Advertising with online journalism

One thing I've been meaning to write about for some time now is about the ethics of certain types of advertising used on news websites.

A few weeks ago, I came across the following article, published by the Seattle Times's website. The article is about a famine in Somalia that is taking the lives of tens of thousands, while there is a "blockade of aid" by an Islamist militant group, preventing even more people from receiving food and attention.

The article continues with devastating statistics and a comparison to another, similar disaster in Somalia in the early 1990s. Meanwhile, after scrolling less than halfway down the page, I noticed a Keds ad: brightly colored, cute tennis shoes popping up at me as I read about Somalia's famine. Out of pure distraction and instinct, I moved my mouse to click on the advertisement and be taken to the Keds' website before realizing the implications of what I had just done.

I had decided that I would rather devote thirty seconds of my attention to a tennis shoe company than finish reading about famine claiming the lives of hundreds of thousands of human beings.

Something seemed disturbingly wrong about that. Moreover, something seemed disturbingly wrong about the fact that this advertisement ran in the same space as the famine article in the first place. It is scary to think that the media think we readers are that desensitized to issues that we will not care. It is even scarier to think that for a second there, the media was right.

I'd like to investigate further into the standards of certain web new sites regarding advertisements so embarrassingly juxtaposed like this one. With more and more news organizations relying on web advertising, though, I don't know if it always will be financially feasible to turn down such advertisements. It may be one of those things that we just have to accept within the dawn of the digital journalism age.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2016221871_somalia16.html

Evolving journalism

In my journalism classes and throughout training week for the Marquette Tribune, I have heard again and again that this is such an exciting time to be in journalism because we are able to contribute to how journalism will evolve out of the print stage and into the digital age (rhyme intended).

Today I noticed an interesting example off such an evolvement on CNN.

Viewers were presented with teasers for three entertainment stories CNN reporters had covered, and they could text a number to vote for which one of these three they wanted to see aired later that day.

This seems like an innovative way to keep viewers watching CNN and to spark interest, but it also causes me some disappointment in CNN's journalistic integrity, not so much for entertainment stories, but for the future of its news stories.

Are the major news networks going to let viewers determine what news is important and what news is not? One of the amazing things about these networks - and their distinction from citizen journalists - is that they have the resources to report on stories the public cannot access. As such, the public may not know that they should find a news event important and may vote for a more familiar, engaging, "light" topic if presented with such a choice.

This speaks to the concern that with the new social media as the major platform by which people learn news, people will tailor the news they read and hear to their own pre-formed beliefs - what they want to hear, not necessarily what they need to hear.

Food for thought.

Cell phones: why are we so obsessed?

This week, the production of Little Shop of Horrors opened at the Helfaer Theatre.

Today, while listening to the usual pre-show announcements from backstage, I thought about the extensive pleas for the audience members to not only turn off their cell phones for the duration of the performance, but to refrain from texting so as not to disrupt fellow viewers. Unfortunately, I have seen what happens if such an announcement is not made: people in the audience think they are being discreet, but the bluish glow can be seen by people all around them, including the actors onstage.

I started thinking about how these incredibly challenging and imposing limitations on people would undoubtedly result in a widespread emergence of the cell phone as soon as the house lights go up for intermission. As I am backstage during intermission, there is no way for me to prove it, but having partaken in such a collective act myself many a time at other events, and seeing the scattered glowing blue when the show begins to resume, I find this to be a logical and accurate assumption.

This led me to think about why we are all so obsessed with cell phones. Just a few years ago, we would not have had to make such a lengthy request to audiences asking them for basic etiquette. I'm definitely not trying to be preachy on this one; I'm as guilty of it as everyone else. As much as I judge us for walking around with our hands and eyes glued to our keyboards, I do it, too. When I'm waiting in line for food, I will pull out my smart phone to scan texts, check Facebook, and - my redeeming usage - read the New York Times. I've been annoyed with people walking slowly on the sidewalk and blocking my path due to their attempts to textandwalk, but I'm sure others have been annoyed with me for the same thing.

So what's the deal?

And let's be honest; we cannot continue to issue the refrain of "what is this generation coming to?" because it's not just young people anymore; it's everyone.

When a cell phone goes off in an event like a theatre performance, it more often than not belongs to someone older than 40 who forgot to turn off her or his phone. This semester, I have heard professors' phones sound at least three times and have not heard students' once. Adults are becoming just as quick to whip out their gadgets at intermission.

My question is - why???

The only philosophical answer I could conjure is that we all want to feel important. We all want to feel loved. When someone sends us a text message, that means he or she was thinking of us. We have to respond in a timely matter so as to 1. not inconvenience the other person and have he or she think less of us, and 2. reassure ourselves that our response does indeed matter. People take us seriously.

But most texts do not merit an immediate response, even if we think they do. And we don't ever ask ourselves, if we don't text back right now, what's the worst that can happen? We don't recognize a fundamental value in not communicating for a time, or in actually communicating with the people sitting right next to us instead.

So my challenge to us all is to refrain from reaching for that cell phone this intermission - at least for 30 seconds.