Over the years, the number of media outlets and the speed which media comes to the consumer has dramatically increased to near instantaneous. Every outlet type attempted to keep up. Leading the pack and blazing the trail is the Internet. Information is shared across the world with a click of a button. Everything is known almost as soon as it happens.
To match this, TV news stations created their own websites dedicated to news stories and breaks. Magazines followed suit to bring entertainment news to the web. Even radio stations created their own websites to interact with fans and stay popular. However, all this momentum has come with a sacrifice.
Media, in all forms TV, Radio, Movies, Internet, has one goal: profit. The ones who make up media most likely didn’t get into the business for profit. Instead, they struggled to become screenwriters or radio hosts, but keep in mind that all these media outlets are owned by top major corporations whose main focus is to earn a revenue. To earn a revenue, they had to build a loyal viewership, to build a loyal viewership they had to be the first at everything. This meant publishing insufficiently researched articles or rushing to the sites of explosive action without anything to say. It was commonplace to see reporters at the scene of a major event filling the audience in on details. Hilariously, now, reporters are put on the spot with absolutely nothing to give. They need to beat everyone else and at least be seen as the first. They are willing to completely speculate what is happening and call it news. All of this is done in the name of getting people to watch and therefore: profit.
It’s an odd concept to wrap around your head, but all media from the latest Brad Pitt story or even the youtube video with a little ad in the corner is being directed at you for profit.
Comments (119)
Dallas Crawford:
Oct 24, 2013 at 07:32 PM
This is a great concept. The goal is to spread the company across every possible medium--to plant their logos on everything possible. Exposure is one key to success in big business. These companies also need speed. They need to be the first to release one-of-a-kind content so they gain the most amount of followers.
Jacob B.:
Oct 24, 2013 at 07:38 PM
Don't you think it would be so much easier if for what ever reason all these companies worked together to deliver the information in the most informational way rather than the quickest way?
Misha:
Oct 24, 2013 at 07:43 PM
Yes, that would be great way to deliver news-worthy type of news, sadly not very realistic.
Roman:
Oct 24, 2013 at 07:43 PM
Wouldn't that just make it easier for just one wrong opinion?
Dallas Crawford:
Oct 24, 2013 at 07:59 PM
NOPE. This would only happen in a utopia. I think it would also damage the news ecosystem because of lack of variety. I don't want to live in a world where everyone agrees!
misha:
Oct 24, 2013 at 08:09 PM
I agree! I feel it is healthy to consume different type of news and let us consumers to use critical thinking while digesting the message put out there.
SARRRRAAH:
Oct 24, 2013 at 08:05 PM
Um, no, sorry but I have to disagree. One news corporation? That's a terrible idea, Jacob.
Yes, let's allow THE richest 1% to control our view of every single major event. Jee, that definitely won't lead to blantant lies and corruption and being fed straight up bull. At least right now we have the option to consume any one of 30 other channels to try and navigate through the bias ourselves.
Nicole Sexton:
Oct 28, 2013 at 08:48 PM
Easier maybe but possible or profitable, no. Media outlets will always be in competition to be the best and fastest one at getting a story, false or not
Eli:
Oct 24, 2013 at 07:38 PM
Amen to that young pattowan
Nicola Assante:
Oct 24, 2013 at 07:51 PM
Did you even read the article? Haha
Dallas Crawford:
Oct 24, 2013 at 08:01 PM
I disagree with you. He read the article. I saw him. You're mean.
Nicola Assante:
Oct 24, 2013 at 08:11 PM
You might have seen the page open on his computer but i dont think you necessarely saw him read the article. Don't forget we might all be having a discussion online but we are all in the same room. Aside from all the keyboard sounds the room is pretty quite. I haven't heard anyone read the article therefor your comment about him having read the article is invalid and not factual. YOU sir, like these reporters that we are talking about are dlivering information without facts to back it up! Unless of course you have a super power allowing you to read peoples mind and be able to tell that he actually did in fact read the article!
Sarah:
Oct 24, 2013 at 07:42 PM
I'm confused; by "great concept," do you mean for us or for them? That the companies need exposure and speed on their side to earn the buck, that much is absolutely and obviously true. So in that sense, it's great. For them. But for us...? We wind up swindled of any actual, well-thought, factual information.
