Monday, October 16, 2017

“How does older media serve as a templet for wireless culture?”

     In my case study, I focused on terrestrial radio and Sirius XM radio. I began by focusing on how each of them work. Radio through towers, to receivers, to the music we hear every day, and Sirius XM, through transmitters to satellites, to receivers to the music. By focusing on the logistics of both of them, I was able to uncover some pros and cons about them both.

     In the case of terrestrial radio, there are two types. AM and FM, each with its own advantages and disadvantages. AM, while it can broadcast great distances, has a poor sound quality. AM also has to deal with interruptions, especially during the day because the sun transmits waves on the same frequency. FM while it does not have to deal with interruptions from the sun, cannot broadcast very far. This can be extremely inconvenient for people especially on long car rides, because the radio station will need to be change a number of times during the duration of the trip. But, on a positive side FM radio is very localized and can help a community with local conversations, elections, events and other things especially emergencies. Although terrestrial radio seems to have a lot of problems, “Seventy-five percent of Americans listen to the radio everyday, and ninety-four percent of all Americans listen to the radio at least once a week. On average, Americans spend 19.5 hours per week just listening to the radio” (Cain, 2005, p. 223).

     But Cain is also careful to show the down side as terrestrial radio as well saying “Twenty-two million people in the United States receive five or fewer FM stations, and more than 700,000 people live entirely outside current FM broadcast coverage” (Cain, 2005, p. 223). Satellite radio does not have the problems of terrestrial radio. Because it uses satellites instead of radio towers, it can broadcast globally. This means no having to change the radio station multiple times on car trips. It also offers at least 120 station choices to it’s listeners. One of XM’s downfalls is that it is not localized. In the event of an emergency it would not be near a beneficial to listen to as FM radio would.

     Terrestrial radio showed what its common problems were, and XM Satellite radio strived to fix them. Without the complaints received about terrestrial radio, Satellite radio would not have known what problems it needed to solve to be successful. This is how terrestrial radio served as a template for satellite radio.

Bonsor, K. (2001, September 26). How Satellite Radio Works. Retrieved October 10, 2017, from

Cain, A. (2005, March 15). Satellite Radio: An Innovative Technology’s Path through the FCC and into the Future . Retrieved October 10, 2017, from
Volume 25, Issue 1

 Harper, Jim August 15, 2008. (2008, August 15). The Lesson of the XM/Sirius Merger. Retrieved October 10, 2017, from

Schnickel, A. (2000, November 17). Radio Waves and How They Work. Retrieved October 10, 2017, from

Straubharr, J. D., LaRose, R., & Davenport, L. (2016). Media Now: understanding media, culture, and technology. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
Chapter 6

Saturday, October 14, 2017

How Do Older Media Serve As A Template For A Wireless Culture

My case study describes the relationship between older media and wireless media platforms by analyzing how they are alike and how they are different. To delve deeper into how older media has served as a template for a Wireless Culture, I compared Radio and Spotify to each other making it clear how similar the two platforms actually are and what Spotify has learned and continues to learn from traditional radio and also how Spotify challenges radio.

Through my research for this case study, I’ve learned why more users prefer to use Spotify over traditional radio – the main reason being users wanting more control over their consumption of music. The graph presented in my power point from represented user satisfaction for AM/FM radio. This graph had many reasons why users are dissatisfied with their traditional terrestrial radio. The characteristics of AM/FM radio that had the lowest satisfaction rating were characteristics that have been implemented into Spotify’s streaming program.

After this case study I am more aware of how older media influences new media and how similar they actually are. It was enlightening to see how many traits traditional radio brought to Spotify such as narrowcasted playlists, information on artists, and news and how many elements Spotify has implemented in order to be different from radio and more socially interactive such as partnering with social media accounts. When posing my discussion question, “Do you prefer the experience you receive while listening to traditional radio in real time or the opportunities you receive with streaming music?” my classmates shared why they prefer streaming over traditional radio and made good points on why it is becoming so popular with our generation. Some of my classmates also brought up the reasons they still listen to traditional radio and how it is very nostalgic of their childhood.

In conclusion, Spotify takes the idea and elements of traditional radio and transforms it into a more personalized experience in which users have more control. Older media has definitely paved a way for newer platforms to become more portable, accessible, and socially interactive. A quote from our first class powerpoint that I believe now more than ever is that new media is always connected to old media and that old media has definitely served as a template for a Wireless Culture. 

Sources for Blog

Graph reference:

Radio Is Dead In 10 Years. This Study Proves It.” Digital Music News, 4 Sept. 2017,

Morris, Wade, and Devon Powers. “Control, Curation and Musical Experience in Streaming Music Services.” Creative Industries Journal 8.2 (0): 106–122. Web.

Tuesday, October 10, 2017

Facebook vs. The Families of the San Bernardino Attack

     This week’s question was ‘What are the constraints on free speech and the First Amendment for the news industry?’. I believe that by researching the effects of Facebook and the lawsuits against Facebook that it helped me to answer this question. Facebook is a mass social media site that is used for anything from memes to access to the latest news articles. In this case, the families of the victims of the San Bernardino Attack want to sue Facebook for allowing the Islamic state to grow on their social media site. This is a grey area for the First Amendment and the Facebook's policy. Facebook is constantly looking and taking down inappropriate accounts and users, but with the 2.01 billion people using Facebook some people can slip through the cracks. The First Amendment allows us to post our own opinions online, but what happens when the posts start hurting others. Facebook did not know that there was going to be an attack the day that these terrorists posted on Facebook but it was still on their social media site that they pledged their allegiance to the Islamic State. Do I think that this case is going to go far? No, this case will probably be settled outside of court. I do believe that this case and many others alike it will make Facebook and other social media sites enforce stricter policies to protect the First Amendment but while also protecting themselves.

