Convergence

Ask yourself: what can I get from TV that I can't get from the internet? The internet can stream the kind of high-quality video we've come to expect from cable TV. It also presents a vastly greater set of entertainment options: watching movies and shows on Netflix or Hulu, viewing funny home videos on Youtube, chatting with friends, and playing games, to name a few. It can be carried around with us on small wireless devices like netbooks or tablets, and can thus be experienced outdoors or in the comfort of our home. In contrast, our cable boxes are anchored firmly in our homes, and TV presents us only with scheduled video content.

So what does TV have left? Two weapons: channel-surfing, and high production value content. Cable TV presents us with a stream of content that we can flip through for hours, and which requires very little effort to do so. This has kept TV the reigning champion of time-wasting and unwinding activities. In contrast, we have to seek out what we want to watch on the internet. While we have more options in this regard, there's no way to simply flip through the channels. Additionally, there are still a lot of shows and live events covered on TV that the networks don't provide on the internet, at least not right away. The rise of Netflix and Hulu have been signaling the end of this exclusivity, though, and it won't be long before networks migrate their channels to the internet.

Once this convergence occurs, convenience will be the final death of TV. Most of us have internet devices of some kind, and sometimes multiple devices - laptops, desktops, phones, and so forth. People will want to minimize the amount of devices they have to switch between to get to their preferred entertainment. Networks have speculated that the communal features of the internet, such as the ability to chat about a live event in real-time, have helped bolster their ratings. This may be true, but I think people would prefer the ability to do their chatting on the same device without switching contexts, and once this ability is introduced the demand for it will be high. Additionally, the simplified service and greater ability to pick and choose entertainment on the internet will be key.

Does this mean the TV networks should fear the kind of collapse that the mainstream news media has been suffering? I think not. The demand for high production value scripted shows, reality shows, and live events is still going to remain high. And unlike online news articles, networks have a precedent for charging money for those things. In many cases, people are already paying both monthly TV and internet subscription costs. The most important thing for the industry to remember is that, as Henry Blodget writes, "The best content creators will do just fine. Video storytelling won't go away. Compared to the people who produced Battlestar Galactica, the Sopranos, and West Wing, etc., the folks who post to YouTube generally suck at it." As long as networks find a way to effectively migrate their content to internet-based services, viewers will still flock to it.

Is the TV Business Really Going to be Saved by Internet?

Is the television industry in Denial about the impact of the internet on their business? According to the article Sorry, There's No Way to Save the TV Business, this is the case. The article says that the newspaper figured it out the hard way, the business is eventually doomed to fail. The best creators will succeed and the worst are destined to fail. Alternatively, in the Article Water-Cooler Effect, the author thinks that television will be saved by the internet. I do not buy it.

The internet is replacing the traditional television, I have no doubt. When I sit down in the living room, I have several choices of video:

- Basic Cable Television
- Netflix Instant
- Extensive DVD Collection
- Hulu & Other Publisher's Websites
- Comcast On Demand
- Comcast Internet On Demand

Like the article 'Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable' said about the Transition to the printing press: "Chaotic, as it turns out." Advertisers are looking to the internet for better opportunities, better focused ads, and more opportunities. The same article said: "Society doesn’t need newspapers. What we need is journalism." I believe that this applies equally to the television entertainment industry. It will matter less and less who creates the content, the quality of the entertainment will be the important thing.

Like the transition to the printing press, we do not know what the internet will bring to replace television, but we have a pretty good idea. There are all sorts off startups that bring television and movies to the laptop computer. We can take these as the start to a new generation, pushing traditional television out of the way.

The Impact of the Internet on Newspapers

At first I thought the internet would be bad for newspapers. Why would people buy a paper if they can get the news online? So I searched for local news stories. I didn't find much in my area except for the newspapers online site and tv news stations. The newspaper also provides local classifieds. I spend a lot of time on the internet doing school work so I get tired of it. I like reading a paper or book that I can hold, flip the pages, and mark my spot with a bookmark. Given the choice I would choose paper over the internet.

The internet can also impacting papers by providing more sources of information. The newspapers, at least in this area, are not really interested in the truth. They are interested in selling a story and swaying public opinion. I thought that the job of a newspaper was to give readers the facts. Instead it seems like they choose a side and try to make people agree with them. One example that comes to mind is a murder trial. A man was not convicted, only on trial for murder. You could definitely tell that the reporter covering the story thought the man was guilty. I guess she hasn't heard of "innocent until proven guilty". Based on some DNA evidence that came out during the trial the man was found to be not guilty. Lucky for him the reporter was not the one deciding the case. Though she was still able to cause a lot of pain for him and his family by convincing many of the people in the community that he was guilty. If people were able to chat about this online they may have been more likely to question what she was saying instead of just accepting it.

Another thing that newspapers do that I can't stand is the way they try to sway people toward a particular candidate. Many people depend on the news for information and it's just not reliable. Reporters should be reporting the facts, not their own opinions. Though I do respect their right to free speech. So if they want to express their own views they should put it on the opinion page.
Fortunately, I think the internet will help people discover the facts about a topic if they want to find them. Since more people have internet access and with sites like twitter and facebook people can quickly relay information to one another. Getting information from a number of sources and not just one biased reporter can only help newspapers. If the reporters know that readers can check their facts on the internet they'll be more likely to report the truth and everyone will be better off.

The internet also helps newspapers by allowing the newspaper to put the information online. This should reduce the costs for delivery and printing as well as reducing the amount of paper used which is good for the environment. If they charge people to view the paper online they could end up making more money than they were with a traditional newspaper. Since the cost for viewing the paper online should be cheaper than a printed paper more people could afford it making it great for everyone.

Twitter helps TV ratings?

