Mike and Mike In the Morning

Podcast/Vlog

Mike and Mike is a video podcast which can be found on Itunes, on ESPN radio, ESPN or streaming online at ESPN.com. It is a four hour program, daily, which examines anything and everything sports. It looks at all of the major stories in sports each day and brings guests on to weigh in on these issues. Since it is also a radio program, the podcast also features call-ins from listeners. The some is very entertaining, as the personalities of the show hosts blend humor with in-depth sports knowledge. The podcast/vlog has a high level of credibility because it is a sports program featured on ESPN, which is the worldwide leader in sports. Additionally, one of the hosts, Mike Golic, is a former football player and announcer. The guests on the program range from sports legends to comedians.

Goal

The goal of the program is to bring the most important and current issues in sports to light. The program is fully effective in this goal for a number of issues. Firstly, the program is hosted by qualified hosts, with great personalities. Their qualifications give them credibility and their personalities make them enjoyable to listen to. Secondly, they are a part of the ESPN network which is the most trusted name in sports. Having the most prominent morning sports program on ESPN is another indicator of their effectiveness to examine the hot topics in sports.
Finally, they are effective because they are able to get the top guests in all of sports to talk about the issues. Many of these issues involve the guests they bring on, which makes them able to have source information as part of their program. Below is a sample of one of their programs which fully reveals the entertainment aspect of their program. It is an interview with comedian Frank Caliendo, and it is a mixture of sports and entertainment. Perhaps it is their willingness to mix humor and news which has made them one of the most successful podcast on ESPN.

Joran vs. Joran

In this blog I will compare two blogs written about the same current event. The goal is to determine credibility. Additionally, part of the equation will be looking at this notion of "content vs. connect" and how it plays a role in the credibility of these blogs.

Background

The current event that is at the center of this weeks blog is about Joran Van Der Sloot. He is most infamously known for this possible role in the murder of Natalee Holloway in Aruba. After a series of confessions and retractions, he caused must frustration and outrage in the public. He would never serve time for the crime as he was never convicted.



On May 30th, five years after Holloway's death, a woman named Stephany Tatiana was found murdered in Peru. Video evidence linked Sloot to the scene of the crime and he became the number one suspect. On June 7th he confessed to the killings, and later retracted this statement. I will be comparing two blogs which covered this story: one entertainment and one news.


Perez Hilton.com and Anderson Cooper 360.com both covered this story. When we look at their coverage of the story, from a credibility standpoint, Anderson Cooper's site is a news story. Yes it was written in a blog section, but it is a news staffer who wrote the story, thus it has all of the professional elements of something you would find on the AP. Perez Hilton, on the other hand, has a different feel to it. The site is an entertainment gossip column, and it isn't intended to have the same writing style or feel as a news blog. That is one of the key reasons I was interested in comparing the two. What struck me was how to the point the Perez Hilton blog was. It gave a lot of the facts of the story, had some quotes in it and has a link to the original AP article. One of the major differences in the two articles is the opinion tidbits you get in Perezs'. It features a picture of Van Der Sloot with the eyes whitened and word "monster" written on it, he comments on his joy of Van Der Sloot likely heading to prison. The CNN one doesn't have that, just facts.

Content vs. Connect

When we compare these two ideas, using the two blogs as the canvass, we can see that both articles, while serving content, really are about connecting us. The Anderson Cooper blog, has features all along the sides and links at the top, to connect the readers to the CNN website and other articles written in the blog. It is trying to attract readers toward other elements of the site, and while that may not be the main goal of how the blog is set up, it is a feature that is readily available to us as consumers. The Perez Hilton blog also enables the audience to connect. It has a link to the original story and links to what is hot in entertainment, on the Perez site, on the right hand column. This isn't a strange thing for either of these sites, because the goal is to get as many eyes as possible to view your content. The way to do that is to connect your audience around the site so they can see stories they would otherwise miss. While CNN is a more trusted and credible news source, I was impressed with the credibility of Hilton's story, even if it was sprinkled with a little bit of opinion.

Your Name's Gonna Be in Lights Kids

Blog Review: Why Movie Openings Are Crucial

This blog was written by multiple authors. The main blog, The Hollywood Blog, is updated once a week with the top story from Hollywood. The blog itself isn't anything out of the ordinary, it uses images and text as the main focus of the site. It doesn't have any other multimedia elements to the site. Now when we look at the content of the blog, in particular the entry "Why Movie Openings are Crucial", I believe the blog proves itself to not be a credible source for information. Firstly, most of their information is secondhand, and just reiterations of events that can be found on other sites. For example, this site posted a story about director Guillermo del Toro not directing The Hobbit, a story many days old by the timer they posted. Additionally, the site is riddled with spelling errors and the article "Why Movie Openings are Crucial" offers nothing beyond the shallow basics of what movie openings illustrate. It may have been written by somebody with the most basic of knowledge about the industry. Finally, the author doesn't even provide their last name, a common theme for the site. While this site may have some interesting information, I recommend you use other sites for breaking Hollywood news.

