Creating this project was one big challenge not only for the directors but also for each and every member of this team. We all knew it was going to be something totally worth it but in order to accomplish it, required a lot of sacrifice and open mind. I felt that this group was unlike any other. I have never been part of a fifteen person group to work a final project, but hey, in New Media that's what it takes. I beleived that the only way to succeed in this was to be creative, listening but also giving advice, being ready to learn knew things as well as to master those things you already knew how to do, and most importantly, responsability.
My part in this project was to assist Brock and Samie in Louie's interview, to conduct past NMC student interviews, record voice-overs, and finally create/edit the music for the final credits.
In Louie's interview my job was to film Samie and Brock doing their jobs. We thought it would be cool to get some behind the scenes stuff, but also to have in the record some footage of NMC students actually working. I also took some shots of Louie during the interview from different angles since Brock had his camera on a tri-pod and had only one angle.
Conducting the interviews for past NMC students was a great experience. I came up with ten different questions that basically asked what they think New Media is and how far the The NMC program at Oregon State has gone. They were delighted to have been included in this project and came up with some great, very usefull responses and quotes.
Recording voice-overs was a challenge but a great experience. Me and Tom had no idea how we were going to do this due to the fact that we had never used ProTools before, we weren't at all familiar with the software. So Laura was kind enough to show us around the studio and the software. We still don't master the software but at least we have a head start and were able to record everything with no problem. The voice-overs we recorded were quotes from current and past NMC students that Samie and Ryan pulled out from the interviews, some great, well thought out quotes.
My final part in this project was to create music for the ending credits. I mean create, because we were not able to find the music that we wanted without it being professional music being promoted. So here was another challenge because I had never before used the software, SoundtrackPro. It turned out to be a fairly easy software to use, however very time consuming. I actually fell in love with the program due to the fact that I love music.
So to wrap things up, personally this was simply a great experience! Having sixteen minds including Pam's, throwing out ideas and working together was fantastic. You have to keep in mind though you will always find minds that collapse against eachother just because they have different point of views ,and this is definetly the ultimate challenge any group especially this one had to face. However, every point of view is that extra help needed to accomplish the goals set, but also to look back in the end and say, "it was worth it."
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Sunday, March 1, 2009
The Anatomy of Tweet: Twitter Gets a Style Guide
I think this can be very interesting to people that rely and use twitter every minute of their lifes. I also think this could also help news corporations to clearly know what they are allowed to post and what they are not, just in case something doesn't feel right to post. Any question or doubts people have about the website, purchasing the book will definitely help them get easily around the website.
Jenna Wortham, author of this article mentions that Mr. Sagolla, author of the book, says that previous publications about Twitter have nothing to do with this new publication "140 Characters," he says, "this book is an attempt to create easy rules for sorts of networking sites, including Facebook." So again, people that are addicts to social networking, Facebook users, etc., will be able to look back at this book and figure what is right to do and what is not legal to do in this website. Also they can pull out tips on how to use the website in a better way.
According to the article, Mr Sagolla says the book will be available online through itunes by the end of February. The reason they are going to release it only through Facebook for now, is so they can get some previous feedback before printing the actual copy and also to attract interested publishing houses. I think this is a great idea, I beleive people are going to like having access to it online and paying a decent cheap price for it. Getting a sense of what the book is about, so in the future they can have a hard a copy if they liked it.
Jenna Wortham, author of this article mentions that Mr. Sagolla, author of the book, says that previous publications about Twitter have nothing to do with this new publication "140 Characters," he says, "this book is an attempt to create easy rules for sorts of networking sites, including Facebook." So again, people that are addicts to social networking, Facebook users, etc., will be able to look back at this book and figure what is right to do and what is not legal to do in this website. Also they can pull out tips on how to use the website in a better way.
According to the article, Mr Sagolla says the book will be available online through itunes by the end of February. The reason they are going to release it only through Facebook for now, is so they can get some previous feedback before printing the actual copy and also to attract interested publishing houses. I think this is a great idea, I beleive people are going to like having access to it online and paying a decent cheap price for it. Getting a sense of what the book is about, so in the future they can have a hard a copy if they liked it.
How to Present While People are Twittering
According to the article Tamar Weinberg posted on the webiste"Pistachio," a survey of leadership conferences show that people are communicating via blogs and twitter during conferences. Personally I beleive that in a way this method is better becasue now people don't have to whisper to each other, interrupting the speaker, however, people staring at their computers throughout the whole presentation is irrespectful to the speaker. You are at a conference to listen to someone very important speak, not to communicate with your laptops, you could do that later.
This leads into what Weinberg says about how the speaker has to adapt by speaking to what they call a "back channel," people looking at their computers instead of looking at the actual person speaking. How would a speaker adapt to this its my question. Why not instead, if people aren't going to pay direct attention to the speaker, conduct the conference via internet. in this way they can play with their computers as much as they can without irrespecting anybody.
