, Snow Fall, a multi-chapter series by features reporter John Branch, it’s a visual feast, which integrates video, photos and graphics in a logical and almost effortless manner.

Screen shot 2014-10-03 at 10.55.08 AMAs you scroll through the various sections of the content you don’t get the feeling that the mix of elements are just tacked on.

The media elements are well planned and placed, embedded in a redundant fashion reinforcing the written statements and even developing further on the facts.

Future or not, it sure turned out to be successful. And people can’t get enough of it.

A few months later, The Washington Post, refusing to be outdone, made ​​his own version of “Snow Fall” with “Cycling’s Road Forward” — a media report of similar characteristics, which featured a young rider named Joe Dombrowski. As with the NYT skiers, Dombrowski’s story surprised by the use of unconventional tools that worked for embellishment and support on the retelling of the events. For example, The Post detailed one of Dombrowski’s training rides near Nice, France, using satellite imagery and explored his ride out of Lance Armstrong’s shadow.

Capturing the attention of the public

By GABRIELLA SHOFER

How often do you listen to the news while you’re in the car? Does the evening broadcast play in the background while you are eating dinner? Do you scroll through the news headlines on your mobile on the way to work without clicking through the full articles?

More and more, reading the news has become something that is done quickly and often when we are not fully engaged in what we are reading. This poses a threat to the news reporting industry as journalists are forgoing writing deeply researched stories in favor of those with catchy headlines in order to increase page views. This has also increased the pressure on journalists to write succinctly and convey the news in an efficient manner.

Gone are the days where reading the newspaper was a relaxed activity that was granted a specially carved out of period of time in the daily schedule. Now people are always multitasking and have the news on in the background.

Many news outlets have recognized the decrease in the attention spans of readers and have adopted video broadcasts to appeal to the more tech-savvy, younger audience. However, the use of these videos has an ulterior motive. With advertisers closely monitoring the time readers spend on webpages, watching videos captures the audience’s attention for longer than general articles and thus secures more advertising dollars for news websites.

This highlights the change in perspective of news conglomerates from providing news to gaining more advertising. In a sense, the public is losing in this instance as our attention is transformed into a commodity that these firms want to secure in order for them to draw in the maximum advertising dollars.

Another issue in response to the increased lack of attention of the public in reading long news articles is the emergence of newsgathering services such as The Skimm and The Daily Beast. These services provide a daily email newsletter that summarizes the top news stories for the day and can be personalized based on reader tastes and preferences. The Skimm founders noticed the lack of attention paid to the news media and summarized their reason for starting their daily summaries by stating:

“We soon realized three things: Reading the news is time consuming; Wanting to read the news is a hobby; lastly, not everyone has the time or interest.”

However, these services violate the principle of bias as their opinions about what is the most important news of the day imposes an implicit bias onto what news is fed to their readers. While these services ensure that people received their daily dose of news, people who rely on them are often led astray and can often miss crucial news items that might be highly relevant to them.

Ultimately, the way in which individuals absorb the news is based on personal preference. Whether one chooses to read the print newspapers, online websites or receive e-mail updates, it is important to remain aware of the potential biases that may be clouding the objectivity of many news outlets.

The weight of the Sunday paper

By GABRIELLA CANAL

It is no secret that print journalism is dying. It is no secret that the culture of our generation is the culprit. Our “click-frenzy” has appeased to our increasing and dire need for instant gratification. This same frenzy is the reason for my current frustration as an aspiring journalist: does it actually matter if I write five or 500 words anymore?

What happened to the weight of the Sunday newspaper? I am sure that, at one point, all of us have fallen victim to one of our parents’ grumbling “back in my day” speeches. However, the stories my dad has shared with me about what the newspaper used to be have stuck –looming over me with every passing year as a journalism student.

“Every time I pick up the newspaper, it’s thinner and thinner,” my dad always used to say.

Are we writing for the sake of content or instant views? There are so many advantages today to having instant news. There is no need to wait for the Sunday paper to know what problems face our communities and countries.

After all, it wouldn’t be news if it wasn’t instant and there is no crime in using the technology we have today to inform the public as quickly as possible. But in exchange for instant updates, I feel the American audience is losing the ability to really know about a subject because no one ever finishes reading – no one flips to page two or B1 anymore. I am guilty of this as well.

