Online VS Print Newspapers...Which Is Better???

VS


The newspaper has been around for many years , since 1690 to be exact, and it wasn’t until a few years ago that it began to plummet. The internet has put many things at risk; e.g. businesses, newspapers, and anything else in between. Even though there are still many people that still prefer an actual hard copy of a newspaper, there are even more people out there that prefer to get their news online, which has put the life of the newspaper in jeopardy.
As soon as I sat down to read today’s paper, I immediately saw a picture of a very cute dog between a chain-link cage. I immediately thought that Blue (the dog behind bars) was up for adoption, instead it was an article about Blue awaiting his trial. He has been given a death sentence for biting a small child that was near his food. His owners are in the process of getting him back, by filing a lawsuit against the city of Albany. If someone were to go onto the Democrat Herald website, they would see a small picture of Blue and a brief description and then before you can even blink, it moves onto another article.
Most of the stories in Tuesday’s paper were about Oregon news with a little bit of the President combined and they weren’t that long at all and instead were just “filler” news to make the paper a bit bigger. Tuesday’s paper didn’t really have “sections”. I mean they have their “sub-sections” like; ‘Your Community’, Obituaries, ‘Oregon Notes’, Editorials, Sports and then the Classifieds. The online version is much more advanced and if someone wanted to see a specific section then they would have to click on one of the tabs, up at the top.
In the print version, there is a fairly good amount of pictures and the only color pictures they had were on the front and back covers and then also on the front of the sports’ page and then the rest are in black and white. Now, of course the online version had all of their pictures in color, because who wants to look at pictures online that are in black and white when they can be in color???
Since it is so close to Valentine’s Day (ugh!!), I saw a BUNCH of ads for flowers and chocolate and then I saw their regular ads; e.g. car insurance rates, medical clinics, dental clinics, and then a random ad for ‘AAsum-Dufour Funeral Home’ in Albany.
Of course the online version is more up-to-date with the news and the print one is outdated as soon as the ink dries.

The Democrat Herald isn’t much different than the Corvallis Gazette Times or The Statesman Journal and the only difference, that I know of, is that it covers local Linn County news. And like the other Oregon papers, it also covers big statewide news as well as some nationwide news and if the story is big enough…world news; e.g. Egypt or when the USS George Washington was in Korea for their war games.
The style that I thought the editor did was that they put their biggest headlines on the front and then once you read the inside of the paper, the headlines became less important than the last and are commonly called “filler” news.
The 2 biggest strengths that I saw for the print version were 1.) that I had an actual physical copy and 2.) I knew where the paper started and where it ended. The 2 strengths that I noticed for the online version were 1.) that it is more up-to-date than the print version and 2.) the tabs at the top, make it easier to find the selection that I want to look at.
The 2 weaknesses of the print version were 1.) it’s outdated as soon as it is printed and 2.) I’ll admit it…I think that there should be at LEAST good ones and have more than 1 in there. The 2 weaknesses of the online version were 1.) that they don’t tell you certain things that are in the paper version and 2.) I don’t like the way the front page is setup, how the “top news” changes every 4 seconds…barely enough time to read the previous one.
I think that the primary target audience are people over the age of 21...the more mature adults. The ads that I saw online didn’t really seem to fit the articles, like an ad about ‘losing belly fat’ and the ones in the paper were mostly for people over the age of 25.

When I was reading the paper (both online and print) I noticed that the ads were stereotyped towards old people. For example, there were TONS of ads for getting better car insurance at a reduced rate,
I prefer the online version because I don’t read the paper and when I do, it is to find a specific thing and by reading it online I am saving money and being “green” while reading. Honestly, I think that the version that people prefer is the print version. People like the feeling of being able to hold a newspaper rather than having to go online and search for their news online….some don’t even know where to start.
The rare times that I read the paper, I ALWAYS read the comics and the personal section….they both make me laugh. Everyone needs laughter in their lives in order to be happy and healthy…who doesn’t want that???
I learned that during the week there really isn’t any “big” news and that most of the articles in there are just fillers. I learned that the newspapers will do anything to keep afloat and if that means filling their papers with mindless news and mindless entertainment , than that’s just what they’ll do.

