Where students from the University of Mississippi Meek School of Journalism and New Media showcase their JOUR 102 (Intro to Multimedia Writing) classwork.
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Are College Journalism Students Bad at Multimedia?
Michael Koretzky, adviser of the Florida Atlantic University Press, thinks so. And he lists reasons why in an article published here. What do you think of his assessment, based on his reasoning? Do think he has a point? Why or why not?
Michael Koretzky's assessment of college journalism is dead on. Student journalist don't seem engaged by the opportunities the internet offers. Koretzky makes an excellent point, people in general want what they can't have. Because there are a limited number of possessions of editors, that's what everyone wants, and since the internet is unlimited and free, no one is interested.
Michael Koretzky's article about college students being "bad" at multimedia journalism is a very interesting piece. Most people would think that college students (more so, Journalism majors) would have lots of practice with writing, editing, and putting together multimedia works online. I think he has a very valid point in his opinion, but also we have to think about how the professors are going about teaching multimedia. Why do so many students want to focus on print journalism rather than internet, technology, and the way of the future? I agree with Koretzky's opinion of college students being "bad" with multimedia and this may be a strong subject universities across the country need to work on.
Although some would disagree with Koretzky's article, I find it very interesting and even a bit amusing. He's completely right when he talks about how college writers want to brag or "show off" their articles published in a well-known newspaper,newletter,or magazine but hardly ever when published on a website. In a sense, this is almost contradicting because we all know as young adults, we value fast, effortless access to just about anything, especially the news. Who wants to pick up a dull newspaper versus opening up a bright, eye-catching website? I'd choose the latter. Print is slowly dying and multimedia(technology) is a long-lasting trend. As the previous blogger mentioned, universities should consider stressing this topic more to students not focus on print so much.
Michael Koretzky's article brings up some interesting and intriguing points. He is right when he talks about college kids wanting to show off what they have produced in order to gain approval. What keeps a journalist going is seeing their work being read and conversed upon. Print is on its way out. Students need to become more aware with the technology advances so that they wont be looking over their shoulder and wondering why their articles are being overlooked due to the rapid growth of internet usage.
Michael Koretzky has an interesting view on today's college journalists and the use of technology. At first he sounds critical of young men and women in the field. After reading further it appears that he is concerned with college students and their thick skulls, taking pride in perhaps, "old school" ways of doing things and not thinking toward the future with print losing its footing and the internet becoming a prominent news source. He makes a very clear and valid point when he discusses shabby, not aesthetically appealing websites. The modern population is on the internet all the time, and if a newspapers website looks poor the paper could lose a fanbase, therefore losing revenue and credibility. Universities should encourage and require more training for online news layouts. The extra knowledge couldn't hurt.
Koretzky's article might be perceived as slightly cynical, but there is some truth to be had. A great deal of college journalists are driven by pride. While technology has made researching, editing, and publishing much more convenient, there is something slightly demeaning and impersonal about an "online exclusive". College journalists are somewhat lulled by something as tangible as a front page headline or a spread on page six. Koretzky is spot on as he shows how an online article's perception can be completely altered by the outline of the site itself.
Koretzky's assessment of college journalism students is interesting and truthful. He definitely has a valid point. An "online exclusive" does sound much less appealing than having a spread in a newspaper or magazine. Newspapers have a limited amount of space, and the space on the internet is unlimited. Universities shouldn't accept mediocre websites from journalism students; they should challenge journalism students to produce edgier websites. Challenging students to do more would hopefully spark more of interest in producing better websites.
Recycle Paper, Right-click save links. Based on the information Michael Korestzky collected he definitely has a point. How many retractions do you see on the internet? When it comes to the internet it can be a 16 year old kid producing the article. With the newspaper you can pretty much guarantee what you are reading is the real deal. Newspapers have teams of people to verify the information before it is released. Being, I am in-between Computer Science, Management Information Systems, and weighing Journalism as a possible major. I find it interesting that more Journalism majors aren’t seeking multimedia. But I can surely see why print is considered more prestigious and impressive than the massive loads of online articles. Why? Well, the simplicity of the issue is anyone can start a blog and start writing. What the journalism majors Korestzky are referring to are not considering is that these same people have never taken a journalist course in their life and strike rich because a couple of people on the internet find them interesting. All of a sudden they are sharing the links with friends, mentioning them in their face book status, and retwittering about them. Nowadays when you think news on the web, you think gossip about celebrities not flood in the middle east. Whereas when you think print you think newspaper, uninteresting, maybe not as humorous but informing. Online Journalists get paid by pay pal based on the click of a link. Whereas in print you get a check written out on paper by a single editor who has given you a hearty pat on the back, and a thumbs up.
