Illegal Downloading: Damaging The Music Industry

The music industry is, as we all know, a progressive industry continually moving forward and growing from both within and outside. In order for the music industry to continue to grow and change, though, finances must be continually pumped into that particular section of media. Maybe artists don’t make their real money from CD’s and legal methods of music sales, but these sales are invaluable to certain companies. Imagine the following: a record company buys the right to sell the music of an established artist. They make little or no money off of the CD sales because of illegal downloading. Then a up and coming artist approaches that company about getting a record out there so that their sound can be heard and they can have a shot at the big time. If that record company cannot make money off of an established artist, they will never take the risk of buying out a new artist. In this way, we might miss out on a whole new sound that can change the music industry.
There is also the matter of measuring the CD sales. Record sales are important in rating artists and allowing distributors to see what music is “hot” at the time. Illegal downloading can easily skew these numbers and damage the ability to see where finances should be invested in the music industry. Not to mention that illegal downloading ruins the finance flow of the entire music industry. This site also discusses how the integrity of music copyright laws must be respected, because once we begin to question the current laws and or allow them to be broken, it will make it much easier to justify further infractions. The integrity of copyright must be respected for not only music, but all media industries to prosper.

Blink Advertising

Advertisement today is greatly influenced by a principle called the Blink Theory. It has been implemented with huge success over the past decade or so. The foundation of the Blink Theory is shorter, more effective ads. The theory states that a person can develop an opinion of a product “in the blink of an eye”. The challenge that advertisers face is creating an ad, commercial, or packaging that can trigger someone’s mind in a short burst of less than two seconds. Surprisingly enough, this association can be stored for long periods of time, so that two or three days later a customer will vaguely remember a blink ad he saw recently.
People already have many thoughts, ideas, and memories floating around in their heads. The Blink advertising tries to associate target thoughts with the product in a nearly instantaneous fashion. The customer walks in, sees the package with a touching picture of a mother and her son. At this point the customer unwillingly and immediately associates the product with his own memories and thoughts of a mother-son relationship, which tend to be warm and comforting.
Because Blink advertising is not time intensive, producers no longer look for more exposure time. They simply try to get their ad viewed as many times as possible. Originally this method became much more cost effective for advertisers, but the industry eventually realized that the number of exposures is much more important than the amount of time. The challenge we face as consumers is in how to sort through the bombardment of information. We already receive much more information from ads than we can possibly store and process. The Blink principle makes it that much harder for a person to find a quality product. It contributes to the general idea that the only effective way to find a good product is to do personal research, seeing as how Blink ads have very little or no informational content. They simply operate through association. Clear Channel was one of the first to adapt to blink ads, and they now offer many of the short commercials in their broadcasts.

The MinnPost

Although the MinnPost website is very new, from what I’ve seen, it is definitely worth looking into as a regular part of my news intake. One of the most important factors that makes this site reliable is the well-established journalists. The stories on the site will be handled by journalists who have already proven themselves in the industry, and therefore are very reliable. The experience they bring to the table will allow the MinnPost site to start out at a high level of operation, so it will not have a desperate need to constantly grow and become better. This will allow the site to be a competitor in the market as soon as it starts up.
In addition to the journalists, the site seems to be well operated. The layout is organized and easy to use. And all of the stories seem to be very relevant to MinnPost’s target audience. I took a quick glance at each of the stories in some of the site’s earlier posts, and they seem to be well-written. I think that MinnPost is a very good idea because there isn’t a whole lot like it in the MN news market. It’s a quick and easy to read way to get very worthwhile stories. The ability to get the MinnPost in print is also a very handy tool that has been added to the site. I expect to see a lot of success from this site as it seems to have been well-thought out before it was initiated, and it looks like it is already being well managed. The site actually reminds me of the Daily, although MinnPost has more established journalists.

