Journalism pieces

After completing Bennet's "Against Long-Form Journalism" and watching theatlantic.com's video, I have a better understanding of the war against long-form journalism and how "new media" has transformed old practices of journalism.

In Bennet's article, he discusses his concerns with the topic of long-form journalism, especially the name itself. He states to his readers that the name "long-form" completely throws off anyone that is interested in reading that sort of work because it makes it sound unappealing. Bennet supports his opinion with the simple example that readers do not recommend a book, such as Moby Dick, for the reason that it is a lot of words to read. Bennet brings to light the term "New Journalism" because it would more than likely attract more of an audience as compared to the term "long-form."

"New Journalism" in a sense connects to theatlantic.com's discussion of "new media" versus "old media", in which various journalists discussed the importance of old media learning from new media to be faster, engage a more variety of voices in conversation, and to create a stronger, more professional environment. I feel as though, besides the concern that there is a lack of printing being done, journalism can be more positively impacted by new media because it presents the opportunity to journalists to include more views in their work which appeals to a wider audience. New media can also enhance old print journalism to be more accessible.

New media, however, can also bring limitations to journalism that would not have existed otherwise. When forms of journalism are more accessible by the public, this places "more responsibility on consumers in finding out who to trust." Unfortunately, writers on the Internet have power to edit, steal, and twist the truth of others to sound more appealing to readers, which ultimately means that consumers need to critically read presented information and research on their own beyond what is in front of their face. Another limitation of new journalism is that readers pick and choose what they want to read; the flipping of a newspaper page allows the reader to stumble upon new sources of information that they wouldn't otherwise find on the Internet because stories and corresponding sites are simply not structured that way.

I think it is crucial that Bennet included a part in his article that mentions the important transition from print to digital that many journalists are undergoing at this point in time. In recent past, media and technology has changed magazine printing, typing, and art in general. My parents, both magazine cover artists, lost their jobs in Manhatten to uprising computer technology and robots. Although this influence of new media on old journalism seems like a contemporary problem, it isn't. Artists have adapted to new technology, such as computer animation, which means that writers have to adapt to the new technology (Facebook and Twitter) as well. If it means jobs and the number of readers will be at risk, journalists will find a way to compromise with new media and use it to their advantage.

Social Media and Journalism

     The published pieces from the Atlantic speak for each other. In the article " Against 'Long-Form Journalism' " we are reading information that takes much longer to read than the video "How is Social Media Changing Journalism" which makes similar points in much less time. "Against 'Long Form Journalism' " comes from one point of view arguing that brevity is important and that the way magazines categorize works is important as well. Bennet asks: "Reader, do you feel enticed to plunge into a story by the distinction that it is long?" By asking this seemingly rhetorical question we notice the importance of cutting out unnecessary words that cause works to become over-lengthy. The world's greatest novel writers cut out extra elements in their stories to keep the mystery and the reader can then put the pieces together as they read and fill in the rest with their imagination. As long as the reader is able to maintain the point you are making that is the only thing you need to convey in a successful piece- nothing extra.  Writers may sometimes lose importance and understanding of their readers because of the length. Bennet addresses the notion that long stories are not always of good quality by stating "editors are discovering that not just headlines but overall quality matters more and more, whether a story is short or long." This statement is important because he is reinstating that extra words don't make things better but also that short pieces are not always the good pieces either. The quality of a good work, to Bennet, means that it's good on its own and it covers all the points that it needs to, without overdoing it or overwhelming the reader. Toward the end of his article Bennet states that "Length is hardly the quality that most meaningfully classifies these stories. Yet there’s a real conundrum here: If long-form doesn’t fit, what term is elastic enough to encompass the varied journalism it has come to represent, from narrative to essay, profile to criticism?" There is a clear danger in advertising long pieces, as "Long- Form" because of the negative reaction to the time it may consume to read it. The time however takes nothing away from quality and I believe that is the point he has been trying to allude to. 