Today, our communication is enhanced in almost every way possible but what we lack is face-to-face communication. And this sort of communication is crucial in the industry itself.

Newspapers used to be powerhouse employers but now, as many put it, they are “dying out.” Core offices, where once ideas were pitched and gathered are now replaced by e-mails to the editor from home. The human factor is gone because of the ability to submit articles online. Does the industry face the extinction of the newsroom?

The overall theme of modernity presents these unforeseen challenges to the field of communications.

theSkimm: News in the 21st century

By EMILY JOSEPH

Have you heard of theSkimm? Are you a Skimmer? If not, get with the 21st century … if reading the news is not your thing.

A daily e-mail subscription started by two friends and former journalists, theSkimm brings the top stories of the day to you via email. But the news is “unique” per se because as their website says, theSkimm is a “filter.” It analyzes the top stories of the day and “breaks it down” in an easy to understand manner. They give pop culture comparisons, include sarcastic comments and write for their target audience: the 20-something woman.

I see the benefits and drawbacks of theSkimm. As a subscriber who wakes up to the e-mails first thing in the morning (you can pick what time of the day to receive emails), I really enjoy the service. But I’m also the type of person who reads/watches the news on my own time. Even after reading theSkimm in the morning I’ll turn on the Today Show or local news because that’s just something I like doing. I don’t rely on it as my only source of information, but more as additional support.

Screen Shot 2014-10-01 at 4.24.07 PM

An article from theSkimm on Wednesday, Oct. 1.

For those who don’t read or understand the news, especially international news, theSkimm can make you sound like a Harvard graduate instead of a high schooler. (Exaggeration, but you get the point).

Instead of raising your eyebrows in confusion when a colleague asks if you’ve heard about riots in Hong Kong, you would be able to respond. However, if you wanted to really contribute to that conversation and form a strong opinion, you should probably do further research and reading.

I can see how traditional news-followers and devoted newspaper subscribers would have a fit over theSkimm, but I think it’s really a great service for modern young adults. Particularly college students who are just transitioning out of the “all-about-me-world” to the “real world.” It’s a good stepping stone from relying on just Twitter for the news.

Who knows what the future holds for theSkimm, or print journalism for that matter. But as of right now, it looks like both are here to stay.

Using social media as news sources

By GABRIELLA SHOFER

The escalation of news reporting is heightened through the use of social media, which increases the involvement of the public in leading news issues. This week, the world watched as Hollywood actress Emma Watson spoke at the United Nations about feminism.

While the brave act taken by this actress was covered in news media, this positive coverage was overshadowed by the ensuing public reaction, which involved threats against her safety and privacy.

Multiple news outlets reported on Watson’s moving speech, which addressed the issue of gender equality, and her bravery was highly praised. However, the fast moving pace of the Internet enabled the public to share their own opinion and quickly created negative trending Twitter hashtags.

She was publicly targeted by hackers who threatened to expose nude photographs of her. While social media can be used positively to increase awareness and action for social causes, in this instance, people who disagreed with her views abused the mask of anonymity provided by social media to comment in a vicious manner.

As more and more individuals look to social media as a source of news, it begs the question of how trusting we can be of the information it presents, as it is often heavily clouded by personal biases.

EmmaWatsondeathhoaxBut what is more shocking is the way that this was reported in the media and the number of inaccuracies that were released about the situation.

One of the most disturbing aspects for me was the fact that USA Today, a newspaper Web site that I frequently visit, reported on the death of the actress, which was a hoax.

This exposes the pervasiveness of the issue of fact checking for news reporters.

When a source assumed to be extremely reputable reports on issues like this, it brings into question the credibility of the whole reporting entity and can change the perspective of readers in their trust of the source. This further highlights the increased influence that social media is having on news reporting.

Not only are reporters writing about what is occurring on social media, the reporters are beginning to trust social media as fact. This idea is frightening for the news reporting industry and society at large due to the fact that social media is heavily clouded by personal bias.

Should we download music for free?

By XUANCHEN FAN

U2’s new album has been posted on the iTunes store for free download. The new album “Sounds of Innocence” is free to the more than 500 million iTunes customers in 119 countries.

