Where students from the University of Mississippi's Meek School of Journalism and New Media showcase their JOUR 102 (Intro to Multimedia Writing) class work.
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Are College Journalism Students Bad at Multimedia?
Michael Koretzky, adviser for the Florida Atlantic university Press thinks so. And he lists the reasons why in his article here. What do you think about his assessment? Based on his reasoning, do you agree or disagree? Why?
The writer of this article seemed to be saying that students are writing well but that the sites they're putting their content on are ugly. I can agree with that, and I can also agree with all of the reasons that he listed for why that may be. Seeing your name in print is just more special than seeing it online. Like he said, bandwidth doesn't cost nearly as much as ink and paper, and I feel like having something tangible like a newspaper to hold in your hand and admire your own work is just more satisfying than writing online. Regardless, the only solution to the problem Mr. Koretzky brings up is to simply bring in better web designers.
I agree with Koretzky, and identify myself as one of these college students. I love receiving my latest magazine subscription and flipping through the pages just to see yet another arrangement of beauty products that somehow still manages to intrigue me. I too would describe my dream job as "editor of Elle" like one of the students mentioned in the article. It isn't that I think print media is better, but it is refreshing--after being on a computer all day--to look at some other form of media. I feel like the girl who helped me in the Apple Store just last week. She does not own an Ipod, an Ipad, or any other Apple gadgets other than a computer because, as she claimed, "I get to play with these gadgets all day for free. Why buy an Ipad, when I can pick up a real book when I get home?" Our generation is so overexposed to multimedia that we lack interest in creating it, and thus we are bad at it.
Good posts. I too agree with the author’s reasoning that there is a deeper psychological factor at play --- prestige and nostalgia of ink over bits. The greatest upswing about the internet---immediacy---is also its greatest inhibitor. I believe a lot of the time we consume so much instant cyber media (video clips, wall posts, tweets, short blogs etc.) that the small bites of information we devour daily act as candy. They end up delivering empty information calories and we become hungry for something to balance the Internet sugar diet. Koretzky makes a good point that journalistic credibility and prestige suffers in the eyes of college students when everyone is a virtual Gutenberg. Moreover, I think the reason why this occurs is because we use print and blogs as different cognitive tools. With blogs words are thrown up on sites to use the web’s tool of timeliness and collaboration. Internet posted stories swiftly adapt, and trail off into different topics with the help of hyperlinks, rapid feedback, and reader multitasking. In contrast, prints now serve as slower, fixed pieces for in depth analytical thought and become our rare tangible certificates of accomplishment. Our use of the Internet's strength in immediacy shapes how much time and effort we put into our multimedia approaches and hinders site quality.
I had posted a comment yesterday, however it apparently didn't go through, so I'll try again! I agreed with Ryan and Koretzky. I found it ironic that as future journalists, we dread the "online exclusive," yet many of us only read news online. I guess it doesn't really affect us until it's our articles that are only available online. Also, I'm inclined to say that the job of web design shouldn't exactly fall on a journalist's shoulders. Students looking to create a website can easily find design tutorials online or even talk with a designer. Honestly, I care more about the actual news than the pretty websites anyway!
The writer of this article seemed to be saying that students are writing well but that the sites they're putting their content on are ugly. I can agree with that, and I can also agree with all of the reasons that he listed for why that may be. Seeing your name in print is just more special than seeing it online. Like he said, bandwidth doesn't cost nearly as much as ink and paper, and I feel like having something tangible like a newspaper to hold in your hand and admire your own work is just more satisfying than writing online. Regardless, the only solution to the problem Mr. Koretzky brings up is to simply bring in better web designers.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Koretzky, and identify myself as one of these college students. I love receiving my latest magazine subscription and flipping through the pages just to see yet another arrangement of beauty products that somehow still manages to intrigue me. I too would describe my dream job as "editor of Elle" like one of the students mentioned in the article. It isn't that I think print media is better, but it is refreshing--after being on a computer all day--to look at some other form of media. I feel like the girl who helped me in the Apple Store just last week. She does not own an Ipod, an Ipad, or any other Apple gadgets other than a computer because, as she claimed, "I get to play with these gadgets all day for free. Why buy an Ipad, when I can pick up a real book when I get home?" Our generation is so overexposed to multimedia that we lack interest in creating it, and thus we are bad at it.
ReplyDeleteGood posts. I too agree with the author’s reasoning that there is a deeper psychological factor at play --- prestige and nostalgia of ink over bits. The greatest upswing about the internet---immediacy---is also its greatest inhibitor. I believe a lot of the time we consume so much instant cyber media (video clips, wall posts, tweets, short blogs etc.) that the small bites of information we devour daily act as candy. They end up delivering empty information calories and we become hungry for something to balance the Internet sugar diet. Koretzky makes a good point that journalistic credibility and prestige suffers in the eyes of college students when everyone is a virtual Gutenberg. Moreover, I think the reason why this occurs is because we use print and blogs as different cognitive tools. With blogs words are thrown up on sites to use the web’s tool of timeliness and collaboration. Internet posted stories swiftly adapt, and trail off into different topics with the help of hyperlinks, rapid feedback, and reader multitasking. In contrast, prints now serve as slower, fixed pieces for in depth analytical thought and become our rare tangible certificates of accomplishment. Our use of the Internet's strength in immediacy shapes how much time and effort we put into our multimedia approaches and hinders site quality.
ReplyDeleteI had posted a comment yesterday, however it apparently didn't go through, so I'll try again! I agreed with Ryan and Koretzky. I found it ironic that as future journalists, we dread the "online exclusive," yet many of us only read news online. I guess it doesn't really affect us until it's our articles that are only available online. Also, I'm inclined to say that the job of web design shouldn't exactly fall on a journalist's shoulders. Students looking to create a website can easily find design tutorials online or even talk with a designer. Honestly, I care more about the actual news than the pretty websites anyway!
ReplyDelete