     Social Media is a way where authors can hit on the main points and share ideas in a faster, more effective, free way. "How Social Media is Changing Journalism" interviews a few different people who's opinions agree that it has changed journalism. One of the interviewees makes the point that social media allows a direct connection to people and works. Another states that the internet and social media reaches to speak to a wider audience and I think that a lot of the reason for that is because internet news can travel much faster to people than printed works. Another interviewee talks about the importance of people participating with the works, which I think is also very important. People can share internet works simply by a screen shot of the page or a copied link. Other countries can see things as well and people can weigh in on works through social media unlike they can in printed works. This phenomenon, for me adds even more attention and praise to the works. If people like them they will share them more and more no matter the length. The quality will matter more online where you can read things on the go rather than hard copy. A man who was interviewed in the video stated that " If something does not succeed on Facebook, it does not succeed at all." This is a bold statement that I believe as a social media user is true. The internet/ social media world is so important for modern journalism because you can get your ideas out there for free and people can share them. The concern that lies between social media and journalism in the video is that the consumer (readers) have the responsibility to themselves to know who/ what to trust. Not everything you read will be true and this especially is a valid point when it comes to the internet. All opinions vary and people can be biased and appear professional when they are not. The social media consumers must be educated enough to decipher the trustworthy works from the counterfeit works. 

Journalism: the changing idea

The video “How is Social Media Changing Journalism” Does make some major points about the ever-changing idea of Journalism. This video had some very good points, but something personal in my life is helping me see this change greatly. My sister, Allison Watkins is a journalist at Huffington Post. One of the major arguments that she raises is how social media is a great way of expanding one’s reaches to the public. The idea of who does one trust though, as brought up in the video is something I tend to disagree with. Sources are usually pretty easy to tell, and I find myself personally trying to stay towards more, lets say “respected sources” on matters covered by journalists, but that doesn’t mean that just because an article is long, means that it is filled with information and knowledge. Many times writers and authors, and I do mean all authors (myself included) perform the art of what I like to call B.S.ing and article. This is to make it lengthier, and seem more filling. The article “Against ‘Long-term Journalism” makes a perfect point of this. “Length is hardly the quality that most meaningfully classifies these stories” I personally don’t think that length should even be considered as a classification to stories. I find that if a story is interesting, or covering a topic that catches my attention, that’s why I read it. It does not matter length. Nor do I find it wrong how I find. In honesty, Most are found through social media sites such as Twitter or Facebook. A teacher of mine said something about this subject that I have taken to heart, called the two C’s 

“Communication Changes”

Whether or not Social Media is a new era of journalism or how an article is set up in content or length means nothing, only that it is what is here and now. And we must learn to work with it or let this way of communication fall apart.

Old an New Journalism: Coming to Terms

These two pieces about the future of journalism were interesting for me to read, and I compared them to my experiences with print and digital media. The Atlantic video How Is Social Media Changed Journalism? brings up many good points about new, being online resources, and old, being print and other mediums, journalism and the reader.  Many of the goals of new journalism involves reaching a larger audience and the sharing of an article or news piece.  Facebook is specifically mentioned as a means to spread articles.  A woman in the video specifically mentions that old media can learn the ability to move quicker, bring more voices into the conversation to create a conversation.  This compromise between media types is necessary to reach a larger audience and maintain this audience in new media.  The other text Against 'Long-Form Journalism' the author, James Bennet, challenges the term 'long-form journalism' for the negative connotations it has, mostly due to the words used itself. This piece seems to be written for writers, a cry to take back long-form journalism and apply it to this online media.  He even gave examples of online pieces that have succeeded as long form in this tricky medium.  However, this piece rarely includes the reader's point of view. he talks about his love of long-form journalism, but not from a reader's perspective. He does not focus on how to refresh the term 'long-form journalism' an apply it to this new journalism.  The video mentions that new media should reach a larger audience and have the ability to move quickly, which might be most easily done with shorter article or other pieces.  This is not inherently bad, however, where short articles thrive, long-form journalism will suffer.

