Welcome, JOUR 101! Let me make this brief...
Photo by Roslan Rahman/AFP/Getty Images
I'm a firm believer in the Arial font, so that's primarily what you'll see on these pages. As we dig deeper into mass communication and mass media, you'll notice just how much traditional journalism has changed and is changing by the millisecond. Although our attention spans have decreased, we'll burn through hours of time reading or playing videos or viewing content that we like. Take this Slate.com article by Farhad Manjoo: "You Won't Finish This Article – Why people online don't read to the end."
Read the article and write a response to it, in no less than about five paragraphs. In your response, answer the following questions:
1) What's your initial impression after reading the article?
2) What point is the writer making?
3) How valid do you think the research is?
4) Would the writer's point have been strong without the research? Why or why not?
5) Acquaint yourself with the Slate.com website. Generally, how would you characterize the site's articles, the style in which they're written, and their topics?
Your original response is due here by 8 a.m. Friday, 28 June. As a contributor to this blog, please respond to this post to submit your response. Spelling, grammar and other style conventions always apply.
After reading this article I feel as is the author was making more facts then just stating what the people will do. He kept stating that the readers will keep on decreasing the more they read the article, he was showing certain percentages as the readers that will either keep reading or stop reading.
ReplyDeleteThe writer is making a point that the readers all have short attention spans and can not hold there attention for to long especially if they are not reading a interesting topic. Certain readers have there own certain interest and it will show because some will stop reading if it is not a interesting topic to them.
I feel that this article is very valid because I actually have stopped reading a article if it is not something that keeps my interest. My attention span will get shorter depending on what I am reading and how it catches my interest.
No, I feel as if he did not have the research it would not be as valid because he could of been just stating that someone has a short attention span. The research behind this article set off the article because it shows different percentages of where people will stop reading.
I feel like it is pretty reliable and the topics are issues that readers would want to know about. It is a website that will have readers wondering what they will write about next.
Once I finished reading the article, I felt as if I was called out. I am guilty of almost all those percentages he mentioned throughout the text. If I don't find something interesting or relevant to my life within the first couple sentences, my attention span is gone and I do not hesitate to move on to something I find more important.
ReplyDeleteThe point the writer is trying to make is human attention spans are short to begin with, not to mention when they are reading something that does not interest the reader. The writer was trying to make people more aware of what they were doing, because most people stop reading the article without even noticing, like he stated, the scrollers.
After looking over all the research, I feel that the research is very accurate. Referencing back to my first paragraph where I stated, I am in fact guilty of doing all these things. Many times I have stopped reading two sentences into an article or shared an article before I even finished reading it myself.
The research the writer added made this article a reliable point rather than just another theory some guy came up with. Without the research, this point would not have gone unacknowledged but with the research it is a very knowledgeable and interesting article.
After going on the Slate website I got the feeling that they really are careful about picking their stories and they are all very reliable. Also, it's a site I can see myself referencing in the future.
After reading the article I was laughing at myself and agreeing with the writer. It intrigues me that Slate did an intensive analysis on the actions of those who visited the website. Evaluation is key to success and Slates studies could help journalist better keep the reader engaged.
ReplyDeleteThe point the author is trying to make is very apparant. He is stating that most people when reading an online article will quit reading before they reach the bottom from numerous reasons like: getting distracted, not interested anymore, or just too lazy. By providing evidence with a hint of sarcasm, the author gets his point into the readers head.
I think the research is very valid because im one of the readers he is describing. This generation of people are very involved with technology therefore giving many reasons for distractions. I also see first hand on my social media newsfeed that many people dont recieve the whole story but read what they want and immediately share.
If the writer would not have constantly provided me with statistics and facts from a legitiment anaysis done, I would not have been as interested as i was. I would have questioned his article thinking it was a rant on the internet of someones bias opinions.
When looking through the webstie I realized how diverse their news is. Im interested in visting a site for news in all areas because im interesting in many different kinds of things from the arts to sports, like many other people are. I also noticed their information looks very accurate and reliable and thats what the people want.
My initial impression after reading this article was just completely shocked and discouraged. The reason being that Manjoo was so blunt, too the point, and just stated the facts. It's really disheartening information that I read about today's society, but the truth hurts. Unfortunately I also realized that I so happen to have fallen into society's majority a few times. This article left me just feeling like the average individual and not someone who desires a major in journalism.
ReplyDeleteThe point the writer is trying to make is that very few people in today's society take the road less traveled by and tend to stick with things that perk their interests. They rather just re-learn a topic they already know then to find a place in their minds to store new knowledge. The author believes this is due to our shortened attention span because it's harder for the average human to focus on something if they don't have any interest in the topic.