LINKS:
RIP
COMPUTER
1ST CARTOON
SCREEN SHOT
2ND CARTOON

Marketing Teenage Rampage

MTV Shows

My partner and I watched Skins on January 31st 2011. This show is a hybrid of drama and reality as it follows "average" teenagers who are supposed to reflect modern adolescent society in America. The show takes place in Baltimore and features the characters Tony Snyder, Michelle Richardson, Stanley Lucerne, Chris Collins, Cadie Campbell, Tea Marvelli, Daisy Valero, Abbud Saddiqui, and Eura Snyder . The characters reflect teenagers from middle to upper middle class backgrounds. A lot of controversy has surrounded this show and in a critical review of the program by The New York Times, Brian Stetler said "In recent days, executives at the cable channel became concerned that some scenes from the provocative new show “Skins” may violate federal child pornography statutes."

In the initial pilot the show gives off a rebellious tone full of disregard. The leading male character Tony wakes up and helps his sister Eura sneak into his home after a night of partying. His scheme to do this frustrates his father as he plays it all too cool. On his walk to school he calls his various other friends in an attempt to help get his porn-obsessed virgin friend Stanley laid for his first time. He even calls his girlfriend and tries to get her to do it. This scene shocked me because it's very unbelievable behavior for a 17 year old boy. He engages in this conversation with an unauthentic air of arrogance that comes off script-like.

The recipe of this show is one part rebellion, one part drugs, and two parts sex. I question its sincerity as the teenage romping continues from beginning to end with no real substance to chew on. Can I merely be fed on under-age sex, profanity and over-doses? A common theme I've read online is that the American version of Skins is not as good as its European counter-part which aired in 2007. Four years later MTV picked up the idea and in January 2011; MTV aired its version of the youthful debauchery.

The first stereotype I noted, while watching the first episode, was sweet Stanley. He represents the "sex-obsessed-nerd-virgin", a familiar stereotype and stigma in real life culture and in Hollywood. The second stereotype I picked up was Maxxie. She plays the "slutty cheerleader", but with a unique twist that has sent fans of the original show into a conniption fit. In the European Skins; Maxxie is a homosexual tap dancer and in the new version, Maxxie is a lesbian cheerleader. In my opinion, I think that this change occurred specifically for American culture. In most of the media homosexuality is still seen as risque and a little bit on the taboo side of the tracks. So why not throw a cheerleading outfit on it and give it some breasts? I can see how it would be easier for the majority of America to feel more at ease with a petite, possibly sexually frustrated, girl than it would be with a gay man. Sadly stigmas and stereotypes still remain in the 21st century.

We thought this show was a great example of the differences in cultural material between Europe and America. If we were foreigners coming over from a conservative country, such as Saudi Arabia, we would be highly offended at the American version for its raciness. If we were to come over here from western Europe we, however, would not be offended. Why? Because Europe is known for being more lax on sexuality than America. Every society is different and we believe that America has a diverse society with little cultures sprinkled from Los Angeles to Maine. So it would be semi-difficult to sum up our world presence by the material we entertain ourselves with.

The show is entertaining with all the rambunctious escapades and naughty talk (censored of course) and it evoked a good amount of anticipation within us as we watched the mayhem of these character's personalities. We feel its targeted audience is somewhere between 14 and 24 years of age. The show is perfect for those individuals who seek vicarious pleasure via the media. After all, its whole marketing campaign was about the shock-value of young creatures doing sinful things; e.g. buying and selling drugs, having sex, making out, touching, talking smack, acting cool, enjoying vanity, committing crimes, and looking hot in the midst of all the controlled chaos. The weaknesses of this show are obvious after the first few minutes. For one, we didn't know it was a remake and considering we checked out the other version on the BBC (below), we prefer the previous Skins in comparison to the American remix. The producers cast actors that have never been in film before, trying to produce as much authenticity as possible. The actors range in ages from 15 to 19 years old, but surprisingly most of them are from Canada. Odd for a show about American teenagers. Another interesting fact is that it wasn't filmed in America either, the set for Skins was in Ontario, Canada. The acting was contrived at best. It conveyed very little hardy emotion, but it succeeded in being superficial and exaggerated. When it comes to the realities of average teenagers, Skins misses the mark. It does succeed in bringing awareness to the public eye about potential problems our youth faces. It fails again, though, in romanticizing such problems.

In conclusion, we learned that there is nothing new under the media sun. The media will always be here with us in all future generations to come, to manipulate our emotions, feed our laziness, cater to our consumerism, or to merely entertain us with ridiculous nonsense. We are connected to the media for better or worse...till prime-time death do us part.

Picture Link

BBC America Skins Promo