Michael Koretzky is correct in his assessment of how college students portray online media in this day and age. However, I am one of the people who veers away from it for technological, not psychological, reasons. Being close to "technologically illiterate" my entire life, I've seen that life and everything that goes with it-- work, school, friends, etc.--can still go on using the bare bones technological knowledge that I have. If a newspaper is in front of me, I will read it without questioning its sources and wondering if it is a legitimate story or not. Because online articles seem like they just pop out of thin air and magically onto my computer, I feel less comfortable with what's in front of me. Then again, maybe I've just spent too much time on perezhilton.com! With the constant updating of news stories online, there seems to be no certainty to anything that is written and shared with the world. For instance, ESPN reported that Brett Favre was retiring and a few hours later they reported that he was on a plane up to Minnesota to join his team for training camp. A newspaper can only print one of those stories in one day, which adds more validity to all of their stories in my opinion. There aren't constant changes which makes you wonder if everything is true or not. Another example is from when Michael Jackson died. CNN Online reported that he was in cardiac arrest. Then he was in a coma. Then he died. Who knows what the source of this information was, but having all of the information in the days, weeks and months after Jackson's death proved that CNN was issuing faulty stories. I mainly stay away from online media because I'm not psychologically OR technologically comfortable with it, but I'm just one student. I never thought of online media as a source of a career, but I don't believe it's for the the reasons Koretzky addressed.
I believe Koretzky definitely has a point. In this day in age, the Web version of a newspaper is more convienent, tangible, and even "greener"; but when one thinks of a newspaper, they don't expect to read articles found on the same device that gives them Facebook. While our generation breaks tradition like no other, there's something classic and unwavering about a newspaper. While we as journalism students need to adapt to this change, there's something very hard about giving up the dream of seeing your work in print. Seeing it in print somehow makes it official, unique. Everyone in this day in age can post on the web, but it takes a certain set of skills to have your work published.
Michael Koretzky's piece on the poor usage of multimedia makes many good points and shows why there is a the lack of intrest in online newspapers. The now generation has had everything first, delievered at the speed of light which in consequence makes us very easily bored. With each season comes a cool new gadget to excite our easily bored society, most of these things have to do with being online or communication. Since this 'now' generation is so familiar with the life of being online they see it as something that they have already accomplished. Tossing the online papers to the side because tangible evidence,(in the form of print),of their hard work is still appealing to this generation despite what many would say.
Michael Koretzky is correct on his assessment of college students being bad at multimedia, and his reasonings are valid and truthful pertaining to the society college students are living in. All students want to be able to brag and show off their accomplishments. Right now, yes, facebook and twitter are two of the most popular internet sites students look at on a day to day basis. We hardly ever hear of someone getting excited because they just received a new notification from an update on the cnn website or the ole miss news website.Therefore, students realize their story they worked so hard on may never be read by any of their friends; so, when students are assigned multimedia pieces, they just do it to get it over with and hope they get the next front page piece so everyone will see his work and his great accomplishment. Multimedia news just has not become very popular in the college society today, but that also could be because multimedia editors are not putting enough time and hard work into the site. Koretzky definitely has a point that news editors are much too wrapped up in everyone knowing they wrote the amazing story on the front page of the school's newspaper: instead of stepping out of the lime-light and concentrating on making other areas stronger pertaining to news. I think if students would work harder on multimedia news and stop being so self centered that in the future students will be working even harder to have the first story to pop up on the school's news site.
Even though i am not a Journalist or even a writer I can tell that this problem is nothing short of an age conflict. He may think we are bad at producing online media but I believe we are producing it in a way that young people would want to read it. The web is now taking control of every aspect of our lives so media in that sense should be short and to the point so it attracts other young people. If its messy or if it is short, then its just the modern era trying to share their views and opinions in ways that they think will express themselves. Young people made facebook, myspace, and youtube so popular even with adults and businesses so maybe we are doing something right. Koretzky was just trying to take one last stab at the younger "dumber" generation. Just because he cant keep up with the newer generation does not give him rights to be biased.
Michael Koretzky's view on college journalists is right in most aspects. The amount of readers that check the college newspaper website is a lot less than that of the print readers. Students walk by the newspaper bins many times a day, and will most likely pick up a copy. But if the same person is on the computer for whatever reason, personal use or research, they will probably not check the school papers website for the news. It seams as though the world might be becoming more technological oriented, print will be the first source for news for a few more years to come.