U2's new album (source: from pitchfork)

U2’s new album (Source: from Pitchfork)

Maybe it is surprising, but more people are willing to buy the new edition CD after downloading the new album online.

At the beginning, iTunes was free to download music. Then musicians begin to sue Apple, saying that people are freely downloading the music and no one is willing to buy their edition or even deluxe edition CD.

However, given the situation with U2’s new album, artists should reconsider the methods of selling albums. People realized that the free download music and the edition CD are different. The latter one possesses the possibility of increasing in value and has collection value.

Moreover, the deluxe edition CD’s acoustic quality is much better. Music we are able to  download for free possesses poorer acoustic quality. It is like a sales strategy to encourage consumers to listen to better quality music.

The free download music is also a sale strategy that can help more people get to know the band. Taking U2 as an example, U2 is a famous band around America and Europe. Nonetheless, this iTunes free download experience enable more Asian know this band.

Listen to the U2’s new album at http://www.apple.com/U2/.

Twitter gives stars platform to fight back

By MEAGHAN McCLURE

For the past few years, Twitter has been a main source of news for young people. They find out about breaking stories and everything relevant in current events. In a way, Twitter could be viewed as a young person’s newspaper.

However, with the rise of Twitter, celebrities have been given an easy platform to get their thoughts and opinions across, no matter how offending, or if it makes a major brand look bad. Twitter cuts out the middleman, and lets celebrities interact with fans directly.

This new direct contact between celebrities and fans can be problematic, however. In the recent case of Cee Lo Green, one stupid comment can ruin a celebrity’s whole image and, in the recent cases of Shonda Rhimes and Rihanna, uncensored criticisms can ruin the image of a major company.

Earlier this month, Cee Lo Green tweeted controversial statements about rape, one of which claimed rape isn’t “real” unless the victim remembers it. This moment of ignorance on the famous singer’s part cost him a huge loss in fan base, even after deleting the tweets and making a public apology.

In the case of Green, we can see how easily it is for public figures to reach their fans and how quickly a public image can change.

This also happened in the case of Shonda Rhimes and Rihanna. Although they didn’t ruin their own images, they used Twitter as a platform to fight back against attacks from big corporations and voice their own opinions.

Shonda Rhimes is the creator of many shows, like “Scandal” and “Grey’s Anatomy.” Recently, she was described as an “angry black woman” in a New York Times feature, after which, she took to Twitter to give her own thoughts. After voicing her displeasure, other figures such as Kerry Washington criticized the Times writer too. The Twitter backlash proves that the growing popularity of Twitter certainly changes the way the media can criticize celebrities – because they will not get away with it anymore without a fight.

A similar case happened recently with singer Rihanna, after CBS pulled her song from “Thursday Night Football” following the Ray Rice domestic violence incident. Initially, CBS pulled the song the week immediately following the release of the second Rice video, because they felt Rihanna, a famous victim of domestic abuse from Chris Brown, would give the wrong message.

Rihanna reacted through Twitter, writing, “CBS you pulled my song last week, now you wanna slide it back in this Thursday? NO, Fuck you! Y’all are sad for penalizing me for this.” CBS then had to deal with the disapproval of many Rihanna fans, which ultimately led them to pull her song for good.

These recent events involving celebrities shows just how impacting social media can be, especially as Twitter gives stars a chance to bite back at the media.

Media exposes Ray Rice scandal

By MEAGHAN McCLURE

Social media play a huge role in the lives of everyone today. More importantly, when a breaking news story is released, it is almost impossible to not hear of it on Facebook, Twitter or any similar social media outlet, while everyone gives out their own opinions.

This is why social media played a key role in the termination of a football player’s contract and indefinite suspension from the NFL.

Ray Rice was caught on camera dragging his unconscious fiancee out of a casino elevator way back in February. So why did it take almost seven months to give him a punishment fit for his horrifying act?

When the first video was released and widely covered by news and sports media, there was public shock, but of a relatively small scale. People were disgusted, but forgot about it in due time, and Rice only suffered a two-game suspension.

It wasn’t until TMZ released a second video, making the attack more visual, that the NFL and Ravens alike stepped up Rice’s punishment.