Internet: A Secure Marketplace

Over the past few years, there has been evidence that the internet, in addition to its infinite efficiency, is becoming a more secure market place. A great example of this would be E-Bay, the world’s most common online market. Purchases made online are backed by fraudulent purchase protection through credit card companies, credit being the major payment tool of the online market. Also, online buyers are provided with a secure network connection to the server that receives funds, insuring no outside source has access to the identity sensitive information. This makes the transaction untouchable to all but the most skilled of those who participate in illegal online computing.
Online banking has become a more secure way to manage funds as well. Online transactions between a customer and his bank are becoming more frequent in the online market. Many people currently manage their funds entirely online, as opposed to mail and physical trips to the bank. In online banking, one has major account functions available at the click of his mouse, such as: wire transactions, direct paycheck deposits, direct bill payment, and statement inquiries. Technology such as IP address recognition allows the bank to discriminate your computer from others and notices suspicious imperfections in the transactions. If you take your computer from a different location, you will be suspect to security questioning to ensure you identity. Banks have also included fraudulent online charges in their protection packages, so that the notification of suspicious activity would deactivate accounts and transactions, much the same way you can notify your credit company of a lost credit card to freeze your account. Paypal is currently one of the more secure methods of online payment and protection.

News Preferences

I wouldn’t say that I trust any news network before any other one. They just each have their own benefits. They are all a little different. I personally favor local stations over national just because they target my area more. Most local stations cover local news, which will apply more directly to my life, and any very important national news stories. When I go online for my news, I prefer MSNBC. I think they do a very good job covering important stories (and covering them well), and I like the ease and method of navigation throughout the site.
I find the major benefit of television over radio and newspaper as a vehicle of news to be the moving picture. I think that the moving people on screen make the news more real, and allow people to connect more with the news. I also think that it is more convenient than either radio or newspaper. You can listen and watch it, it takes less effort to watch than to read a paper, and TV’s are usually more accessible than a radio. There is also the matter of payment. If you pay for a TV, you get what you get and pay for it, no matter what you actually watched. If you pay to get a paper, and don’t get a chance to read it, its wasted money.
I do find that the local stations I prefer that are affiliated with larger networks tend to be better quality. I think this is mostly because I like to hear about national news and the larger networks have access to more quality reporters focused on national news. This way I get all the benefits of local news plus good national coverage.

Benefits of Radio

Radio is an valuable method of communication. There are many benefits that are unmatched by other forms of media. One is the ability to multi-task. Radio, like other listened-to media forms, allows you to perform actions while still engaging the media. A person can listen and here music or important information while still working, writing, etc. Radio also has a measure of variety that other music media doesn’t have. If you listen to the radio, you don’t have control over the content coming from that station. It is extremely valuable for the music industry. It allows producers to see what kind of music is “hot” at the time, and it spreads hits, which allows record companies to make money off of the radio’s listeners. Radio is also important as a form of news communication. Some people don’t have time to watch TV or read newspapers, but they might listen to the radio during work or while driving. And it is free, which makes a huge difference. This allows people who don’t have money to spend on media to engage in music and news industry. As a media for advertisement, it is very valuable. Radio is a media that almost everyone listens to. It is very easy to determine who listens to the radio at what time, and therefore how to advertise. It is also a valuable medium to spread new sources of music (like new bands) or new services. It is an economic essential, affecting many markets and companies. Radios has all the benefits other media has, it is just more convenient and usually free to access.

Welles vs. Hearst

First I would like to point out that the rivalry sparked by Welles’ production of Citizen Kane would never happen in today’s society. Hearst had more control over one industry and more influence in a media capital (Hollywood) than any one person can claim today. Too much has developed; there are too many “big names” in Hollywood now. No one man could put up a fight like Hearst did back in his day. Also, Welles would have a lot more protection today than he did back then. The industry today generally respects budding artists.
Other variables include methods of production. Would Welles be allowed to produce his film in the unconventional methods he used if he were to try it today? Would Hearst have the power to have absolute control over what was said about Welles in his papers? We also have to consider the influence of media. Film production today is a much more profitable and powerful industry than newspapers are. In Welles’ and Hearst’s day, newspaper had a lot of influence.
The scandal surrounding Citizen Kane is largely a matter of freedoms. We have freedom of speech and press in America. But our rights end where they offend someone else’s. So this is where we have to draw the line with slander and defamation. In light of this, I would say that the rivalry between Hearst and Welles was a completely ego based confrontation. The oversized egos of the persons involved can be seen in the first few dialogue lines of the "Battle Over Citizen Kane" transcript. Did Welles defame Hearst in his film, and did Hearst return the favor with his papers and social influence? That is the question at the heart of the “Battle over Citizen Kane”. That is where we have to look to find the “right” and “wrong” in this particular situation.