Journalism Article and Video Response

Every year the world we live in becomes more technologically advanced. We have access to everything digitally. You can search your unanswered questions and have the answer within less than a second. Rather than continuing to subscribe to magazines or newspapers you can access them online. Television shows and movies are provided on websites where you only have to pay an average of eight dollars a month. You can search videos on how to do your hair and makeup and save yourself hundreds of dollars. Considering everything is at our fingertips, our attention spans are becoming limited. All of this technology and the advancements we are continuously adapting to are causing some complications to what we used to know so well.

James Bennet tries expressing to his audience that the term “long-form journalism” has a negative connotation. When we hear that something is long, such as a movie or novel, majority of the population is now hesitate due to the fact that everything in our world right now is so immediately available to us. “In the digital age, making a virtue of mere length sends the wrong message to writers as well as readers.” This statement was the most profound among the entire article. Length has a major effect on the results a writer receives nowadays. It’s sad when you think about it because now writers are forced to shrink their thoughts and simplify them, which could ultimately change the entire meaning of what they are trying to say.

Bennet specifically mentions his personal experience and frustration he faced when his writing needed to be shortened or he needed to decide between which examples to include and which to exclude in his writing. He was frustrated at the current time yet Bennett realized why these cuts and edits had to be made. If the continuation of “long-form journalism” carries on, it can be dangerous considering we associate the term with an extensive piece consisting of a large amount of words. Yes, journalism is changing, and Bennet makes this point extremely clear. On the other hand, Bennett is trying to make his readers ask themselves “Why are we shortening the length of writer’s projects?” While satisfying the reader is a key priority, the main priority the writer should be considered about is getting their point across no matter the length.

While we are constantly communicating with those around us through our devices and can get any answer we need in less than a second, we cannot forget how important it is for us to remember how to be able to concentrate on something for more than sixty seconds. All of these advancements we’ve made are significantly profound but so is being able to read and fully process something that is more than two pages long. While everything is becoming related to technology, because society has become so immune to it, we cannot neglect the past. In The Atlantic video, one of the men interviewed said, “To me there is really not old media there is just how quickly are you taking what is good from the past and kind of adding new ideas to it.” I agree with this statement but I believe there is much more that goes into it. Yes, while we adapt to the changes in our lifestyle it is extremely important to take what’s valuable from the past and incorporate with the future, but we should not neglect it altogether.

As a future educator, I firmly believe that technology should be incorporated into the classroom. On the other hand, I also believe that old classroom styles should be included as well. For example, writing keynotes on the board for your students is okay and it is beneficial to provide the students with handouts for reading assignments rather than them do it online. Reading assignments online can lead to distractions and I personally cannot concentrate and fully comprehend the information when I read something online. “Long-form journalism” sounds like something nobody would actually be interested in, although we cannot let society forget how important reading is. Length can be extremely detrimental considering people simply cannot handle reading pieces of writing so long, but that does not mean we cannot reverse the curse that we have created upon ourselves.

The Future of Journalism

I believe that with increased popularity of online journalism, the need for shorter and more condensed forms of articles comes with it. The Atlantic video “How is Social Media Changing Journalism?” talks about how social media has changed the journalism to reach a wider audience that is easily accessible to mostly anyone. Both this video and “Against ‘Long-Form Journalism’” in the Atlantic talk about the idea of “new journalism” and “old journalism”. Though both of these pieces have a different take on these concepts where the video believed that ultimately old and new journalism is the same and the article believed that new journalism has a lot of different expectations I believe that the concept of new journalism has a lot to do with the brevity social media has brought to journalism. “Against ‘Long-Form Journalism’” speaks a lot about how the term “long-form” can have a negative connotation in today’s society’s eyes. For an example, when I watched the video of the Atlantic I found that extremely easy to get through a 2 minute 19 second video and never lost my attention. Where reading the article took a little more effort and time where I looked at other tabs and even got up to get a glass of water and talk to my roommate across the hall for a minute before I could re-involve myself in the article. I think that the new age of social media and just technology in general has gave the phrase “long-form” a bad connotation, but not purposefully. This is the way our generation’s minds have been trained with the fast pace of twitter with only 140 characters allowed and Facebook where most articles have highlighted bullet points so that the reader does not have to read the full article to get the point across. 