What is the difference between the release of the two videos? Public backlash.

After the release of the first video, it was a trending story for no more than a few days, quick to be forgotten in a league where crimes like this aren’t that foreign. However, it has been a week since the second was released, and new developments in the story are coming out everyday.

The public became so outraged, it took to social media, making this story a trending topic on Twitter and Facebook for over a week. In a society where the average internet user’s attention span is minimal, this was a long time. The public influence concerning this story was strong enough to end a man’s career, and make NFL reconsider policies.

It is clear the effect social media and the public’s opinion had on this Ray Rice situation. What is not clear, however, is the reason why it took this high level of intensely bad publicity to make the NFL take appropriate measures in the punishment.

Although social media is a blessing, allowing powerful entities like the NFL to hear the voices of the public, it should not have been the driving force to ultimately force the NFL to suspend Rice indefinitely.

The NFL leadership claimed to not have seen the second video until Monday, although law enforcement officials confirm it was sent to the league office in April. Even still, everyone knew what had happened on that elevator and the NFL should have taken appropriate measures then, rather than wait to see if the situation would blow over.

With all these facts known, the NFL has portrayed itself in a horrible light and the influence and backlash of social media are not going to help the league out or lead people to forget about it anytime soon. Let’s just hope the league handles the next situation better than it did this one.

theSkimm: The future of reporting?

By LINDSAY THOMPSON

In this digital age, there are a million ways to read the news: turn on the TV, go online, download an app, and even check your e-mail. The last option is becoming increasingly popular, with newsletter like “theSkimm” popping up.

theSkimm is a daily newsletter summing up important current events, written in a sassy tone to appeal to their target demographic, city-dwelling females ages 18 to 34.

The newsletter is simple way to stay up to date and the summaries are written in an interesting way that keeps their audience reading about topics they may not otherwise be interested in.

“We are reaching our readers in the way they want to be reached and they are making us a part of their daily routine,” said Danielle Weisberg, co-founder of theSkimm.

The newsletter’s motto is: “We read. You skimm.” This means that you don’t get all the facts. Still, we are a generation that wants everything fast, easy, and now, while needing to put fourth minimal effort to attain it. This is exactly what theSkimm gives you. It comes right to your e-mail’s inbox, so you don’t have to hunt down the information, and gives it to you very short and sweet.

So, is skimming going to become the future of reporting? If quickly reading over short newsletters were to become how everyone reads the news, possibly important information could be lost or withheld from our knowledge. Not every story can be summed up in one nice, little paragraph. More often than not, readers need background information and longer explanations to understand everything that is going on with complicated topics such as politics and foreign affairs.

For now, theSkimm seems to have no plans of taking over the reporting world.

“We’re really not a place for people to go to see breaking news and that’s been a luxury,” Weisberg said in an interview with the Huffington Post (http://huff.to/1pp5mmO).

theSkimm continues to grow in popularity, reaching 500,000 subscribers this past July after existing for only two years. The future of news is changing, and it may be headed in the direction of theSkimm.

Clickbait changes news … for worse

By DYLAN WEEMS

The world of news has certainly been changing rapidly with the onset of the Internet.

Unfortunately, I would have to argue it has changed for the worse. This is mainly because of a phenomenon known as “clickbait.”

It is nearly impossible to scroll through a Facebook feed these days without seeing a headline reading something like “You’ll Never Guess What These Guys Found While Digging in their Yard!” That’s clickbait. That’s also a real headline. The “crazy thing” they dug up was an animal bone. With a headline that provocative I assumed it would be a lost monument or an ancient artifact.

Of course, the entire reasoning behind clickbait is to gain website hits. The more hits a site gets, the more advertising money it receives. It’s an understandable business strategy, but sensationalizing mundane stories that can hardly be called news causes more important matters to be ignored. The reason true news stories get lost in the depths of the Internet is twofold: their headlines either aren’t “intriguing” enough to merit a click, or they are simply drowned out by the sheer number of sensationalist news websites.

One such website, Buzzfeed has become so notorious for this, that noted faux news source The Onion created an entire website called “ClickHole” to mock it. It is both funny and sad knowing that if you put the sites’ respective headlines next to each other without the domain name, it would be impossible to tell which was real and which was fake.