Michael Koretzky's assessment of college journalism is dead on. Student journalist don't seem engaged by the opportunities the internet offers. Koretzky makes an excellent point, people in general want what they can't have. Because there are a limited number of possessions of editors, that's what everyone wants, and since the internet is unlimited and free, no one is interested.
ReplyDeleteMichael Koretzky's article about college students being "bad" at multimedia journalism is a very interesting piece. Most people would think that college students (more so, Journalism majors) would have lots of practice with writing, editing, and putting together multimedia works online. I think he has a very valid point in his opinion, but also we have to think about how the professors are going about teaching multimedia. Why do so many students want to focus on print journalism rather than internet, technology, and the way of the future? I agree with Koretzky's opinion of college students being "bad" with multimedia and this may be a strong subject universities across the country need to work on.
ReplyDeleteAlthough some would disagree with Koretzky's article, I find it very interesting and even a bit amusing. He's completely right when he talks about how college writers want to brag or "show off" their articles published in a well-known newspaper,newletter,or magazine but hardly ever when published on a website. In a sense, this is almost contradicting because we all know as young adults, we value fast, effortless access to just about anything, especially the news. Who wants to pick up a dull newspaper versus opening up a bright, eye-catching website? I'd choose the latter. Print is slowly dying and multimedia(technology) is a long-lasting trend. As the previous blogger mentioned, universities should consider stressing this topic more to students not focus on print so much.
ReplyDeleteMichael Koretzky's article brings up some interesting and intriguing points. He is right when he talks about college kids wanting to show off what they have produced in order to gain approval. What keeps a journalist going is seeing their work being read and conversed upon. Print is on its way out. Students need to become more aware with the technology advances so that they wont be looking over their shoulder and wondering why their articles are being overlooked due to the rapid growth of internet usage.
ReplyDeleteMichael Koretzky has an interesting view on today's college journalists and the use of technology. At first he sounds critical of young men and women in the field. After reading further it appears that he is concerned with college students and their thick skulls, taking pride in perhaps, "old school" ways of doing things and not thinking toward the future with print losing its footing and the internet becoming a prominent news source. He makes a very clear and valid point when he discusses shabby, not aesthetically appealing websites. The modern population is on the internet all the time, and if a newspapers website looks poor the paper could lose a fanbase, therefore losing revenue and credibility. Universities should encourage and require more training for online news layouts. The extra knowledge couldn't hurt.
ReplyDeleteKoretzky's article might be perceived as slightly cynical, but there is some truth to be had. A great deal of college journalists are driven by pride. While technology has made researching, editing, and publishing much more convenient, there is something slightly demeaning and impersonal about an "online exclusive". College journalists are somewhat lulled by something as tangible as a front page headline or a spread on page six. Koretzky is spot on as he shows how an online article's perception can be completely altered by the outline of the site itself.
ReplyDeleteKoretzky's assessment of college journalism students is interesting and truthful. He definitely has a valid point. An "online exclusive" does sound much less appealing than having a spread in a newspaper or magazine. Newspapers have a limited amount of space, and the space on the internet is unlimited. Universities shouldn't accept mediocre websites from journalism students; they should challenge journalism students to produce edgier websites. Challenging students to do more would hopefully spark more of interest in producing better websites.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRecycle Paper, Right-click save links.
ReplyDeleteBased on the information Michael Korestzky collected he definitely has a point. How many retractions do you see on the internet? When it comes to the internet it can be a 16 year old kid producing the article. With the newspaper you can pretty much guarantee what you are reading is the real deal. Newspapers have teams of people to verify the information before it is released. Being, I am in-between Computer Science, Management Information Systems, and weighing Journalism as a possible major. I find it interesting that more Journalism majors aren’t seeking multimedia. But I can surely see why print is considered more prestigious and impressive than the massive loads of online articles.
Why? Well, the simplicity of the issue is anyone can start a blog and start writing. What the journalism majors Korestzky are referring to are not considering is that these same people have never taken a journalist course in their life and strike rich because a couple of people on the internet find them interesting. All of a sudden they are sharing the links with friends, mentioning them in their face book status, and retwittering about them. Nowadays when you think news on the web, you think gossip about celebrities not flood in the middle east. Whereas when you think print you think newspaper, uninteresting, maybe not as humorous but informing. Online Journalists get paid by pay pal based on the click of a link. Whereas in print you get a check written out on paper by a single editor who has given you a hearty pat on the back, and a thumbs up.