Forwarding "how social media is changing journalism" and "Against long form journalism"

            When reading the first journalism piece “Against Long Form Journalism” by Bennet, one part in particular caught my eye. She spoke about how editors “trim the fat” off stories or articles to make them fit a specific part. She says they “took all the color out”. This was obviously a frustration for her until she herself became an editor and was on the other end.

            This idea lends me to think of other things that the “fat is trimmed off” in our society. Not only has the media perfected this, but they also use it against celebrities, and people in general to cause drama out of fabrications. They could take a perfectly innocent story and blow it up into some tragic, misleading catastrophe. For instance, the new story that olympian Bruce Jenner is becoming a woman, this is one of the newest fabrications to date. Just because he has grown out his hair and is going through a divorce with his wife, the media has taken these two seemingly unrelateable facts and linked them together. So yes, currently according to the tabloids, Bruce Jenner is becoming a woman. They are taking a sensitive subject for anyone that has gone through divorce and blamed his and his wife’s decision on separating on his decision to want to be a woman. The media really thrives on lies, and the hurt they cause people, just by the rewards in revenue they get for the stories they produce.

            This then leads me to think of the insensitivity the media has for other celebrities going through tough times in their lives. For instance, Patrick Swayze who is now not with us, was constantly photographed until his death in a very rude and public matter. No one should have to go through the devastating truth of knowing they are going to die at a young age, but to have it publicized to the whole country is on another level. People may say that celebrities should know what they are getting into when they reach fame and it is their own fault that their lives are broadcasted on a country wide level. This is where I think we have failed as human beings.

            What happened to our sensitivity? It makes me question how we can treat other human beings that are just the same as us in such a barbaric way. I am sure everyone was bullied in school when they were younger and it is a shame that we can not learn from the pain we were put through at a young age and inflict it on others as we grow older. No one is willing to put themselves in others shoes and think of others before their own greed and that is what makes the media and the people associated with it ugly and immoral.

            I know a lot of campaigns are being put in place to stop bullying at younger ages, but what about bullying that happens as adults? Much can be said about our society on the way we treat others, and from what has gone on I think it says very little about us. Which leads me to my next point about the video “How social media is changing Journalism”. In the video they said that if an idea does not succeed on Facebook then it most likely would not “succeed” later on in real life.

            This goes back to my spiel on bullying, if children, just like “the ideas” spoken about in the video, are bullied and do not think they can succeed in real life because of the consequences of bullying like a lack in confidence and not having friends, then this creates a huge issue. Everything that happens in childhood affects the person you will one day become. Some children do not even make it that far. Bullying is a prevalent issue in our society and children are committing suicide left and right from this issue. Just last month, a 10 year old child from my elementary school hung himself one morning because he did not want to attend school because another kid told him he was going to beat him up. Imagine the fear in a ten year old that would make him commit such a crime to himself.

            As a future educator, this will be one of the things I will have zero tolerance for. I think it is a teacher’s duty to protect his or her students and I plan to meet this head on. I never want my students to feel as if they cannot come to school or be scared to the point where they would injure themselves before they let others injure them. I always think what I would say to my class on the first day of school when I go over the protocol of my classroom, the rules and what not; and bullying has always been at the top. I will try my hardest to protect my students from bullying so that they don’t feel that they will not “succeed” at the hand of someone else’s torment.