Nicole Sexton:
Oct 28, 2013 at 08:52 PM
There is an old saying "Don't believe everything you here" . Have you ever been at the checkout line in the grocery store & read some of the asinine headlines of the inquirer?
Unfortunately, we live in a world where a lot of things we here are fabricated mostly motivated by $$$$ "Show me the money"
Kevin Fluharty:
Oct 24, 2013 at 07:42 PM
Sure, this is great for the media conglomerates, syndicates, and others on the business end, but when the truth is compromised just to make a quick buck, it can have bad consequences. People assume that what they see or hear about in the media must be true, and now the businesses make more money while the general public runs around in confusion about what is exactly going on. It gets especially bad when two different major news sources report two very different things about a certain story. With vertical integration, these media conglomerates can find a story (or at least surface-skimming details), publish and distribute it without encountering resistance because they own all the various aspects of a news business.
Dallas Crawford:
Oct 24, 2013 at 07:53 PM
In the point-of-view of a big business, it's a great way to gain exposure and make money, but I totally agree with what you're saying. In the shoes of us consumers and our community, these measures can be corrupting. I wouldn't prefer reading an article or watching a news story on television that only covers half of the facts. In our point-of-view, yes, this concept is definitely ruining some of the media we consume. Quick bucks are always what most media conglomerates will want, unfortunately.
Jose M.:
Oct 24, 2013 at 08:09 PM
I have to disagree. I personally don't like to consume incomplete info or speculated. Incomplete information is not constructive at all.
Nathan-Micheal Auman:
Oct 24, 2013 at 07:32 PM
I think this article makes a valid point, but it's also a bit over-simple.
The article takes a very obviously negative stance on advertisements as a whole, and generally fails to give any solid facts to back up the claims it makes, and indeed, sometimes the claims it makes are rather vague. Is the writer upset about the current state of news programs? That's not an unreasonable way to feel, but when the only sources cited are publicly available knowledge (the who owns what chart is handy, but these things are easy to find out using the very clicks of a button the article criticizes) and The Daily Show (entertaining, to be sure, but not necessarily the best source of information) it's hard to follow the train of thought.
Christina M.:
Oct 24, 2013 at 07:33 PM
This kind of goes back to a discussion we had earlier in the semester about news corporations strategically "leaving out" details or not reporting the whole story. In the post it states that corporations are concerned about being the first to report and therefore not knowing the whole story before they go live. It gives a skewed version of the actual story until they start to update the story with actual, researched and solid facts.
Dallas Crawford:
Oct 24, 2013 at 07:39 PM
I agree with you. Businesses SHOULD focus more on releasing a more reliable story rather than a story with incorrect information or just part of the story. But if it were me, and revenue was the top priority, I'd do the same thing. If publishing a story full of holes makes me money while gaining the most amount of followers, I'm okay with it. Just like how we were discussing Fox News in an earlier class. Fox may report stories that are untruthful to some, yet they are among the largest news corporations.
Nicola Assante:
Oct 24, 2013 at 07:33 PM
The article talks about reporters speculating, and being put on the spot. I completely agree with this. There have been many times where you see something on the news or read a story and the next day a main part of the story completely change. I think media companies need to step back a bit and let legitimate information come in before they report on a story.
Jacob B.:
Oct 24, 2013 at 07:39 PM
That is exactly what I was saying in my post. I would rather listen to or hear quality news than be the first to hear about what may or may not have happened.
Nicola Assante:
Oct 24, 2013 at 07:44 PM
Yeah exactly my point. Quality news over quick news.
Luis Bardales Jr.:
Oct 24, 2013 at 07:56 PM
I ignore the news and try to do the research myself if I feels that it impacts me.
Jacob B.:
Oct 24, 2013 at 08:06 PM
That would definatley be an alternative to hearing quick news. Way2go :D
Andre D:
Oct 24, 2013 at 07:51 PM
Agreeing with this 100% here. Reporters should come with every bit of true facts on the situation. that being said i would like to see more A+ reporters put on spot and taking advantage of what they are given
Nicola Assante:
Oct 24, 2013 at 07:56 PM
Exactly, but is the reporter really the problem or is it their employer? The reporter in my opionion is being forced to come up with quick information to report. Maybe even having to do so to keep ones job. If a reported takes some more time to get more factual information what is to say they wont be replaced by someone else who is willing to just put out quick information?