Internet news has simply become “who can write the most eye-catching headline” instead of “who can write the most accurate and compelling news story.” At this point, it is impossible to tell if the internet will reach a breaking point with clickbait, but for now it reigns supreme. I can only hope that this is another trend that will fall by the wayside and that true news will return as king once more.

Apple’s new iPhone 6 debuts

By XUANCHEN FAN

The new iPhone 6 was finally shown to the world on Tuesday of this week. Pre-orders start on Sept. 12.

Screen Shot 2014-09-11 at 1.58.14 AMThe iPhone 6 is 4.7 inches diagonally and 6.9 mm wide.

The iPhone 6 Plus is 5.5 inches diagonally and 7.1 mm wide.

Moreover, the iPhone 6 Plus has a full 1080p HD display than a 720p HD display than iPhone 6 which apple calls it Retina HD.

The iPhone 6’s Wi-Fi speeds are up to three times faster than those of the iPhone 5s. The iPhone 6 also has faster LTE than the iPhone 5s. Some details on the landscape is also improved, like, some apps, mail, and weather.

Apple also advanced its iPhone camera. The all-new feature on the camera called Focus Pixels, which has an eight megapixel iSight camera, a 1.5u pixel sensor and a f/2.2 aperture lens. Apple says, “That’s a nerdy way of saying, we’ve made the iSight camera a lot better.”

The new iPhone’s body is larger and more rounded edges make the sizes feel good. And Apple CEO Tim Cook maintains that the new appearance make it more comfortable for people to hold it. However, many people argue than the new look make the iPhone 6 looks ugly.

Every time, Apple makes new products, a side of people argue that the products are worse than before and Apple’s creation begins to decline. But Apple’s product is still the best-selling around the world and iPhone 6 is the best among the telephones nowadays.

New iPhones are available in gold, silver, and space grey, and are available in 16 GB, 64 GB, and 128 GB capacities. The iPhone 6 pricing starts at $199, while the iPhone 6 Plus pricing starts at $299.

Microsoft envisions our future

By VIVIAN BRAGA

Microsoft has envisioned the future including many of their products and the software company has now opened a center presenting all the potential ways their upcoming technology will be transforming our lives.

At the time of the opening of the Microsoft Envisioning Center in Redmond, Microsoft officials released a video displaying this future reality. Despite most, this wasn’t a concept video, but an actual portrayal of how life will be like in five years with the technology we’re currently using. Furthermore, Microsoft argued this was no science fiction, but a concrete futuristic reality.

The Envisioning Center portrays a world where everything in controlled through voice and touch, and the technological gadgets we’re currently familiar with, like tablets are being revolutionized into a much larger scale.

The center depicts every home having a family wall — where everything can be controlled entirely from cooking to social networking. They’ve also designed a concept where work can be integrated between many devices with only a finger swipe and communicating through Skype, accessing the Internet, news, scientific or mechanical information anywhere in the house has become accessible.

In one of the blog posts, Steve Clayton, Microsoft Editor wrote:

“I like to think of it as a concept car that allows us to share what it might be like to experience future technologies with visitors, get their feedback, tweak, remix and discuss. It’s all part of advancing the trends we think have the greatest potential.”

Just like other technologies have completely revolutionized the way we communicate and connect within each other, Microsoft is also trying to continue this trend in a much deeper level within people’s homes and private environments. While the company says that their Center isn’t making predictions to exactly where technology is heading, the people who visit the Envisioning Center can have a clear perspective of how this fast-approaching future will be like.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ho00x7ZvDLw

And the Pulitzer goes to . . .

By JENNA JOHNSON

In January, the Pulitzer nomination of The Washington Post and the U.S. edition of The Guardian for their reports on Edward Snowden and the NSA leaks caused a controversy. But Monday, the two news organizations actually took home the 2014 Pulitzer award for public service.

The Pulitzer board said The Post and The Guardian U.S. were awarded the prize for “authoritative and insightful reports that helped the public understand how the disclosures fit into the larger framework of national security.”

The Pulitzer Prize is one of the most prestigious and sought-after awards in journalism, literature and photography. Not only is expert reporting and writing involved for journalism, but the story must also be something that matters.