160 characteristics is all that you get for your thoughts on twitter. Some people who use twitter, tweet their every thought. Even thought tweets are only 160 characteristics, they can inform users with lots of information before news stations can put the information on TV.

When MTV was airing the video music awards, and Kayne West came up and took the microphone from Taylor Swift during her speech, this was instantly all over Twitter. When people who read Twitter seen this, the rankings for MTV shot up with everyone turning it on their television. Without Twitter, this incident wouldn't have been out there for everyone to hear about until the news that night, or even the next day. Twitter helped MTVs ratings go up that night and the VMAs had the most viewers they had had in six years. There have been other incidents where I have personally seen something on Twitter about a particular television show or sporting event, and have automatically turned my TV to that channel so I could see for my own eyes what was going on.

I think that Twitter is one of the positives parts of the Internet. It helps spread information quicker than the other media outlets that are available. The Internet may decrease TV ratings because viewers can watch television shows online, but on the other hand I think that Twitter may increase some of the television viewers by some of the information that is posted on the website.

Cyber War Are we safe?

Cyber War is a real issue that is becoming more and more of a concern throughout the world.

Ronald Regan was the 1^st President to address the problem. Signing the Computer Security Act of 1987 to protect Federal Agencies' computer data. Followed by President Clinton in 1996 set up the Presidents Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection to safeguard vital systems such as gas, oil, transportation, water, telecommunications, etc. For more information on the history of when was cyber security recognized as a national issue review the attached link.

As notes in the Judging the cyber war terrorist threat: The New Yorker; the pentagon has formally recognized cyber war as a new domain of warfare. Which raises the question where does the battlefield begin and where does it end. If the military is operating in "cyberspace," does that include civilian computers in American homes? What happened to the good old fashion face to face war? Are we ready for this? How do we all protect ourselves? We all should be very concern with what we each put on Facebook, twitter, etc. of each of our information which could be used against us or our nation.

The Internet is Harming Print Media

As soon as I read that this blog post was open, I got really excited because I have a strong opinion and attitude towards this topic. I am going to focus on how the Internet is harming the print media. The reason why I have such a big opinion towards this topic is because I can relate to it. My brother graduated from Michigan State University with a Journalism degree. The whole time my brother was in school, my parents would tell him that maybe he should switch his major before it is too late. They weren't telling him this because they didn't think he could make it as a journalist, but because of how much print media has died the past few years. The main reason for it dying is because of the Internet. The Internet allows people to learn about information whenever they want to receive it. This information can include news, sports, entertainment, music, etc... Back to brother's situation, he graduated from MSU with a 3.6 grade point average in journalism. However, once he graduated, he couldn't find a job that related to journalism. He has found a job that is through marketing because of his experience in college but he wished he would of received a job through journalism. Overall, the Internet has "OUT-POWERED" the print media, which has led to a downfall in newspaper sales.

Even though I am against the Internet and how they have taken over as the main source to gain access on information, I am a victim of this. When you need to find information as soon as possible, where do you look? Don't worry because I agree with you that it's the Internet. I am not denying that the Internet has a lot of different advancements and advantages over the print media. As soon as a story develops, it is posted all over the Internet before a newspaper can even have it edited and published. Like Clay Shirky said in their article "Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable," "The problem newspapers face isn't that they didn't see the Internet coming...they came up with not just one plan but several." Newspapers saw the Internet coming, but they didn't expect for all of their plans to not work. Shirky put it into perfect reasoning by saying, "The unthinkable scenario unfolded." That is exactly what happened and severely hurt the print media. Everything that the print media planned and set up ended up failing and it gave the Internet a huge advantage.

People continue to ask, "Well, why doesn't the press media and newspaper try to change the dominance of the Internet?" They have tried. They have tried everything in their power to gain improvements and to catch up to the Internet. Shirky says, "Nothing will work. There is no general model for newspapers to replace the one the Internet just broke." So what should journalists and people in my situation do? Nothing. The only thing we can do is hope that print media makes a huge, dramatic comeback that will challenge the Internet. So for now, I will continue to pout and complain about how the Internet has taken the place of print media. But, I will continue to use the Internet for research information and be a hypocrite. I was planning on becoming a journalism major, but smartly changed my mind due to the recent decline in newspapers.

I found this article very interesting because it's another category in which the Internet has officially surpassed newspapers. The Internet has officially surpassed newspapers in advertisements. The link below explains the exact information of newspaper ads compared to internet ads. http://sodarocketmarketing.com/its-official-internet-ads-surpass-newspaper-ads

Traditional Television is Dead to Me

It's been happening for the past couple of years for me- my desire and patience with television has been wearing thin, and I can say with some certainty that it's because of the internet.

I want to watch only a few specific programs, however I find myself scheduling my life around when they're on (which is impractical and downright foolish), and when I do get to it, I get wonderful commercial breaks which lately have prompted me to get up and leave. I don't have time and patience for this. I don't like that I'm paying a monthly bill to get cable television shows that feature about 1/3 of the program time as advertising, and I'd say ~90% of shows that just don't appeal to me.

But I have the internet. Whatever show I want, whenever I want it, and usually higher resolution than the shitty 480i were given on basic cable. I can find essentially everything fast, free, and high quality by a quick google search or a couple invites to a forum. Sometimes it involves a download of something, but even with the amount of media on youtube, you can usually just stream whatever, whenever, and be done with it. Also, no commercial interruptions every 8 minutes.

So here's what I'm leaving the content providers with: cheaper service/pay as you watch, less commercials, and a full menu of all the possible content whenever I want it. Other than that, as my television viewing decreases more and more, I'll probably fall off the bandwagon and give up on it all entirely and they lose a customer. I don't care about their profits and earnings, maybe it's time they took a cut in salary and these actors got paid something reasonable instead of raping our wallets. Just my two cents.