Andre D:
Oct 24, 2013 at 08:14 PM
I understand your point where the reporter is stuck in this predicament yet i would settle for as much of the truth as possible even if it is half now i know the employer may not like this but if he was wise he would figure it as building up the suspense and more views in a sense
Christina M.:
Oct 24, 2013 at 08:12 PM
It all goes back to the way we want our news though. Especially certain breaking news stories like the Newtown or the Navy Yard. We're not willing to wait until reporters have all their facts checked because it's such a critical time. I think if major stories like that were being withheld until the facts were checked and investigations done, we'd have a problem with that too. We'd wonder why such a HUGE story wasn't instantly broadcasted to the rest of the nation.
Morgan:
Oct 24, 2013 at 07:33 PM
In regards to the last little paragraph, I agree with this article. Every little thing we see on the Internet is trying to get us to buy, look at, sell, click on something, so someone gets profit from it. I think one thing that is interesting and almost creepy that we've talked about before in class, is how side ads on YouTube and search engines, are sometimes ads for things that you can find in your search history. Computers/The Internet now have the ability to almost customize the ads that are shown to you because they know what you're interested in or at least what you've recently been viewing.
Christina M.:
Oct 24, 2013 at 07:48 PM
It's just another example of consumerism. Everyone is out for a profit. The way companies go about it can be different but the end goal is the same. Maybe I give people the benefit of the doubt too much but I dont necessarily think theres some huge, manipulative motive behind it. The ads on Facebook, Google and Twitter must be working because they're still there. We aren't being forced to click on the ads. I look at is as the same as actually walking into a store for something specific but buying an additional item that you didn't come in for because it was there and you liked it.
Mark S.:
Oct 24, 2013 at 07:49 PM
I agree with what you are saying, and to take it one step further, I think it is possible that this information could be used for other purposes. For isntance, it has been revealed that Google stores all the information that they have on people, rather that using it and then discarding it. So, I see it as very possible that that information can could get into the wrong hands.
Jessica C:
Oct 24, 2013 at 08:06 PM
I agree that it is creepy that the ads can be fit to what we have searched before. The companies are being smart about paying attention to what we search online and showing the content to us through ads. Although, I don't know if it really is the right thing to do, it helps them make more profit, and that's all they care about.
Dallas Crawford:
Oct 24, 2013 at 08:13 PM
It is a bit unsettling knowing that Google stores our information to improve search results, but the more I hear about this issue, the less I think this is actually an issue. Google is improving my internet experience by using my interests to place advertisements I won't get annoyed by. As long as they don't have my SSN I'm okay with it! They don't have that, too, do they..?
Luis Bardales Jr.:
Oct 24, 2013 at 07:34 PM
Competition between all these news stations make them unreliable as technology continues to evolve. I can see why they are worried about profit because we need money in this world to survive. I think that in the long run they will lose business if they continue doing this method because they would be just giving out false or useless information.
eli:
Oct 24, 2013 at 07:40 PM
I agree with the article entirely. but dont forget #StayBased #ThankYouBasedGod
Jessica C:
Oct 24, 2013 at 07:58 PM
I don't know if I agree with you that in the long run these companies will lose business because of this. News companies have been giving misleading stories out to the public for years, in order to be the first company on the scene, and I don't think that's going to change. I think that people find a news corperation that they like, and "trust" to a point, and they will stay with that corperation because maybe what the other networks have to say don't meet their liking. Now, I don't think this is right at all that news corperations do this, but I don't forsee them losing business because of it.
Kevin Fluharty:
Oct 24, 2013 at 08:14 PM
I agree. I hate it when news outlets "cry wolf" a lot of the time, and because of that, they become less and less credible. It's amazing how many of the largest news corporations are the least trustworthy.
Jacob B.:
Oct 24, 2013 at 07:34 PM
I feel that reporting the news should be based off of how well it is broadcasted, and not how fast it is broadcasted. I would rather listen to someone who actually knows the facts, and knows what is actually going on three hours after something happpened, rather than listen to someone who doesn't know anything about what happened ten seconds after it happened.