I’ve noticed there is often a discrepancy between stories considered newsworthy and stories that actually matter. For example, CNN.com usually has a few trending topics, most of them national or global topics that are indeed relevant for a few days. Then there are a few feature stories, usually more lighthearted but have that bizarre element to them that makes them newsworthy.

There are also those random stories about the latest developments in a celebrity’s private life that in my opinion really shouldn’t be trending on CNN. Because that kind of story begs the question…

Who cares? Does it matter? Maybe. But does it really?

I don’t care, personally, but I realize that a lot of the nation does care and, in the end, that will likely determine what is newsworthy. Whatever gets hits on the page, or eyes glued to the TV screen.

This is another reason why it is not at all typical to see celebrity gossip on a website for a print newspaper like The New York Times or The Washington Post. They’re trying to focus on stories that have lasting impacts, while CNN is trying to capture the viewership of society on television. Thus is born the divide between print and television journalism. I’m not trying to say that either one of them is wrong or that one of them is more entertaining.

I’m just saying that a television news website probably won’t win a Pulitzer.

US Airways explains risky tweet

By TAYLOR HOFF

Monday afternoon during a flight delay, a passenger on US Airways flight 1787, announced her dismay with the airline through a tweet to the airline’s official Twitter account.

The response she received was nothing short of pornographic and offensive.

After sending several tweets to the airline’s Twitter account, she finally elicited a response. They stated “We truly dislike delays too and are very sorry your flight was affected.”

The unsatisfied flier continued on to tweet a rude response addressing the fact that they have ignored her previous tweets. The airline seemed to be trying to make up for its mistakes in its next tweet to her, but something went terribly wrong.

In the seemingly appropriate and warranted tweet they mention, “We welcome feedback, Elle. If your travel is complete, you can detail it here for review and followup.”

The imaged that followed was certainly not the customer satisfaction survey that they meant to attention.

Instead the tweet was followed by a pornographic picture featuring a woman and a plastic airplane.

The inappropriate tweet stayed online for several minutes, before the airline realized its serious error.

Officials from US Air quickly tweeted; “We apologize for an inappropriate image recently shared as a link in one of our responses, We’ve removed the tweet and are investigating.”

The tweets, however, had already gone viral. Several websites featured the airline’s inappropriate tweet and poked fun at the obvious misfortune of the event.

The airline finally came forward announcing that the tweet came not from a hacking, but by honest mistake. The inappropriate picture had been used in a tweet tagging the airline, one which it had flagged as inappropriate, so that it could later be deleted. Because of this, the image was placed in the “clipboard” and accidentally “pasted” into what should have been an honest and innocent tweet.

The airline publicly apologized and claimed it is making internal changes to its communication process to ensure that this never happens again.

‘Game of Thrones’ audience skyrockets

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.

How Aereo could change television

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.

Advertising in news reporting

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.

MH 370 and insensitivity of news media

By KELLY BRODY

The news has been abuzz with updates on the mystery of the missing Malaysian Airlines plane, Flight MH 370, yet as the story of the crash starts to piece together, it seems as though the feelings of the families involved are being neglected.

As the families were notified of the death of everyone aboard via SMS message, (something that would have never been done in the past), photos were snapped of the grief those related to the people on the flight felt upon receiving the news.

Heart-wrenching details, such as a woman collapsing, screaming “My son! My son!” and another woman who had to be taken off on a stretcher from the immense feeling of grief are all featured in the news. Many people urged the press not to photograph or film them, with one man even threatening a cameraman by saying “Don’t film. I’ll beat you to death!”

During a time of extreme sadness and tragedy, privacy is of the utmost importance. Yet, the press always sees the need to document every moment, especially when a story such as this one is such a hot-ticket item.

So is the press over stepping its boundaries? In this case, I believe so. It does no justice to the story to document photos and videos of the family members of those on the flight in fits of hysteria due to grief. Would you want photos taken of you upon receiving news about a death in the family?

Also, for the family members to find out about the absolute death of everyone aboard via SMS message is a tad insensitive. It’s considered rude to break up with someone over text these days, so for the Malaysian prime minister to notify the families of the death of their loved ones is a testament to the disrespect the media has over the entire situation.

