I was very interested to see what the new weather center was like from the Weather Channel. I'm a total weather geek but have really discounted the weather channel as they seemed to you sub-standard technology and meteorologists. This all looks to be a step in the right direction.
I did find a couple of interesting things about their virtual tour that I didn't really like. There were several times where they claimed to have made an improvement to make the studio more earth friendly. These statements were overly vague. For instance; "a portion of the materials came from less than 500 miles away." That means basically nothing. One ounce of 200 tons is "a portion." I also found it funny that they made a big deal of telling us they used 170 square feet for recycling bins... and then didn't show where they were on the diagram.
Obviously I still hold some skepticism towards The Weather Channel but they are growing on me a bit. I'll check them out in HD and see if they can sway me any further.
Sunday, December 12, 2010
NYFA Virtual Tour
Unfortunately, the link provided for the virtual tour redirects me to the pages' home. I attempted to use Google Cache and The Way Back machine but no luck with those either. I looked at several other aspects of the site and it does appear to be a quality place to attend if someone is looking to go into film making. I also like the fact that they have locations all over the world, not just the US. This can ensure a full exposure to making movies in all kinds of locations and locales.
Stages of Emily
I watched the film called Stages of Emily.
It was about a woman who was facing her marriage as if it was the death of her single self. During this film she went through all of the stages of grief and you really began to feel the strain on her as if she were actually dying.
All of that being said, I really wish I had watched something else. There was some foul language, and while it wasn't much, didn't enhance the story at all. So why even have it in there?
Her friends, family and religious leader were basically worthless in helping her cope with these feelings. I would like to think that at least one of those would actually help you out.
I really have to question YouTube's decision to make this a featured film in their screening room. While slightly creative, its nothing we haven't seen before and was very far from anything innovative.
It was about a woman who was facing her marriage as if it was the death of her single self. During this film she went through all of the stages of grief and you really began to feel the strain on her as if she were actually dying.
All of that being said, I really wish I had watched something else. There was some foul language, and while it wasn't much, didn't enhance the story at all. So why even have it in there?
Her friends, family and religious leader were basically worthless in helping her cope with these feelings. I would like to think that at least one of those would actually help you out.
I really have to question YouTube's decision to make this a featured film in their screening room. While slightly creative, its nothing we haven't seen before and was very far from anything innovative.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
NYT's New Digs
Overall the building is quite nice, However I do have a couple of gripes and a couple of things that really stood out to me.
I love how open the newsroom area is even between floors. It truly gives a team feeling as well as easy method for quick communication as it appears that cube walls are only about 5 feet high. We have actually started to implement a similar layout where I work and many people have really embraced the change.
The view from the mast is amazing. It truly holds that quintessential New York Skyline.
I'm still trying to figure out what the small rectangles are that line the walls of the 8th street entrance to the building. Are they small TV screens?
The views out from the newsroom and cafeteria do not really do much for me for some reason. I think the horizontal bars make it feel a bit like a correctional facility.
That being said, I think the new building truly fosters a team environment and a comfortable place to work.
I love how open the newsroom area is even between floors. It truly gives a team feeling as well as easy method for quick communication as it appears that cube walls are only about 5 feet high. We have actually started to implement a similar layout where I work and many people have really embraced the change.
The view from the mast is amazing. It truly holds that quintessential New York Skyline.
I'm still trying to figure out what the small rectangles are that line the walls of the 8th street entrance to the building. Are they small TV screens?
The views out from the newsroom and cafeteria do not really do much for me for some reason. I think the horizontal bars make it feel a bit like a correctional facility.
That being said, I think the new building truly fosters a team environment and a comfortable place to work.
Glory to Gutenberg
The Gutenberg Bible website from the University of Texas was an excellent read. What an honor it must be to hold such an amazing piece of history. Not only was this the first book printed with movable type was also quite possibly the salvation of the Bible in general.
Movable type brought education and the Lord to the masses. Its just so amazing.
I love that they have also gone ahead and digitized the Gutenberg Bible. This was a great idea for several reasons. First, we can safely get a copy of the text before the materials deteriorate. Second, it allow for even more people the privilege of seeing the Gutenberg Bible without having to travel. Third, and possibly most importantly, it ensures that the content will not be lost in the event the Bible is destroyed by a disaster.
Where would we be without the invention of movable type? I'd hate to even think about it but we would be no where near where we are today.
This is one of those inventions that truly changed the world.
Movable type brought education and the Lord to the masses. Its just so amazing.
I love that they have also gone ahead and digitized the Gutenberg Bible. This was a great idea for several reasons. First, we can safely get a copy of the text before the materials deteriorate. Second, it allow for even more people the privilege of seeing the Gutenberg Bible without having to travel. Third, and possibly most importantly, it ensures that the content will not be lost in the event the Bible is destroyed by a disaster.
Where would we be without the invention of movable type? I'd hate to even think about it but we would be no where near where we are today.
This is one of those inventions that truly changed the world.