Journalism

Journalism is constantly evolving with the times.  Nowadays, journalism is so caught up in the "fluff" and verbal bedazzlement.  This has been referred to as "long-form" journalism.  The article we had to read, made quite a few valid points.  One being that we make our stories and information so much longer than necessary.  What is said in five pages could be summed up in one or two, but the rest is just to prove how smart we are with all of the big words an unnecessary knowledge we like to incorporate into it.  This is where social media comes in.  Networking sites such as twitter only allow 140 characters which severely limit what an individual may post about something at a time.  Granted, the individual posting may not be a reliable source, but they get to the point much faster than journalists who take forever to get to the point.  Social media is also a very good source for expediting information across the world and what journalist wouldn't want their work spread as far as possible.  However, social media, as helpful to journalism as it may be, can also backfire.  Due to the fact that information travels at the speed of a click, people are not actually picking up magazines  or newspapers.  We look to Facebook and whatever is trending on twitter as our source of information.  If this is the turn that journalism has to accept, then why even bother with long-form journalism?  Now one is going to read it.
The goal of journalism is to inform the public with what they need to know (this is a loose definition on my part since we do not all NEED to know anything about the Kardashians, but I digress).  However, concision is no longer popular amongst journalists.  Essentially, I agree with Mr. Bennet in almost every point he makes about "long-form" except for where he says that a work is only as good as its popularity.  This is not true.  Nothing should be rated by its popularity.  For example, 50 Shades of Grey was wildly popular but such a horribly written book that painted BDSM in a negative and incorrect light (not something I would know from experience, just by the many articles I have read).
In short (in order to not be hypocritical to my topic), Journalism should just consist of what is needed to know and nothing more.  What can be said in a page SHOULD be said in a page.

Journalism: The shifts among trends and styles.

              No matter what occupation you currently hold, there will be growth and change within the field. Currently, journalist are experiencing a shift in the way their works must be presented. In the video, it was stated that this change has come with both the good and the bad. Social media has changed so many aspects of our lives just beginning with how we send and receive information and for journalist social media has given them a wider audience and a new way to share their ideas and thought. With so many things constantly being shared on social media it gives journalist a better chance to have their stories viewed more. The best part about using social media is being able to have an open conversation or debate with both people you know and people you have never met on topics that may interest you. Personally, I prefer to read an article online, first for its convenience and second for the ability to share with other easily. One thing I thought about and was also later mentioned in the video was trusting sources. Validity is a common thought of mine as reading articles online, simply because the digital world can be manipulated by who ever has access. 

             In the article, although it didn't speak directly about social media it related to it in a few ways. The main idea I gained was that long-form journalism is no longer necessary for an article to be considered a great piece. I don't think anyone would prefer a longer article over a shorter one, it comes down to the content. This idea was also stated when the author mention that long vs short has been replaced with good vs bad. Most people use social media while out or traveling and are becoming accustomed to a certain length for articles and videos. We are now enjoying videos on vine that last six seconds and videos on Instagram that last 15 seconds. Facebook on the other hand does not have a length requirement for videos so depending on the content they may not get fully watched as often. Similarly, some social media sites have a character count that you can not exceed. If we become accustomed to reading shorter statements our likelihood of preference to longer articles becomes much smaller.

Journalism and Social Media

Journalism has changed vastly over the course of the last decade, from the involvement of media to the new styles of presenting information. I felt the video on social media was very supplementary to the article's claims. James Bennet, the author of the article, does a great job of arguing that articles should not be written in a "long-form" manner, in other words that articles should be as basic and as to the point as possible. The only issue I see with the logic of Mr. Bennet is that he mentions a wide range of titles (short novels/articles) but bases his ideas around the concept that if a novel or literary piece is successful it is therefore "good". There is a portion of the article that strikes me as bothersome, he uses the writing of an Iraq war veteran (who is probable just not into using big words and "beating around the bush" to parallel his ideas of writing shorter pieces "But I defy you to find a wasted word among the 22,000 that Mockenhaupt assembled" (Bennet 1). He glorifies a work that doesn't require that many words. Personally I feel that if a piece is longer it doesn't mean it will be better but it does mean that someone has put more thought into it, and is more passionate about it. This is the first generation of  digital  articles and the massive information overload, so "compressing" is going to be difficult and that is something that Mr. Bennet will have to bite.
The video is the savior is all of this, there was a rhythm in the article that suggested the author was pissed and it came off as an aggressive article, it wasn't even directed at me but I felt like I was about to get punched in the face or flipped off the whole time while I was reading it. The video started playing and it was the side of the article that I was blinded too while reading. How is Social media changing Journalism is awesome because it was A. 2 minutes and B. It was professionals, editors, writers and a single question "How Is Social Media Changing Journalism". The video does a great job putting a face to the views of editors and writers that may see the boom in social media as a problem or a catalyst for online electronic journalism. I liked hearing the response from different angles, the PBS president said "it could be good or bad" so the video deals with the more neutral position rather than dead set against long form journalism.