The article shows how the back channel can be benefit from this and also how the speaker can get soemthing good out of this.
Benefits of the back channel inlcude; the audience gets more content, the audience can participate and innovate, you can conncet with people, you can do something else. This few benefits I pulled out from the article are what I beleive it's total crap. You don't need to connect with people during a live speaker presenting to you. You can easily have a blog of paper to jot down notes so you can creat and innovate, making it look more professional that having to stare at your laptop the whole conference. Beleive it or not the computer somehow will distract you even though you might not think it does.
On the other hand, benefits to the speaker include; typing means you're provoking interest, you'll get immediate feedback, they won't fall asleep. Again, I think this is crap. You can jot down notes on a sheet of paper, you could tape record the conference, many ways you could show you are interested instead of staring at your computer. The speaker won't get immediate feedback, they already have the presentation set up.
This leads into what Weinberg says about how the speaker has to adapt by speaking to what they call a "back channel," people looking at their computers instead of looking at the actual person speaking. How would a speaker adapt to this its my question. Why not instead, if people aren't going to pay direct attention to the speaker, conduct the conference via internet. in this way they can play with their computers as much as they can without irrespecting anybody.
The article shows how the back channel can be benefit from this and also how the speaker can get soemthing good out of this.
Benefits of the back channel inlcude; the audience gets more content, the audience can participate and innovate, you can conncet with people, you can do something else. This few benefits I pulled out from the article are what I beleive it's total crap. You don't need to connect with people during a live speaker presenting to you. You can easily have a blog of paper to jot down notes so you can creat and innovate, making it look more professional that having to stare at your laptop the whole conference. Beleive it or not the computer somehow will distract you even though you might not think it does.
On the other hand, benefits to the speaker include; typing means you're provoking interest, you'll get immediate feedback, they won't fall asleep. Again, I think this is crap. You can jot down notes on a sheet of paper, you could tape record the conference, many ways you could show you are interested instead of staring at your computer. The speaker won't get immediate feedback, they already have the presentation set up.
Final Project Update 3
Last thursday me and Tom with the help of Laura, met at the music lab to record voice overs of past NMC student quotes. It went really well. Laura showed us step by step on how to use it. The equipment is top of the line stuff. I liked it so much taht I left interested in learning how to use the equipment at its fullest.
Sunday at 5:30 is the meeting. We are going to go over what everyone did this week and put it all together. Also, we are going go over our runsheet to see what is missing and how it's coming along.
Sunday at 5:30 is the meeting. We are going to go over what everyone did this week and put it all together. Also, we are going go over our runsheet to see what is missing and how it's coming along.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Facebook Reverts to Previous Terms
Adam Ostrow mentions in his article, "That was quick" after Facebook's one and only Mark Zuckerberg changes the site's Term of Use back to its normal position after trying to defend the uncoherent changes he try to make to the policy. I am not surprised at all that Zuckerberg was forced to immediately change it back to were it was. No official research has be done to find out if people try to escape facebook or delete their account for good, but what I do know it's that he scared away millions of facebook users.
The reason I know that millions of users were scared is becasue not only everyone close to me including myself got scared, but also because Ostrow mentions in his article that the company created a poll to find out what users thought about the controversial changes being made. Not to be surprised at all, 6 percent supported the new changes but 56 percent opposed to them, 38 percent didn't respond.
So what was Zuckerberg force to do after his "plan" completley failed. I call it a plan becasue all hi was trying to do was either tell his users something they wanted to hear or by word of mouth, non users to be alarmed and influenced by the ne terms of use, and join the website. Of course he didn't get what he wanted so somehow he had to send a Terms of Use Update saying that the policy would remain the way it was. He not only did this but also, according to Ostrow's article, he wrote a blog post saying that Facebook is going back to the original terms and that this was the right thing to do due to the overly formal language used in the new terms.
I totally agree with Adam Ostrow mentions at the end of his article about the smart move Facebook pulled out. I beleive they digged out the whole they got into pretty well, and now they are back on track. But what I also beleive is that besides getting back on track by creating the "Facebook Bill of Rights and Responsabilities" option, they ensured that that this issue doesn't plague the social network in the future, Ostrow mentions, something I think the company did very well.
The reason I know that millions of users were scared is becasue not only everyone close to me including myself got scared, but also because Ostrow mentions in his article that the company created a poll to find out what users thought about the controversial changes being made. Not to be surprised at all, 6 percent supported the new changes but 56 percent opposed to them, 38 percent didn't respond.