State of the Media
First of all, I loved the listing of subjects covered by percentage. Just excellent information.
I was also particularly impressed with the Media Ownership Dashboard. I was completely unaware that Cox Enterprises owned so much of the radio market and is a head above their nearest competitor.
This website has an unbelievable amount of information covering all aspects of media. They even have Nielsen analysis. This has been added to my bookmarks and will be visited by me at least every quarter after all I am a total information geek.
The Major Trends page was also very interesting. Where you would think technology and new media are leaving old media in the dust. They have actually found that technology actually benefits old media more than new media. When you also take into account that they found most new media outlets are limited in their ability to produce content. Very interesting and a limitation of new media that I hadn't thought about.
I was also particularly impressed with the Media Ownership Dashboard. I was completely unaware that Cox Enterprises owned so much of the radio market and is a head above their nearest competitor.
This website has an unbelievable amount of information covering all aspects of media. They even have Nielsen analysis. This has been added to my bookmarks and will be visited by me at least every quarter after all I am a total information geek.
The Major Trends page was also very interesting. Where you would think technology and new media are leaving old media in the dust. They have actually found that technology actually benefits old media more than new media. When you also take into account that they found most new media outlets are limited in their ability to produce content. Very interesting and a limitation of new media that I hadn't thought about.
The ethics of a business can be summarized in (cough)
After going through the class I found a couple of interesting case studies.
The first was under Privacy and was entitled, "Naming a Rape Victim." In this case study a child abducted while walking home. The news media covered this story heavily and released the name and photo of the victim. Two days later, the girl was able to escape her captor and was reunited with her family. Again the news media covered this story heavily as well. Two days after this, the abductor was found and charged with sexual assault.
The debate in this issue comes from the fact that the victims name and photo was released to the public.
I know it is a general rule that when a rape victim comes forward, you are not to release their name but, I feel, this instance is different. How many times does a child get kidnapped in Kansas and the Amber Alert system is activated? This system shows the name and picture of the victim. If, days later, the child is found to be a rape victim, their image and name have been all over the news.
Its a matter of balancing privacy with effectiveness in finding the child at all. If we withhold the information and the child is never found, in my opinion, we have lost more. If the child is found but the world knows they were sexually assaulted, I think that is less of an issue. At least the child was rescued from a terrible situation.
Another excellent section covered the Source/Reporter Relationship. I had often wondered exactly how media outlets could get away with using antonymous sources. I now see that it truly puts the reputation of the media outlet at risk.
The case study I liked in this section was about Ricky Williams. It details the media feeding frenzy that ensued after "sources" revealed that Williams had violated the NFL's substance abuse policy for a fourth time. Several media outlets jumped on the story, none of them revealing any sources. This story circled the entire US completely unattributed. Even a managing editor from the Sun-Sentinel stated "Looking back, I'm not sure we needed the column. It feels way too speculative." Obviously she feels that publishing this story was a mistake. I tend to agree. If a source is not willing to put their name on the line, where is their skin in the game? I could tell you that my place of work lost $500 million dollars yesterday but if I want my name to remain private, whats to stop me from making it all up? (By the way they didn't lose $500 million).
I feel that if a source isn't willing to put their name on the line then their information isn't news.
The first was under Privacy and was entitled, "Naming a Rape Victim." In this case study a child abducted while walking home. The news media covered this story heavily and released the name and photo of the victim. Two days later, the girl was able to escape her captor and was reunited with her family. Again the news media covered this story heavily as well. Two days after this, the abductor was found and charged with sexual assault.
The debate in this issue comes from the fact that the victims name and photo was released to the public.
I know it is a general rule that when a rape victim comes forward, you are not to release their name but, I feel, this instance is different. How many times does a child get kidnapped in Kansas and the Amber Alert system is activated? This system shows the name and picture of the victim. If, days later, the child is found to be a rape victim, their image and name have been all over the news.
Its a matter of balancing privacy with effectiveness in finding the child at all. If we withhold the information and the child is never found, in my opinion, we have lost more. If the child is found but the world knows they were sexually assaulted, I think that is less of an issue. At least the child was rescued from a terrible situation.
Another excellent section covered the Source/Reporter Relationship. I had often wondered exactly how media outlets could get away with using antonymous sources. I now see that it truly puts the reputation of the media outlet at risk.
The case study I liked in this section was about Ricky Williams. It details the media feeding frenzy that ensued after "sources" revealed that Williams had violated the NFL's substance abuse policy for a fourth time. Several media outlets jumped on the story, none of them revealing any sources. This story circled the entire US completely unattributed. Even a managing editor from the Sun-Sentinel stated "Looking back, I'm not sure we needed the column. It feels way too speculative." Obviously she feels that publishing this story was a mistake. I tend to agree. If a source is not willing to put their name on the line, where is their skin in the game? I could tell you that my place of work lost $500 million dollars yesterday but if I want my name to remain private, whats to stop me from making it all up? (By the way they didn't lose $500 million).
I feel that if a source isn't willing to put their name on the line then their information isn't news.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)