Since research has shown the actual click essentially has nothing to do with the success of an advertisement, it is my hope that advertising will change in the future. Also, I hope we will have an accurate method to monitor how effective digital advertising really is.

As for changes in online ads, I hope that they will become less annoying. I find it terribly irritating when I see ads that scroll across the screen over and over, or when they blink obnoxiously. Well-placed ads that are creative and attractive strategically convey the company’s intended message. 

Ads will inevitably undergo changes in the future as we are able to monitor how effective they are at capturing target audiences (among other reasons, too, of course). For example, a Youtube clip highlights a company called AdPerk that rewards consumers (with magazines, for example) who are willing to view ads.

This interactive method seems like a great idea. It reaches the attention of the target audience (internet users, usually younger people) without irritating people who aren’t interested. Only those who want to participate sign up for the service. And the web site indicates that national brands see measurable results, build loyalty and brand awareness and benefit from word of mouth among other advantages. Sounds like a win-win situation…I don’t have to be subjected to ads unless I want to and companies reap the benefits, too!

In one of his presentations, he shared something about his publications’ web site that surprised me: nearly all of the content online is original, or different than that which is found in either publication.

Talk about a eureka moment!!!! I have never understood why newspapers and magazines run the same stories online that are in the print version. It seems like an obvious solution to a grave problem that Bryan described as ”cannibalism”–putting the same, exact stories in a newspaper or magazine and on the publication’s web site. The online edition should be a supplement to the print one.  Why should I pay for a newspaper when I know I’m going to get the scoop for free on the web site? If I know the content is different, perhaps I will buy the paper, as well as many other news consumers.

I know this sounds like more work (which means more costs) for media companies but it could be incredibly profitable in the long run. Posting different material online can include many different things from additional information that didn’t make it to the print edition to writing totally different stories that are unrelated to those in print. Putting tools that engage audiences in discussion or forums could be put online while putting the related content in the print edition. There are so many options that no publication should have trouble posting original content online.

And once one station makes the leap, this will have to be the case with all of the major news channels–ultimately, we’ll have 24/7 regional news for all parts of the country on several news stations.

This could be a benefit for people who want to know what’s going on in their own backyard as many of our local news stations spend far too much time on national news. Many of us feel that local and regional news is most important to us and that happens to be the news that we seem to get the least of. If stations have a set up that allows them to feed audiences a constant dose of local and regional news, then people can view the news they want to consume including that which is going on in their neighborhood.

The Christian Science Monitor informed the world of plans to be the first national newspaper to post all stories online in April 2009, while discontinuing the daily print edition all together (CSM will continue to print a weekly edition).

Most of us could predict this was coming. Some of us embrace this shift with open arms (perhaps I should say computer screens!), and still some of us will eventually grow to appreciate this change that is being forced upon us. How though will this shift to paperless news impact consumers? What about news companies?

I think younger people will absolutely love this new paperless option–afterall, studies have shown this is where we are getting our news anyway. Our parents will grow to like it, but what about our grandparents? I know so many older people who don’t even know how to turn on a computer much less own one. In the future, when all newspapers have made the all-digital transition, how will old people get the news? What about poor people who can’t afford to own computers and don’t go to libraries? Sure, we have TV news but what happens when people miss it?

One of the joys of getting news is having the choice to get it in the medium we want it. Some people prefer television news, others would rather listen to news programs and stations on the radio. Others of us like to take print copies of the news with us. 

This paperless newspaper business is bound to alienate a lot of older readers, the ones who subscribe to the paper edition. I predict that newspaper companies that adopt online editions only will experience severe growing pains as the most loyal newspaper readers are being excluded from the news. People who want their news online are already going there to get it. Will people go online once that’s the only option? 

Sure, this method reduces costs associated with production of the paper editions (paper, ink, pay roll, etc.) and increases the likelihood of capturing young consumers but will older readers follow newspapers into the digital times?

My fear is they won’t. It’s not fair to take the news away from loyal consumers. I think online news is great, but taking away paper editions is going a little bit too far. I think there will come a time when each home is equipped with a computer with internet access–only then is it okay to consider dropping print editions.

Is objectivity attainable? Is it possible to experience something and not have individual thoughts of that object, phenomenon or condition? Furthermore, is it possible to report about something without having individual thoughts that influence the news story?

I remember being told in my communication courses that journalism is writing fairly and objectively. However, after reading the homework, I am again doubting if there is such a thing as complete, true objectivity (as a method or an aim). Is it possible to be objective when selecting a topic for a story? Once the topic is chosen, is it possible to write a story objectively? Is the story really objective if you run it in the newspaper, on TV or post it online after choosing it over other stories?

I don’t think it’s possible to be totally objective. The act of deciding to merely run a story is already acting subjectively. When choosing stories based on the needs and wants of readers, you are simply screening the news through the subjective lens of the intended audience.

When choosing a story, who to interview for a story, what questions to ask, what content to include in a story, all of those things are judgments that reporters and editors have to make–and sometimes they’re not the only ones making those decisions. Advertisers sometimes attempt to influence newsrooms about what stories to run.

I think objectivity is only going to decrease with the future of the news media. As news becomes individualized and detached because of niche publications and programs that cater to certain readers/viewers, news is going to become more and more subjective.

I like that the text suggests that journalism is based on verification, not objectivity. Unlike objectivity, this is realistic and attainable. I wish this book had been required in one of my undergraduate classes–it would have dispelled some of the misconceptions I was lead to believe were absolute truths.