So what was Zuckerberg force to do after his "plan" completley failed. I call it a plan becasue all hi was trying to do was either tell his users something they wanted to hear or by word of mouth, non users to be alarmed and influenced by the ne terms of use, and join the website. Of course he didn't get what he wanted so somehow he had to send a Terms of Use Update saying that the policy would remain the way it was. He not only did this but also, according to Ostrow's article, he wrote a blog post saying that Facebook is going back to the original terms and that this was the right thing to do due to the overly formal language used in the new terms.
I totally agree with Adam Ostrow mentions at the end of his article about the smart move Facebook pulled out. I beleive they digged out the whole they got into pretty well, and now they are back on track. But what I also beleive is that besides getting back on track by creating the "Facebook Bill of Rights and Responsabilities" option, they ensured that that this issue doesn't plague the social network in the future, Ostrow mentions, something I think the company did very well.
Final Project Update 2
Thursday of last week I finished interviewing past NMC students with Lindsay Schnell's interview. It went very well, she has a lot of experience and from my point of view she is done what it needs to be done in order to succeed in the world of journalism. She had a lot of great quotes and tips that could help current and new media students and of course help make this project even better. I taped record the interview and send the work to Samie and Ryan so they could transcribe it.
We had a group meeting last night in Hoveland Lab and it went fairly well. Everyone showed up with their work. We gathered mostly everything that needed to be done on that deadline. For this week Samie assigned more work to the people that had already finished their work (this includes me). So my job for this week is to voice over quotes from current and past media students in the music lab, I will be working with Tom and the deadline is no later than this Friday.
Looking forward to it!
We had a group meeting last night in Hoveland Lab and it went fairly well. Everyone showed up with their work. We gathered mostly everything that needed to be done on that deadline. For this week Samie assigned more work to the people that had already finished their work (this includes me). So my job for this week is to voice over quotes from current and past media students in the music lab, I will be working with Tom and the deadline is no later than this Friday.
Looking forward to it!
Sunday, February 22, 2009
The Death of News
Most people already know that journalism itself is in a big crisis. Gary Kamiya mentions in his article that, "daily newspapers are going out of business at an unprecedented rate, and the survivors are slashing their budgets. Thousands of reporters and editors have lost their jobs." She points out a statistic provided by analyst Allan Mutter, that in 2008 was the worst year for newspaper publishers, with an 83 percent dropping of shares. From my point of view, this is something not only journalists are terrified from but also the audience of the newspapers.
If newspapers in a way are vanishing, is the new media going to take over? Well what about reporting? This is the important question we need to ask ourselves, becasue according to Kamiya, "the real problem isn't that newspapers may be doomed, what is really threatened by the decline of newspapers and the related rise of online media is reporting." And yes, I totally beleive this because most of the reporting originates from newspapers, and what if newspapers disappear, then those well trained journalists that work hard towards finding stories with true unbiased facts, will have no place to go.
New media, also known as online media, is what people are now days using to get their news. I am of those thousand of people accessing the web to be updated on what is going on the world. But this is not what we are looking at here, what we are looking at, is how online media is taking away millions of journalist jobs and preventing them from going to certain parts of the world and where actual live, hard work, unbiased reporting is done. I am not saying online media does not have great reliable sources because otherwise online news wouldn't be have much success, but I am certain that all we are going to have are stories written by people who do not have a neutral site posting them online.
Primary reporting will soon be out of the picture if this keeps going the way it has been since 2008. Something needs to be done in order for the online media to go by their business and not interrupt the great work newspaper companies have done for the past decades, bringing people an ink copy of news every morning to their house, so they can enjoy the sunrise and their cup of coffee.
If newspapers in a way are vanishing, is the new media going to take over? Well what about reporting? This is the important question we need to ask ourselves, becasue according to Kamiya, "the real problem isn't that newspapers may be doomed, what is really threatened by the decline of newspapers and the related rise of online media is reporting." And yes, I totally beleive this because most of the reporting originates from newspapers, and what if newspapers disappear, then those well trained journalists that work hard towards finding stories with true unbiased facts, will have no place to go.
New media, also known as online media, is what people are now days using to get their news. I am of those thousand of people accessing the web to be updated on what is going on the world. But this is not what we are looking at here, what we are looking at, is how online media is taking away millions of journalist jobs and preventing them from going to certain parts of the world and where actual live, hard work, unbiased reporting is done. I am not saying online media does not have great reliable sources because otherwise online news wouldn't be have much success, but I am certain that all we are going to have are stories written by people who do not have a neutral site posting them online.
Primary reporting will soon be out of the picture if this keeps going the way it has been since 2008. Something needs to be done in order for the online media to go by their business and not interrupt the great work newspaper companies have done for the past decades, bringing people an ink copy of news every morning to their house, so they can enjoy the sunrise and their cup of coffee.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)