Thursday, October 5, 2017

New York Times v. Murray Energy Corporation

Libel and slander, both forms of defamation, are becoming harder and harder to file lawsuits against. However, if proven, can be very detrimental to the reputation of the one committing the libel since it would hurt their reliability. Libel is anything written that is intended to hurt the reputation of a person or organization. New York Times v. Sullivan set up the framework for establishing libel in media. Since then, many people have sued organizations and each other. In the court case Murray Energy Corporation v. New York Times, the energy company is claiming the newspaper published a libelous article about a mine collapse. The New York Times article talked about the influence of money in which they mentioned the coal industry. Murray Energy claims that the paper intentionally published false information in the article stating that a mine collapse killing nine people was due to the company not following regulations. The energy company pushed back saying the the collapse was caused by an earthquake. There are two reasons the company is filling a lawsuit. For one, the company believes the article hurt their reputation. Two, they believe the article was published to promote a left wing agenda that would put the industry out of business. So how does this case represent the constraints on free speech for the news industry? Well there are actually many forms of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment. According to the First Amendment Center, there are about eleven different types of speech that are not protected, and libel happens to be one of them. While a new organization might have the right to publish what they want, they must face the consequences if it’s considered libel.

CNN vs. Clay Travis

This week's question was: "What are the constraints on free speech and the First Amendment for the news industry?" The way I answered this was by researching a recent issue that arose when a male guest, Clay Travis, appeared on Brooke Baldwin's CNN segment and said that the only two things he faithfully believes in are "the First amendment and boobs." This immediately offended Balwdin and the other male guest and Baldwin kicked him off live air. He received backlash for his comment but no real repercussions took place. When looking at this, three key terms come to mind that we've studied: the first is the First Amendment for obvious reasons being that by saying this he exercised his right to free speech, Obscenity because what he said was an obscene comment directed at a female news anchor about the anatomy of women, and lastly, Censorship because CNN has a "play nice" policy where they address how guests and anchors should speak to one another, ultimately censoring what is said on their programs, that of which Travis did not follow. While it can be argued that because the First Amendment does not protect obscenity and his comment was obscene, he does not deserve to have some sort of punishment, it can also be argued that if it there were better regulations on censorship than he would not have been able to make such a comment, especially to a woman. In the end, my opinion falls in the middle. I do believe that he, along with everyone else, should be able to exercise their right to free speech whether they are saying an obscene comment or not, because even though legal action was not taken, he did show the world what type of person he is and he will reap the repercussions he deserves. I think that in order to prevent this from occurring more, every news outlet should have policy put in place about how they will allow for words to be spoken or published. All in all, to answer this weeks question, I believe that the constraints on free speech and the First Amendment for the news industry are as established and enforced as well as they can be. In every case, improvements can be made but I think it is difficult to always be able to predict what somebody is going to say on live television. You can't control people and what they decide to say or publish but you can regulate it and put in disciplinary actions when broken.

Helpful resources:
Brooke Baldwin's take:
What are the constraints on free speech and First Amendment for the news industry?

Satirical News

Satirical news and political satire are on the rise, especially among young people. When I watch satirical news it’s mostly for entertainment. My political satire of choice is Last Week Tonight with John Oliver because of its unique presentation. First of all, I don’t have to watch ads when I watch Last Week Tonight because it’s on HBO. What motivates me to watch it the most is that I really enjoy how in-depth John Oliver covers his weekly topics. I feel like I get a lot more information from Last Week Tonight than from any other news source, and I know I’m guaranteed a few good laughs along the way.

Why does Last Week Tonight differ so much from its competitors? A lot of it has to do with HBO’s Business Model. Traditional news outlets rely on advertisements for revenue, but HBO relies on its subscribers. This means that Last Week Tonight doesn’t face the same constraints on free speech and the First Amendment that its competitors in the news industry do. John Oliver can say whatever he wants and take whatever approach to “journalism” he wants. To gain a better understanding of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, I encourage you to watch his latest segment on network neutrality here:

Tuesday, September 26, 2017

Globalization seen through the Lord of the Rings

     My presentation discussed the Hollywood style films and how globalization has impacted them and how they have further globalized the world. The Lord of the Rings trilogy, original books written by J.R.R. Tolkien and directed and produced by Peter Jackson, is a prime example of the many impacts of globalization within the film industry including cultural imperialism, free flow of information and regionalization. The first point of my argument was that Hollywood style movies are made to be simply, entertaining and universal; these movies can be watched and liked by many different types of people. However, the high cost of producing such popular films has allowed for most of these films to be produced in the U.S. in comparison to other countries, thus promoted U.S. cultural imperialism. New Zealand, the country where much of the Lord of the Rings trilogy was filmed, has been greatly affected by these films especially through film-induced tourism. One student asked, “How can we make movies that don’t misrepresent other cultures?” My answer was that, in this case we really can’t; New Zealand country and landscape was simply used for certain scenes in the film.