Kasson-Mantorville High Gun Threat

This article covers a recent event in my hometown of Kasson, MN. This last Friday there was a gun threat from a student of the school. The article in the above link was a little too stingy with details about the event, granted there has been little time for journalists to gather information. I think that an article like this is very important Kasson and any other surrounding communities, and this firm could have spent a little more energy providing the public with information. I believe it is an integral part of journalism.
I’d also like to point out an apparent lack of communication on the part of school officials. The superintendant has access to every student’s school e-mail address, not to mention phone numbers and parental information. Yet no one in school knew about the threat until the day after the threat: the day in which the shooting would have occurred. I understand that the young man threatening the school was apprehended before he could take action; he was actually apprehended the night before he was planning to strike. But, according to a letter sent out to parents of the students (TWO DAYS AFTER THE INCIDENT) the police and administration thought that it would be safe to conduct school based on the would be shooter’s statement that he had no accomplices. That seems like sketchy administration to me. In this scenario, it should be administrative policy to use any form of media possible to let the public know about the event in a timely fashion, not the day after it occurs. The administration should have contacted media sources and used e-mail. And a news company with a sense of community would then hopefully have used media to get the message out quickly. This is a situation where media could have been helpful, and was not implemented in a efficient manner.
Any details I mentioned that were not in the article come from personal experience, because my younger sister still attends Kasson-Mantorville High School.

Iranian President's Speech at Clumbia

The speech given by the Iranian president at Columbia University was definitely a controversial issue. The University was well within its rights to invite him to speak, but I think what most people are wondering is how smart of a decision it was to actually let him speak. Like President Bush said in the article, it’s a very good demonstration of freedom of speech in America. I don’t think many other governments would have allowed the president of a country that likely supported terrorism to speak at a University.
The speech at Columbia was almost entirely useless, in my opinion. The president of Iran refused to give a straight answer, and the president of Columbia merely took the opportunity to do some political pulling for himself. The entire thing reeked of publicity stunt. What the Iranian president’s words most emphasized was his contempt and attitude toward western powers, so the event was not an entire waste in terms of educating students. Mostly, I think Columbia University could have done a better job of facilitating the event.
I think that the staff and council members of Columbia who criticized the decision to invite the president of Iran to speak were a little out of place. Under better conditions, the benefit of his visit could have been great. I think it is fairly obvious to see what kind of potential there was for benefit from this situation. The visit was just not handled properly, so things escalated out of control quickly. In a way, I would say that the critics are partially responsible for this breakdown because their comments put the President of Columbia on the defense immediately.

Blog 1: Orsen Welles Scare

In this day and age, to frighten the nation's population in the manner Welles was able to would be nearly impossile. I think the main reasons why the radio broadcast was so frightening have become virtual non-issues.

Media Analysis is a huge contributor to this. People today don't automatically believe everything they see in the media. Our media literate population questions the truth behind what they hear through the media, even when it is accurate. THere is also the matter of education. In general, people today are more effeciantly educated than people in Welles' day. American's would look for authority and evidence to support the "disaster", and they would be more efficient at finding out that it was a ruse. Our methods of communications are more up to date, allowing the chain of information to grow rapidly util everyone was informed that the matter was not serious. I also believe that our producers would make more of an effort to advertise for their program, which would allow it to be billed as a fiction work, and not real. I also presume that if our media producers of today would not intentionaly try to scare our public. THey would fear the repercussions fromcritics and the public for obvious reasons cited in this link. THus they would aoid confusing the public beyond what was necessary to enjoy the broadcast. Finally, i think it would not take more than a few moments for today's government oto figure out what was going on and put a stop to any sign of "mass hysteria".