Luis B:
Oct 24, 2013 at 07:52 PM
This is actually a good idea maybe then they will stop giving us dumb news stories
Morgan:
Oct 24, 2013 at 08:03 PM
I totally agree with this. But I think the only reason why we are handed false news is because we consume it. It's a never ending cycle. The faster they pump out news (true or not), the faster we consume it and talk about it more and it just keeps going from there.
Jessica C:
Oct 24, 2013 at 07:34 PM
I think the article is right. All media is being centered around profit. When these news stations started out they wanted to give the public the facts about what was doing on in the world, because they wanted to be known for the information they put out. But today, all the news stations care about is who can get the information out first. It doesn't matter if all the facts are true or not, they just need to be seen as the first corperation to say something about the news story. Everything is so based around profit that it becomes hard to trust what the news reporter is saying.
Morgan:
Oct 24, 2013 at 07:41 PM
I totally agree with you. Even the gossip magazines that you see in food store checkout line. For example, they'll take a story about Miley Cyrus producing a song with Kanye or someone.. flip the story around.. then all of a sudden Milley is having an affair with Kanye behind Kim's back. These magazines will do whatever it takes to draw people in. When people buy their magazines, they make profit; When they make profit, they're winning.
Eli Oswald:
Oct 24, 2013 at 07:35 PM
I agree with most of what is said in this article. #StayBased
Jacob B.:
Oct 24, 2013 at 08:02 PM
Well said.
Mark S.:
Oct 24, 2013 at 07:35 PM
Its true that everything nowadays is just done for profit. People are so focused on money that practically everything we do is either to get more money or to spend it. Corperations are not alone in their willingness to give up quality if it means a higher income.
Kevin Fluharty:
Oct 24, 2013 at 07:35 PM
It's become a sad state of affairs for news media. It's shameful that the media is willing to compromise the truth for profit and political influence. They publish rumors as truth and create confusion, and sometimes panic and chaos because the consumers of the media think it's one thing because the media told them so. We should always take what we see and hear with a grain of salt, and think twice before assuming that whatever is put out there is the ultimate truth.
Luis Bardales Jr.:
Oct 24, 2013 at 07:47 PM
It is shameful but it is also understandable from a business aspect of the situation.
Andre D:
Oct 24, 2013 at 07:57 PM
Agreeing with Luis here it is shamefull but as he said making money is profit and the profit is a main goal for every media #profitrunstheworld
Eli:
Oct 24, 2013 at 08:07 PM
Its shameful but the need to make $$$$
Andi B:
Oct 24, 2013 at 07:36 PM
It is unfortunate that the guys doing all the work, ie: screenwriters, news anchors, radio hosts, get thrown in the act of reporting or documenting sub par information to their listeners and get bad reviews when it is the force from the major corporations who put them in this predicament. I feel like not enough people know, or care, that the information that is being fed to them is coming from major corporations who really just want to make money by being the first, no matter if the information is correct or thorough. If we base our education and thoughts off incorrect information, what good does that do for us? It seems like this information is also the first to go viral because it's the first that people hear about and in return they want to be the first to spread it to friends via facebook or other social networking sites.
Nathan-Micheal Auman:
Oct 24, 2013 at 07:51 PM
I think the issue (such as it is) is that the people who are most likely to know where our news is coming from are also the people who are more likely to not mind that it's coming from large corporations. I don't mean that disparagingly, it's just a correlation I could see happening.
Kevin Fluharty:
Oct 24, 2013 at 07:53 PM
I agree: part of the problem with those people writing the stories getting bad reviews, or even being fired, is that the media conglomerates are willing to sacrifice them in the name of making profit. Part of the problem is that they hold the reigns of the people who make the news: they can influence the news writers and reporters to alter the story to fit their desires, discarding truth for lies. Vertical integration adds to this problem by having the media conglomerates control the process of getting news out the public. They have the reporters who get the stories, they can control what they say, and they publish and distribute it without encountering much resistance.
Luis Bardales Jr.:
Oct 24, 2013 at 08:03 PM
We should be able to give instant reviews on their websites and rate the stories from 1 star to 5 star
Andre D:
Oct 24, 2013 at 07:36 PM
regarding to the reporters being put on spot with nothing to say and as well They are willing to completely speculate what is happening and call it news i think its really annoying
Mark S.:
Oct 24, 2013 at 07:53 PM
I agree that this is annoying, but I do not think that the news corperations are necessarily to blame. The viewers are the ones demanding fast information as opposed to high quality.