Michael Koretzky is correct in his assessment of how college students portray online media in this day and age. However, I am one of the people who veers away from it for technological, not psychological, reasons. Being close to "technologically illiterate" my entire life, I've seen that life and everything that goes with it-- work, school, friends, etc.--can still go on using the bare bones technological knowledge that I have. If a newspaper is in front of me, I will read it without questioning its sources and wondering if it is a legitimate story or not. Because online articles seem like they just pop out of thin air and magically onto my computer, I feel less comfortable with what's in front of me. Then again, maybe I've just spent too much time on perezhilton.com! With the constant updating of news stories online, there seems to be no certainty to anything that is written and shared with the world. For instance, ESPN reported that Brett Favre was retiring and a few hours later they reported that he was on a plane up to Minnesota to join his team for training camp. A newspaper can only print one of those stories in one day, which adds more validity to all of their stories in my opinion. There aren't constant changes which makes you wonder if everything is true or not. Another example is from when Michael Jackson died. CNN Online reported that he was in cardiac arrest. Then he was in a coma. Then he died. Who knows what the source of this information was, but having all of the information in the days, weeks and months after Jackson's death proved that CNN was issuing faulty stories. I mainly stay away from online media because I'm not psychologically OR technologically comfortable with it, but I'm just one student. I never thought of online media as a source of a career, but I don't believe it's for the the reasons Koretzky addressed.
ReplyDeleteI believe Koretzky definitely has a point. In this day in age, the Web version of a newspaper is more convienent, tangible, and even "greener"; but when one thinks of a newspaper, they don't expect to read articles found on the same device that gives them Facebook. While our generation breaks tradition like no other, there's something classic and unwavering about a newspaper. While we as journalism students need to adapt to this change, there's something very hard about giving up the dream of seeing your work in print. Seeing it in print somehow makes it official, unique. Everyone in this day in age can post on the web, but it takes a certain set of skills to have your work published.
ReplyDeleteMichael Koretzky's piece on the poor usage of multimedia makes many good points and shows why there is a the lack of intrest in online newspapers. The now generation has had everything first, delievered at the speed of light which in consequence makes us very easily bored. With each season comes a cool new gadget to excite our easily bored society, most of these things have to do with being online or communication. Since this 'now' generation is so familiar with the life of being online they see it as something that they have already accomplished. Tossing the online papers to the side because tangible evidence,(in the form of print),of their hard work is still appealing to this generation despite what many would say.
ReplyDeleteMichael Koretzky is correct on his assessment of college students being bad at multimedia, and his reasonings are valid and truthful pertaining to the society college students are living in. All students want to be able to brag and show off their accomplishments. Right now, yes, facebook and twitter are two of the most popular internet sites students look at on a day to day basis. We hardly ever hear of someone getting excited because they just received a new notification from an update on the cnn website or the ole miss news website.Therefore, students realize their story they worked so hard on may never be read by any of their friends; so, when students are assigned multimedia pieces, they just do it to get it over with and hope they get the next front page piece so everyone will see his work and his great accomplishment. Multimedia news just has not become very popular in the college society today, but that also could be because multimedia editors are not putting enough time and hard work into the site. Koretzky definitely has a point that news editors are much too wrapped up in everyone knowing they wrote the amazing story on the front page of the school's newspaper: instead of stepping out of the lime-light and concentrating on making other areas stronger pertaining to news. I think if students would work harder on multimedia news and stop being so self centered that in the future students will be working even harder to have the first story to pop up on the school's news site.
ReplyDeleteEven though i am not a Journalist or even a writer I can tell that this problem is nothing short of an age conflict. He may think we are bad at producing online media but I believe we are producing it in a way that young people would want to read it. The web is now taking control of every aspect of our lives so media in that sense should be short and to the point so it attracts other young people. If its messy or if it is short, then its just the modern era trying to share their views and opinions in ways that they think will express themselves. Young people made facebook, myspace, and youtube so popular even with adults and businesses so maybe we are doing something right. Koretzky was just trying to take one last stab at the younger "dumber" generation. Just because he cant keep up with the newer generation does not give him rights to be biased.
ReplyDeleteMichael Koretzky's view on college journalists is right in most aspects. The amount of readers that check the college newspaper website is a lot less than that of the print readers. Students walk by the newspaper bins many times a day, and will most likely pick up a copy. But if the same person is on the computer for whatever reason, personal use or research, they will probably not check the school papers website for the news. It seams as though the world might be becoming more technological oriented, print will be the first source for news for a few more years to come.
ReplyDelete