The banner displayed words that weren’t even words, but shorthand….the kind you expect to find in a text message from a 10 year old or see in a cell phone provider’s commericail. One word I remember was “wknd,” instead of weekend. What do you guys think: Is this acceptable for a credible news source?

I personally feel like it is heinously innappropriate. (But then I don’t even use shorthand when I text, even when I text hip, young kids.) I have higher expectations for a cable news channel. Words should be spelled correctly and completely. And, of course, used correctly. The abbreviations don’t have any place in a newsroom, especially if they want to be taken seriously.

According to Paris, some of the things that really matter in a BFF are:

They like the color pink; they always look hot; they can be a good pet.

What happened to a friend who has a sense of humor? Or a friend you can talk to about anything? Or someone who is honest and sincere? When did these qualities go out of style?

When I saw the preview for this show, I just rolled my eyes in disgust. I can’t believe how lame some shows/movies/media in general are–sometimes, it’s just glorified garbage. And this show is the epitome of trash.

I think the future of media is, overall, very bright and posititive. But there certainly are some exceptions. For example, think of all the ridiculous frat boy, drinking movies that are BEYOND stupid (American Pie, Beerfest, etc.)! I predict they will only get worse.

TV shows and magazines aren’t exempt from the stupidity. The Hills and the new 90210, among other shows, are just as tasteless and foolish. And there are countless tabloid magazines that are a huge waste of paper and other resources.

Unfortunately, I don’t think these shows, movies and magazines are going to be any less plentiful in the coming years, especially if they continue to bring in tons of money.  If only there was a way to send these horrible creations straight to the trash bin. There are so many other positive outlets for the money and creative energy that are spent on these productions.

Until then, game on, bitches.

Now, I know this doesn’t satisfy the news media requirement (I’ll do seven this week, Lou!) but I am genuinely curious about the future of love letters.

If you’ve ever been blessed with an amazing love letter, you know the ones, those that make your heart beat right out of your chest, leave you breathless and make you tear up all at the same time, then you should be concerned, too!

While greeting cards have made love letters easier for people who aren’t good with words, everyone knows that the true value of receiving the perfect Hallmark card is in the handwritten blurb after the printed message.

Can an text/electronic love letter be as heartfelt as one handwritten on a piece of paper? Now, I know it’s easy to include a lot of text hearts (<3) but those just don’t have the same meaning to us old-fashioned folks (or maybe just women).  In fact, they can be pretty annoying. And you would probably use the same words, but do they have the same meaning when typed to your sweetheart in an email?

The internet has yielded an unbelievable number of amazing accomplishments, innovations, etc. I love the internet! BUT, in my opinion, I think the internet could ruin love letters forever. (Heard of cut and paste? What is the world coming to when there clearly is a need for a code of ethics for love letters???) 

So, we have to do something about it. Perhaps, someone should start an organization….

Until then, I invite you to, gasp!, get out the stationery and pen and dig deep in your hearts and, in the words of Madonna, express yourself!!!! While it can be challenging to find the perfect words, never underestimate the power of melting a loved one’s heart like Velveeta in the microwave!

Like many college students who are serious about the future, I have been exploring internship options. I have found several positions advertised to communication students. But one thing I noticed about internships at newspapers is they are all the same old positions.

If you have read a newspaper in the last 10 years, it’s obvious that they are changing. Some of the changes are for the better, and some, ahem, well, are not. And one thing is for sure, they are going online.

So, if newspapers are changing so much, why aren’t the internships they offer? I read in the ESC newsletter about internships opportunities at The Florida Times-Union. The internships were available in all the expected areas: copy editing/design, photography and reporting.

If newspapers are going online, why aren’t there internships in that area? Don’t future journalists and editors need to learn the changes newspapers are inevitably undergoing? Don’t they need to have the skills to adapt to a new way of reporting the news?

Maybe I’m wrong. Perhaps it’s easier to teach a seasoned reporter how to post online than it is to teach a techie how to write effectively and with style.

Or maybe they can’t afford full-time employees so they recruit interns to do the work while they train the little help they have left after buy outs and lay offs!

Wow! The entry was posted by Marissa Mayer, Vice President of Search Products and User Experience at Google. She certainly had some vivid ideas about how searching for information should/will change in the next decade.

For example, in one section of her entry, Marissa writes about a “far-fetched idea,” a device a person wears that searches for information based on what it hears in conversations and then reports back relevant findings.

Is that going too far? For hard-core search addicts, maybe not. But what about the rest of us? The last thing I need is a gadget around my neck (that’s what I imagined) that picks up my every word to search the neverending mountains of information on the world wide web. I admit the idea sounds interesting but is it really necessary???

Another interesting prediction was the ability to search by uploading pictures or audio. I can’t tell you how many times I try to search for songs and artists using keywords that don’t really help because I know neither the title nor artist. This could prove helpful in numerous other situations.  

In her entry, Marissa also highlights some other changes in searching that she predicts will happen in the next 10 years. I wonder what impact these changes will have on individuals? The news media? There’s no doubt news media will evolve because of these changes. How will the shifts in searching change journalism? Consumers? The actual products of news media? Will the proposed changes in searching be helpful or burdensome? What are the advantages and disadvantages? How will the next generation retrieve their news?

So many questions…Only time will tell, I guess.