Luis Bardales Jr.:
Oct 24, 2013 at 08:07 PM
It is annoying but we also gotta look at it in there stand point because they have families they need to feed so if that gives them money that is what they have to do because it is their job.
Andre D:
Oct 24, 2013 at 08:08 PM
its understandable we as viewers do ask for fast service and good quality yet i still blame the news corps even if they give some intel on whats going on is better than being fed rumors or false information
Kevin Fluharty:
Oct 24, 2013 at 08:11 PM
I agree that MOST viewers want information fast, but I'd prefer it if it's accurate and high quality. Of course, it always varies from person to person.
Chad C:
Oct 24, 2013 at 07:39 PM
It's okay for the media to want to make a profit. Everyone in the world want's to make money . I just don't agree with how it's effecting the news. The news if critical shouldn't be put out unless all the facts and stories are there. It shouldn't be based on spontaneous reports or on one persons story. Just because they want to make a profit doesn't mean they should slack on the important information.
Sarah:
Oct 24, 2013 at 07:52 PM
I agree, but... I just don't see that changing. Consumers have grown lazy. As a whole, I don't think we want change badly enough. It's a shameful truth.
Andi:
Oct 24, 2013 at 08:10 PM
I completely agree that consumers have grown lazy... Why take the time to research something and make sure its a fact before we consume it and spread it to others to consume? We are causing other consumers to be just as lazy because we keep spreading it around... it's a vicious cycle.
Chad C:
Oct 24, 2013 at 08:16 PM
That is very true. I don't see it changing anytime soon either. Especially not with the younger generation . Most don't show the interest and have this "I don't care" attitude about everything.
Chad C:
Oct 24, 2013 at 08:17 PM
That is very true. I don't see it changing anytime soon either. Especially not with the younger generation . Most don't show the interest and have this "I don't care" attitude about everything.
Jessica C:
Oct 24, 2013 at 08:01 PM
I agree with you, but I don't think that will ever change. There is just so much competion out there that I think these companies feel that bad news or false news is better than no news.
Chad C:
Oct 24, 2013 at 08:21 PM
I agree with you. I don't think it will change. Really it'll just get worse and worse. I just think they need to change and we need quality again.
Luis Bardales Jr.:
Oct 24, 2013 at 07:40 PM
My question to this article is could this affect us in the long run because we are given useless or false information. It could really hurt us because it could make our society and younger generation ignorant with the information they are giving out.
Morgan:
Oct 24, 2013 at 07:48 PM
My question to this article is could this affect us in the long run because we are given useless or false information. It could really hurt us because it could make our society and younger generation ignorant with the information they are giving out.
I think yeah, it will affect us in the long run. I don't really know if it will 'make our society and younger generations ignorant', I just think it will feed in more to the whole idea that our society revolves around media. It's only going to become more and more present in our lives. I do think the younger generations of today (even kids who are not even born yet) are going to end up brainwashed by all the media around them making them think they need the new iPhone and new this and fastest that.
Roman:
Oct 24, 2013 at 07:50 PM
My answer to that is the answer that everyone else tells me. Just take all news with a grain of salt, meaning keep the idea in the back of your mind that their main goal is to keep you watching not inform you.
My rebuttal to myself is: the whole reason why this argument exists is because there are people out there that take everything at face value and will believe everything they hear. There is a danger.
Misha:
Oct 24, 2013 at 07:40 PM
Yes, all the media platforms Tv, Radio,movies or internet are created to communicate message to the audience. Major corporations are competing against each other to deliver news, which is many times not even news-worthy. We as a audience crave to know what's going on around us and we are consuming these messages therefore we let these media outlet's grow as well as major corporations getting more profit. It is all interconnected .
Sarah:
Oct 24, 2013 at 07:48 PM
SO true, Misha. Corporations are now cooking up bias-riddled garbage that passes for news and is sold to the highest bidder. And that bidder... that's us. We just sit back and swallow it down. Yum, slime.
Jessica C:
Oct 24, 2013 at 07:48 PM
I agree that everything is interconnected and that the news companies are just competing to get the stories out there firsts. But I think there should be some guide lines as to what is really news-worthy and what is not. Just because you were the first news corperation to say something about it, doesn't mean it's really something that needed to be reported to an extreme.