These two pieces on journalism were very interesting in the way that they discussed how journalism is changing as media is evolving. In the article, Bennet discusses the idea that the length of a piece should not matter, but the quality of the writing/material is what is important. I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. If a work is attention grabbing and can keep me intrigued for its entire duration, I’m a happy consumer. Some short pieces may not be written well enough to keep a reader’s attention, and longer pieces may become boring and uninteresting. I also think it is important to note that short pieces may not express the entire idea that a writer wants to get across. Bennet tells of when his editors would get rid of the “color” in his pieces in order to make it fit the length requirement, and realized the “color” wasn’t exactly necessary for his stories to be good. Either way, the pieces need to be written well regardless of how many words make up the work.

The video, to me, seemed like the exact opposite of long form journalism. However, with the brevity of the piece, I felt as though I only received a portion of their argument on social media and the way it is changing journalism. I liked the idea from the video that “if something does not succeed on Facebook, it does not succeed.” Facebook, though it is not my favorite venue of social media, is one site where something that users see often are articles that have been shared and reposted. This is the one place that I’m likely to read a random article simply because one of my friends enjoyed it enough to share. You don’t typically see readers of magazines physically carrying around articles to share with their friends. Social media benefits journalism because many readers would not even be exposed to these articles.

The digital age allows writers more freedom to write “long-form,” by getting rid of the constraints of printing pages and available slots in a magazine. But having longer articles and things available to readers online means that the quality has to be high in order for consumers to enjoy what they are reading. This puts more pressure on writers to succeed in the digital world. Social media is a great place for an explosion of interest in terms of journalism, stories, and articles, but if it is not done well may have a rather negative impact. Writers who intend on using the internet to spread their work need to ensure they are writing things that people are interested in reading about as well as be aware of the power that social media holds. If a writer puts their work on the internet and it doesn’t spread the way it was intended to, it is a failed piece. Or, if the piece does circulate successfully, there is the possibility of negative attitudes toward the piece, which are typically openly displayed, allowing other readers to view the comments and make a decision before they form an opinion on the piece for themselves. 

Changing Journalism

The digital age has resulted in a paradigm shift in journalism. The authors of both texts state that there is change in audience in journalism, with the accessibility of the internet and social media. The article titled Against ‘Long-Form Journalism’, is written to call out the negative connotation of the taxonomic classification of Long-Form.  The author sites that ‘Long-Form’ journalism usually turns people away from reading the piece. The video text, How is Social Media Changing Journalism was more focused on the change that is currently being observed in the digital age. I believe the best explanation of the change was when Paula Kerger (President and CEO of PBS) stated that “…what old media can learn from new media is the ability to move quicker, to bring more voices into the conversation, to really create an environment that you could previously only create when you were able to convene people together.”

The accessibility of pictures, video, and text on the internet allows us to connect with stories on a new level. Against ‘Long-Form Journalism cites Snowfall as an exceptional work of modern long-form journalism (taxonomy aside), with over 3.5 million views. I think that this method of journalism is great, and that writers should strive to incorporate mixed media into their work. However, I disagree with the authors viewpoint that long-form journalism is appealing to the audience on the internet.