The coverage of this flight tragedy has been largely publicized and laden with extremities. Many conspiracy theories have swirled about, and jokes have even been made about the mysterious nature of it all. Now that the British satellites are starting to uncover the mystery of the crash, I believe focus should be placed on the crash itself and less on the families. They deserve respect in this time of tragedy.

Taking advantage of the news

By NICOLE HOOD

When you read an article about something happening on the other side of the world, you don’t always know what references the author is making. This comes into play, especially today, when talking about extremist groups, past conflicts and past tensions between countries or states or cities.

While most people I know would scroll past the links describing “What the Brotherhood is,” I think those links are one of the most important things about web journalism. It’s an example of how our technology has given us such easy access to such important information — to really understanding the core and depth of articles about groups, people and places that we don’t normally learn about. Instead of skimming over important facts and definitions, we can now reach it with a click, as long as we’re not too lazy to do even that.

As an avid reader and writer growing up, I wanted to know what every word meant if I had never heard of it before. As a college student studying journalism and international studies, I wanted to know how international crises came about; what happened in the past, who did what and what that meant for international relations.

Sadly, I find that most people solely want to know what is happening right now, because they find that more important, more pressing to know, than things that have happened in the past—especially if they feel what has happened in the past is resolved. As a student I’ve learned that any conflict has a history, that historical events have created relationships between countries and people that affect what is happening today.

Is it just enough to read that one article, and pass over extra links between the paragraphs? I say no, I say that you should always read more into just the number of deaths, more than just the name of the opposing parties. Just knowing there is a conflict does not mean understanding what is happening.

Do others find that extra reading to be boring? Do I sound like that history teacher in high school that is always trying to make you understand ‘why history is so important’?

I say this because I’ve learned how you can think you know something confidently but that there are so many lives behind it, there are so many relationships that are always growing and changing and that they change what is happening every day.

There is a reason more than one journalist covers every event; they can’t say everything about it in one article. There is so much in every article about international happenings that there is always something you haven’t learned yet. Most people pass that by — and even if you think looking something up in another screen is too much to ask, journalists have linked you to plenty of information somewhere that your mouse will pass over anyways.

Those little blue links are designed to help you overcome the laziness that keeps you from taking that extra step for more information. They are there because that information is important and it gives, or comes from, a different view.

That’s what journalism is about. It’s was news is about; it’s the reason why people read the news in the first place—to get out of their bubble. They do it to know what is happening that they can’t see, that they haven’t encountered during their day. If you apply that way of thinking to learning about the world, you learn that one article is only what one other person has seen or taken an interest in. You read the news because what you can’t see is important. Do it full-heartedly.

People take advantage of Flight 370?

By TAYLOR HOFF

The missing Malaysia flight MH 370 has caused quite the news media rampage. This mysterious, mind boggling event of the missing flight is currently an all consuming topic. However, there are people out there taking advantage of this tragic event.

On Thursday, March 20, reports ran rampant over sites such as Facebook and Twitter, that the missing flight had in fact been found. News feeds were overwhelmed by links such as “Shocking Video Reveals Found Flight MH370.” All that had to be done in order to access these supposed videos were to share the link and sign up for something.

Many people fell for these tricks; liking and sharing as fast as they could. Fake CNN Twitter accounts were then created to further these false claims.

Cyber hackers are exploiting the intense interest in the missing planes. By having these fake videos in which people need to sign up to view, they are in fact granting the ability to hack the user’s system.

After spam e-mails became widely known to be unhealthy to the user’s server, hackers had to become creative. Most hackers today rely on social media and the most prevalent news stories or trends.

Another widespread scam surfacing on social media websites is relating to health and weight loss. With our generations’ large focus on health, it is no surprise that hackers look to target people using an ad that claims to be “the miracle weight loss pill.” These ads guarantee quick and easy weight loss at a low price. Once someone clicks on the link they are immediately send to a scam website that clones a reputable one.

In conclusion, it is important to watch what you share and like on Facebook and other social media websites. Only listen to reputable websites such as CNN.com for updates on the latest news stories. If something is serious, and happening, especially with such a large story such as the missing plane, it will have been reported in several other places besides Facebook in which you can check.