Mark S.:
Oct 24, 2013 at 07:41 PM
I can see why it is important for news teams to deliver news as fast as possible, even if it means having lower quality content. The consumers are the ones forcing them to be this way. If people had more intrest in getting well informed news rather than speedy news, then thats what these companies would try to present.
Jacob Bierman:
Oct 24, 2013 at 07:49 PM
Why do you say that we want faster news? Cause for me, i'd rather get quality news over quick news.
Mark S.:
Oct 24, 2013 at 08:01 PM
I say that consumers want speedy information because speedy information is popular. If people wanted higher quality data, they would disregard the lightning fast news because of its inacuracy, and therefore ratings for these types of progreams would plummit and they would be phased out. Obviously, this is not the case, so that means that these types of news programs are more popular that well informed news.
misha:
Oct 24, 2013 at 08:02 PM
so I wonder what type of news are you consuming Jacob?
Jacob B.:
Oct 24, 2013 at 08:13 PM
Okay, just wanted to clear that up, Mark. And Misha, i'm going to answer your question with another question. What did you have for breakfast this morning? I ask this becasue what you asked is personal information that I don't feel okay with letting everyone know. #jk #fakeagrument #hashtag
Andi B:
Oct 24, 2013 at 07:49 PM
I agree that the consumers are the ones forcing them to be this way. We live in a world that we want to be the first to have, first to know, first to see... We force companies to respond this way because if not, we are on to the next company who does deliver it when/how we want it.
Luis Bardales Jr.:
Oct 24, 2013 at 08:09 PM
Maybe we should be less democratic on what the people like because apparently we live in a society of ignorance.
muhammad:
Oct 24, 2013 at 07:42 PM
AMERICA! The home of the brave!
Nicola Assante:
Oct 24, 2013 at 07:42 PM
Although there is a big negative to reporting a story before having/knowing all the facts, from a business point of view it is very smart to try and be the first to report a story. It gets more poeople to tune in and brings them back to consume more information later. Although i will say that a lot of news companies exaggerate stories a lot of the times. If i was leading a leading media company i would want to make sure that the company was one of the first to report on a story but i would also keep the report short and simple and ask viewers to stay tuned for more information as it becomes available instead of giving them false information. I would much rather my company become known for giving out correct information than for being the first to report a story that changes a million times!
Jessica C:
Oct 24, 2013 at 07:51 PM
I completely agree with you, and the way you put that was great. Just because you have a million viewers, doesn't mean anything. What should matter is the content of what you are putting out to the public.
Nicola Assante:
Oct 24, 2013 at 08:01 PM
I think running a company the correct/respectable way over the profitable way is more fulfilling. Id rather have a smaller, loyal following that trusts what they are consuming than a big following who isn't even sure what they are consuming.
Jessica C:
Oct 24, 2013 at 08:11 PM
Even though I agree with you completely, I don't think that will ever happen. All of these companies are just money hungry, and they really could care less about what they say. If there was a new news corperation to come out, I think it would take a while before it would become popular because people tend to hold on to what is familar to them.
Jessica C:
Oct 24, 2013 at 07:51 PM
I completely agree with you, and the way you put that was great. Just because you have a million viewers, doesn't mean anything. What should matter is the content of what you are putting out to the public.
Andi B:
Oct 24, 2013 at 07:43 PM
I agree with this article to a point, but I think it is too large of a concept to fit in this simple article. I believe that everything we see on the internet, whether it be an article, news clip, or ad, is providing profit and that major corporations make the choices they do to gain more profit, but I think there is more to it than that. We, being the audience, gives the corporations the power to report inaccurate information or news by feeding off of it and consuming it. We do the work for them by consuming it and sharing it which in return grows their profit.
Nathan-Micheal Auman:
Oct 24, 2013 at 07:47 PM
I agree with this (if anything it's a much more eloquent way of saying what I was trying to say). The core of the article is good but it's too short an article for such a huge concept and the vaguish language makes it a bit confusing, IMO.
Misha:
Oct 24, 2013 at 07:47 PM
Yes, I agree Andy. All is all connected . We as consumers affect the type of ads that are being created by our consumption.