The author in Against ‘Long-Form Journalism sites Buzzfeed as a source of long-form journalism, but only publishing them a few times, putting emphasis on quality instead of quality. Besides the fact that they used Buzzfeed as an example (I can’t stand logging into Facebook seeing the ’17 pictures of ____ that will make you ____’ posts they usually make’), I disagree with this argument.  If long-form journalism is so compelling to the online community, it would make sense to publish as many as possible. Like Kerger said, new media is all about engaging the audience and starting a conversation. Another person in the video said if the media is not shared on facebook, it is not successful. Buzzfeed knows this, and that’s why they post those puppy articles. While the 3.5 million views seem impressive on Snowfall, I wonder how many views the puppy articles that they release daily receive. Sources of ‘long-form’ journalism should be separate from common internet articles, as long-form journals are more serious. If I see Buzzfeed release a long-form article, I will not read it because I see no credibility in Buzzfeed. Perhaps long-form is successful, but I don’t think it has the huge impact across the web as the author in  Against ‘Long-Form Journalism’ portrayed it.

All About That Fiction

Bennet ends his article by saying journalism is changing, but it shouldn't take a new name; it can still be called magazine writing. He seems to accomplish an idea of what "new journalism" looks like and how successful it is. Basically, new journalism contains elements of fiction storytelling, new techniques, and old values. Readers want good articles regardless of length, and they want to be able to access them in print or digitally.
A flashpoint in Bennet's article is Stephen King's "Batman and Robin Have an Altercation." This example illuminates what nonfiction storytelling is like. It's dramatic, truthful, and sad.
Bennet's article is useful because it shows how "new journalism" succeeds with readers. A limit in the article is verbosity. Bennet doesn't really communicate his main thoughts until the last three paragraphs. To be more specific, sometimes his article comes off as overly academic with long sentences and confusing syntax.
The video "How is Social Media Changing Journalism?" focuses more on journalism reaching a wider audience. A drawback here is that anyone can make a blog, post something, and then call it news. But blogging is great in starting the conversation, like through Twitter, and also keeping the conversation going, like on Facebook.
The video warns about consumer responsibility, which ties back to the "anyone can blog" idea. Someone can go to school, get a college degree, work for all kinds of magazines, and call herself a journalist. Likewise, some anonymous citizen with no journalistic background can make her own blog and call herself a journalist. If you're a doctor or a lawyer, your degrees say so, but journalists just need a platform.
Bennet mentions that new journalism tactics attract a wider audience, which is also what the writers in the video said. Readers can access digital information instantly, but is this always a good thing? These awesome, long articles like "Batman and Robin Have an Altercation" are available digitally, and even though readers can access them, are they happy with the visual format? Many news sites have advertisements and distracting links flanking the sides of the article. In print form, the article suffers from the same problem, but to a less extent.
A print article could have tiny interest blocks or ads, but mostly the ads are in between the pages of the text, and a reader only has to flip ahead to continue the story. There's no escaping ads on the digital platform unless a reader subscribes to the website. The video referenced the new digital "environment," and it's a distracting place.
Bennet argues that new journalism is basically nonfiction storytelling, and there's another term for that--Literary Journalism. This is the best kind of nonfiction writing because it reads with the richness of fiction imagery, drama, and characters while the story itself is all true. Literary journalism connects better with readers because it offers an emotional level that the inverted pyramid simply cannot produce. This kind of writing is limited to the bigger stories, but it's through this format that readers can connect subjectively with the author.  

Neil Degrasse Tyson Response

After reading and viewing Neil Degrasse Tyson’s pieces on space exploration, “The Case for Space” written piece and “The Astronaut Session” video I found that he easily changed his way of explaining and speaking about exploring space compared to the audience he is speaking to. The “The Case for Space” article is directed to intellectuals who are very well known in the topic of space and while reading it, I found it a lot harder to get through than the interview “The Astronaut Session” because it was directed toward the general public. I believe that his purpose and overlap of both of these pieces is to educate his audience on the history of the space program and to have his audience gain knowledge on what is so personal to him. The obvious differences between the pieces is the feel of each piece, the video is very car free and easy going with the human involved while the reading was more straight forward and focused on strictly informing the reader on his experiences and knowledge of the topic. 