F is for Fired not Facebook

This post is to examine the controversy of being apart of Web 2.0 social networks. Social networks offer anything and everything to the users. They allow people to connect, job hunt, date and message. What could possibly go wrong? Well, a lot actually. With the dawn of Web 2.0, there is the opportunity to connect with everyone at all times, but that also means you are accessible by anyone and everyone at all times. A problem that has cost many people their jobs.

An example of this occurred in 2009 when an employee of the NFL team the Philadelphia Eagles publicly criticized his team for not resigning one of their players. He was on the social networking site, Facebook, where he posted as his status ""Dan is [expletive] devastated about Dawkins signing with Denver ... Dam Eagles R Retarted!!". Obviously this isn't the most tactful or politically correct way to express your frustration with your employer or for a team you are a fan of. However, the question remains, when you do something outside of work, on a social networking site, are you to be held accountable for your actions? The full story can be found here.

Do the negative consequences that can result from these social networks make them more of a liability than the benefits they possess? Perhaps the operative phrase when examining this dilemma isn't a phrase at all but rather a singular word: responsibility. At one point did people fail to realize that they are responsible for what they put online? Online represents scribing something in stone, once it's up, it's online forever. The man in question clearly did fully understand the consequences of a simple Facebook post, but the sooner people begin to realize what they do online can be seen by everyone, the sooner people may actually be able to exhibit responsibility. It's the only way to avoid the big F.

Facebook: We see the C's

Hello and welcome aboard the B-Train Express. In this blog we will be discussing media, more specifically web 2.0. In this first blog I will look at one of the most famous Web 2.0 "apps", Facebook. I will discuss why this "app" is a Web 2.0 "app" and how the 4 C's of social software apply. Lets get started shall we.

Facebook

When we talk about what constitutes a Web 2.0 app, we need to look at what is at the foundation of the idea of Web 2.0. Essentially, it is this idea of building communities and linking people together instead of information, the primary function for the web upon its birth. If Web 2.0 revolves around this idea of linking people, you can look no further than Facebook. It is a website designed to link people from all over the globe, together. One of the most basic functions of Facebook is creating your group of friends, who you can contact. The site will provide any updates your friends make, and can allow you to invite these friends to events you create. Of course Facebook is a lot more than these most basic functions, but these have been the functions from the beginning of Facebook. They are the things that don't change during Facebook's continuing evolution. The reason? These are the functions which are the mission statement of Facebook, connecting people, which is also the mission statement of Web 2.0. View Here

4C's

Communication, Cooperation, Collaboration, Connection

Communication

This is the idea of enabling people on the "app" to converse with one another using "text, image, voice or video- or a combination of these. Examples include discussion forums, blogs, instant messaging, social presence and virtual world". Facebook pretty much has you covered in every one of these departments.

Instant Messaging

Virtual World

These are just a few examples of how Facebook integrates the idea of communication into it's structure.

Cooperation

This is the idea of people being able to share content with one another. This content may be photos, videos or thoughts/ideas. Facebook does a very good job of integrating this "C" into their set up. Additionally, it is both structured and unstructured by enabling you to organize photos into albums,

or post content on your friend's wall.

Collaboration

This is the one "C" that is a little dicey as to the together of it's functionality found within Facebook. Facebook can be used as a way to moderate arguments between people, personal experience tells me this. However, the main functions of Facebook don't serve collaboration nearly as well as it serves the other C's. Sorry Facebook, but your good at other things, like Dolphin Olympics.



Connection

Ah yes, the bread and butter of Facebook, connection. This served as the founding notion for Harvard nerds who created her. Facebook was a tool intended to connect the classmates at Harvard. It has grown to much more than that, which we have seen. However, one of the main functions and reasons for people to get onto Facebook is to stay connected, be it with friends or family members (weird but true). If we are talking about Facebook as a social networking site, well it is and it isn't. It isn't the traditional go to site like Linkdin is. It caters to a much younger audience and the capabilities of Facebook aren't as business oriented as these "professional" networking sites. So can Facebook serve as a social networking site? Sure. Would it be recommended for that purpose? No, unless you just want a summer job and your friend is hiring.

Facebook follows many elements of the 4C guide, but based on who it targets and what its objectives are, it follows some more than others. It still remains one of the number one Web 2.0 "apps" out there because it has learned how to evolve over time. It's hip, it's fun, it must be Facebook.