Jessica C:
Oct 24, 2013 at 07:43 PM
The part about the ads on youtube videos being directed at us for profit is completely right. No matter what we do on the Internet there is always some sort of ad trying to get us to buy something. There really isn't anything you can do online and not see some type of ad. I think it's very weird that I can search something once and the next day, ads for that random product are on the side of my Facebook page. All of these companies are tracking us online to see what we are looking at in order to send out ads that would relate to things we have search before. Ads are always there to try to get us to buy something, but when they are directly related to something we searched before, it gets a little creepy.
Nathan-Micheal Auman:
Oct 24, 2013 at 07:56 PM
In the interest of being a helpful person, I feel I should inform you that there's a program called adBlock that one can install as an addon to most web-browsers that makes the vast majority of online ads unusable.
Just be aware that if you choose to use it when watching a youtube video you like, you may be preventing that video's creator from receiving their ad revenue, which may hamper their ability to make more videos, depending on what you are watching.
Andi B:
Oct 24, 2013 at 07:57 PM
I agree that it's creepy when you're searching for something... and the next day its on the side of your search engine or facebook page. It's all about tailoring our consumption of information to directly what interests us. Personally, it doesn't bother me when I see the adds but I understand the concept is to peak my interest, get me to click the link (which even just clicking the link gains profit for them,) and ultimately purchase the item or attend the event in which they are advertising. It all relates back to profit, profit, profit...
misha:
Oct 24, 2013 at 07:59 PM
Yes Jessica I feel we lost the sense of privacy in the Digital Age.
Jose M.:
Oct 24, 2013 at 07:44 PM
Major media corporations board members have the responsibility to protect the interest of all of shareholders(fiduciary responsibility) . In order to maintain or increase the market value they use all kind of tactics, including as mention on this article "SPECULATE"
Nicola Assante:
Oct 24, 2013 at 07:45 PM
#QualityNewsOverQuickNews
Jacob B.:
Oct 24, 2013 at 07:51 PM
#truedat
Christina M.:
Oct 24, 2013 at 07:51 PM
I think we had quality news at one point. When you had to wait until 6pm or 11pm to find out the "breaking news" for that day. Our impatience for news and current events creates the quick news over quality. They're delivering the news we demand which is faster, more accessible news.
Sarah:
Oct 24, 2013 at 07:53 PM
#preachtheword
misha:
Oct 24, 2013 at 07:56 PM
Yes , quality news is the way to go. We as consumers first need to act on it and start consuming that type of news.
Andre D:
Oct 24, 2013 at 07:45 PM
As it says "Media, in all forms TV, Radio, Movies, Internet, has one goal: profit" i agree with this not only just the media but as we talked about before Chad Johnson changing his name for profit depending on how it is presented who or what it is about profit will be one of the main things in the world today
Kevin Fluharty:
Oct 24, 2013 at 08:05 PM
I agree. It makes me think about how some rappers like to change their names from time to time, "rebranding" themselves. For example, Snoop Dog changing his name to Snoop Lion. I don't think that a person or company changing their name is a bad thing, it just seems unneccessary, and in some cases creates confusion for the fans of a certain brand if they are unaware of the change. Also, some people or businesses change their names from something original and recognizable, to something more plain and ordinary (Ex. the video game distributor Xseed Games changed their name to Marvelous USA, which doesn't stick out as memorable). Also, Birdman to Baby.
Muhammad:
Oct 24, 2013 at 07:51 PM
Its all about profit, websites everything, MONEY _FAME _FORTUNE _ANYTHING_TO_MAKE_A_DOLLAR_HOLLER, dollars for sense of humor, scholar like bueller so no need for a tutor
eli:
Oct 24, 2013 at 08:01 PM
hmmmmm, i agree with you muhammad but are you in this class?
misha:
Oct 24, 2013 at 07:53 PM
We as consumers have the responsibility take charge and decide to consume worthy type of news, movies , ads. etc. Let's not support the type of news that is not sufficent by consuming it.
Andi B:
Oct 24, 2013 at 08:02 PM
That is a great concept, but in reality, how is that even remotely possible in the world that we live in where people don't mind if the information they are consuming is completely accurate and feed off of whats "hot off the press" news? Unfortunately, I don't think that it's possible to just stop consuming inaccurate info, because who is to say its actually inaccurate when all news is reporting the same stories with different bits and pieces? Who can we trust to actually provide the right information?