Neil deGrasse Tyson Response

Neil deGrasse Tyson’s article, “The Case For Space: Why We Should Keep Reaching for the Stars” and radio talk show, StarTalk, featuring the astronaut Mike Massamino, were both extremely interesting and caught my attention immediately. Space itself has always fascinated me because it is the unknown. While people have traveled to space and returned safely with unimaginably great stories, space is still a vague subject. There are still several unanswered questions and I feel that Neil deGrasse Tyson was trying to make that point across to this audience in both his article and in the radio talk show.

            The article and radio talk show had two entirely different tones and styles. Neil deGrasse Tyson’s article was serious and factual. It consisted of the history the United States has experienced throughout space exploration and the journey that has come along with it. It had a political flare to it as well. While reading the article I felt that the audience he was trying to engage was the entire American population so as a country we can establish our issues. The main issue is that the United States does not continue their space exploration unless there is competition, and Neil deGrasse Tyson makes this remarkable point very clear in both his article and radio talk show. It is important to be globally aware but we should not be basing our space missions off of other countries. Astronauts should be going into space to provide us with answers so that we can essentially become stronger as a planet. The enhancement in technology that has ultimately allowed us to go to space with a higher rate of survival and explore safely has helped us tremendously. For instance, Neil deGrasse Tyson mentions that,

“With the help of funding from the National Science Foundation, the Lombardi researches adapted the techniques that the Hubbie scientists were using to analyze the telescope’s blurry images and applied them to mammography, leading to significant advances in the early detection of breast cancer. Countless women are alive today because of the efforts to fix a design flaw in the Hubbie Space Telescope.”

I was not aware of this and after reading it I was in complete shock. By a design flaw, we received a significant advancement in the process of detecting breast cancer. Who would have thought that equipment pertaining to seeing outer space would save millions of women? That’s the remarkable thing about this situation. If traveling to space not only benefits us with being prepared for whatever the solar system may potentially attack us with, it also benefits us on Earth with daily things that we never thought the solar system had any correlation with. For example, Neil deGrasse Tyson goes into specific detail about how Mar's water supply is no longer available so what if that happens to us? The solar system consists of the answers we need and the fact that the United States is not taking advantage of this is appalling. This is the reaction Neil deGrasse Tyson wanted from his audience and he most certainly received it from me.  

            This theme and tone within his article also shined throughout his radio talk show. I believe that the audience Neil deGrasse Tyson was aiming for, again, was the entire American population. In order to create a substantial change within our country we need almost everyone’s active participation and to be one team. While the radio talk show was more comical and seemed less serious, what they were discussing was the exact opposite. Neil deGrasse Tyson at one-point stands up because of his frustration about the situation. He says,

“It’s worse than that. In the 60’s and 70’s there were two space-faring nations, in 2010’s there are still two space-faring nations but one of them is not the United States, it is China. That is the tragedy of this huge...”

He then continues saying how that in order for us to get to Mars, China would have to send out a memo saying that they want to put military bases on Mars. The United States would be on Mars in fourteen months. What he means by this profound statement is that the United States ego is too high and when competition is among us we have to win. Neil deGrasse Tyson firmly believes that the United States needs that “motivating force” in order to accomplish anything.

The idea that the United States is failing to continue to participate in space exploration is foolish is his theme in both his article and radio talk show. He made it extremely obvious to his audience by the time they completed the article or viewing his show. The approach he took on making this point was intriguing. When I saw that I had to read a six-page article and watch a thirty-seven minute video I was not entirely thrilled but truth be told I was hooked once I started both of them. Like stated before, the solar system overall is interesting to me but when reading articles or watching shows about it not many people feel the same way. This stylistic approach of tackling this topic in both ways was pure genius. By incorporating this topic he feels so passionately about in both visual/auditory entertainment, like television or the radio, and writing you get a very large audience, which is exactly what Neil deGrasse Tyson was aiming for.