Nathan-Micheal Auman:
Oct 24, 2013 at 08:03 PM
I feel that I should bring up directed content consumption as a possible solution here. It is entirely possible to simply /not watch/ something that we don't want to support. In terms of news programs, this means turning to other outlets for news entirely. For ads, it means not clicking on them (and judicious use of the AdBlock program whenever possible).
These things would not be sold to us if they didn't get ratings/clicks/whatever metric one chooses to use. We are as much at fault as the corporation.
((full disclosure, this post was originally standalone, but I'm not able to post new threads right now for some reason and it works as a response to this comment as well))
Dallas Crawford:
Oct 24, 2013 at 08:06 PM
That's right, if we want to make a stand against corporations that publish unworthy news stories, we need to boycott those news corporations and stop consuming their content.
Chad C:
Oct 24, 2013 at 08:07 PM
I agree! We as the consumers really have the power. If we stop consuming the product they're putting out. They'll have no choice but to change it. Because like the article says they're all about whatever gets them money.
Mark S.:
Oct 24, 2013 at 08:07 PM
I agree with you that people are the ones making this kind of news possible. Based on what I have seen from this class, no one really likes this kind of news, and yet it is the most popular.
Morgan:
Oct 24, 2013 at 08:20 PM
The news might not seem popular in this class, but this class mostly consists of younger people. I think the things we see on the news are consumed by adults, which do make up a large number of the population, hense why all these news companys make millions.
Chad C:
Oct 24, 2013 at 08:01 PM
We as the consumers need to put are foot down. Many things aren't even news. Especially on online media sources. Most of what you see is slander, bias-criticism, cyber-bullying, and false information. Blogs such as Perez Hilton's for example are just unprofessional garbage. People should stop buying into it. Then the media will change it's tactics because it wouldn't be profiting.
Christina M.:
Oct 24, 2013 at 08:03 PM
Media corporations are smart. They know how to market their product and who exactly to market it to. They research their audience to obtain maximum profit for a certain production or product. That's not necessarily an evil thing. If they do their research correctly and identify the trends in their market, they are bound to achieve profit. Look at things like Harry Potter and Big Bang Theory, those are two different mediums (film and television) that have both gained profit by carefully researching their audience and delivering the entertainment it wants. Harry Potter could have stopped at books, but there was a demand to expand to movies and therefore leading to huge profit and to many other profitable ventures (like the new theme park at Universal). Big Bang Theory became so popular that they expanded to board games, tshirts and marketing their most loved character, Sheldon. It eventually leads to a profit that their target audience fuels.
Morgan:
Oct 24, 2013 at 08:10 PM
Yeah I agree with that. I think that that could be another reason why people say 'google never deletes your history they store it'. Google can than sell the information/stats of how many people check out your website, how long they're on there, where they're from ect. It's like another to gain money which is what all this advertising revolves around.
misha:
Oct 24, 2013 at 08:13 PM
Indeed. The big corporations are smart in keeping eye on us and keep feeding us with the type of trend that we want to consume.
Andi B:
Oct 24, 2013 at 08:14 PM
Corporations are extremely tactful and effective in the ways they gain their information and in return create means of gaining profit. Just like you said, there are so many shows, movies, and even news stations that target a certain group of people and they know how to market it to gain more profit. We give them the ammo they need in order to gain more money, and although it seems like a lot of work collecting date on their end, we make it easy for them by giving in to their tactics.
Ali:
Oct 24, 2013 at 08:05 PM
#RealTalk
Morgan:
Oct 24, 2013 at 08:14 PM
In chapter 9 when it they talk about 'Audience is King' and things like niche audiences, I think that's one way these companies are trying to target people. If a film company wants to create a new click flick, they're going to cast Justin Bieber, targeting teenage girls to see the film because Justin is in it. Audience really is 'king'.
Jacob B.:
Oct 24, 2013 at 08:15 PM
Quick news needs t stop. Im just not feeling it.
Nicole:
Oct 28, 2013 at 08:55 PM
So what are you feeling?
Dallas Crawford:
Oct 24, 2013 at 08:16 PM
Regarding the last paragraph about personalized ads on my search results, I don't think this is such a bad thing! Like I stated in another comment, I am absolutely okay with Google using some of my personal information to make my internet experience better. It's a small price to pay for using Google's outstanding services.
Add a Comment