This article felt extremely valid to me as a reader because Manjoo used interviews, graphs, percentages, etc. Every bit of information he provided was back up by some other source. However the graphs made the article for me because it was the truth displayed right in front of your eyes and you cant argue with them. Also, he interviewed Josh Swartz who was experienced in another similar analysis; which seemed like he knew what he was doing. The writer made me feel like his article was right from the textbook and 100% valid.
However, If he had not had those extras to back up his information I would've just thought it was a rant about the corruption of today's society. He wouldn't of had any form of validation and all of his points would just crumble. As a reader I would've stopped reading because it would make me feel like he was just making me feel guilty for no reason. Also, I believe that Slate wouldn't have allowed the article to be published due to his lack of evidence.
Many of Slate's articles have pictures at the top in order to grab the reader's attention. They also have a variety of topics for readers to choose from so that they won't have to read a topic that doesn't spark their interests. Most of the articles are written pretty informally with bits of humor and are not more than 2 pages at most. The fact that Slate also contains videos and photos is very convenient if the person viewing the site isn't much of a reader. As a whole I think Slate offers a large variety of topics that will spark most readers interests as well as offering shorter articles for the average individual's attention span.
When I first opened the browser to view this article, I knew that I was not going to be very interested in reading it. Even though the author had made some valid points, (mostly to ones that I could personally relate to)I still felt as if he was explaining something that was already a given fact about some of today's online media viewers.
ReplyDeleteThe writer's motive for the article is quite obvious. He wants to set awareness to how today's generation is getting out of touch with the "basics" of information media. The generation not longer wants to read the information, but instead find out the main topics of the information with little or no reading as much as possible. After all this is a fast pace society and time is of the essence.
In my opinion, the research would be considered somewhat valid. The author could have more information besides charts. For example, the author could have had quotes from different people validating his assumption about today's online media viewers having short attention spans when reading articles.
However, for this particular article, I think that it could have survived on it's on without the outside information. When the author began his text, he introduced it with more of a comical feel instead of wanting the article to be solely based on providing facts. Although nothing is wrong with having a comical feel to an article, I just felt as if he did not provide a balance between the two.
On Slate.com it offers a variety of articles, pictures, and videos to spark a online viewers interest. The articles are not long and seem to get to the main point of the topic at hand.
As I was reading this article, I myself wanted to "bounce" and get on with life. I would have left the article after the fifth paragraph just like the other readers Farhood Manjoo assumed to leave the page. As I kept on reading though, I realized that Manjoo made an excellent point in his example about drowning. I don't read all of the important facts. I was impressed that you could calculate reader behavior online. I was also slightly surprised by the number of viewers that also "bounced," but I knew that I was not the only one.
ReplyDeleteManjoo is simply stating that the people get distracted easily and have a short attention span. I completely agree with him. With the environment I live in and the technology I have access to these days, it is difficult to not get distracted.
Manjoo's research is quite accurate I would say, especially since I was one of the readers that would have been bored with the article and left the page. The examples he used were great references as well as the analysis from Chartbeat. They both supported his point about viewer's short attention span and our lack of concentration.
No, the writer's point would not have been strong without the research. Without Schwartz's data and Chartbeat's analysis there is nothing to support Manjoo's point that as Schwartz clearly states, "readers can't stay focus."
Like most news websites, Slate.com is very organized and has several interesting and unique news. The articles are clever and are not your same old daily news, the style is easy to read and comprehendible, and their topics are unique and interesting. I may start referring to Slate.com for news.
Allison Brooks
ReplyDeleteMy initial impression of the article is that it spends way too much time talking about how a lot of people have already stopped reading and how we will not be around for long. It drags that out way too much, making me bored and wanting to quit reading already. If he got to the point and stopped lingering on how many people stopped reading, it would be more interesting and make me want to continue. However, it was shocking that so very few people finish articles.
The writer is making the point that most people do not finish articles online because there is too many distracting things. Also, most of the articles that people repost, they haven't even read all the way through themselves.
I think it is pretty valid because of Schwartz' analysis. The data seems accurate and the charts give us a better understanding as well.
No, the writer's point would not have been as strong without the research. People cannot believe everything they read. There are all sorts of false facts and rumors throughout the web that people do not trust. With the research, it shows us proof that they researched it and looked into it.
There are articles of many different categorized topics/areas. There is a variety of articles written by different people.
Janelle Santarpio
ReplyDeleteAfter reading “You wont finish this article” my initial impression was surprised. I can’t explain if I was shocked at the fact of how right he was or how people these days literally skim through everything they read and never take the time to actually finish something they’ve already started. I also felt in a way that he was calling me out because I hate reading and most of the time if the writing doesn’t intrigue me after the first paragraph ill just either close out of the website or skim quickly over the last of it to see what happens.
The point the writer is trying to make is that humans today don’t take the time or have the attention span to sit down and read articles that don’t interest them. They would much rather be doing things that appeal to them because many times they feel as though they are wasting their time, and time these days are precious.
After taking a second glance at the research of this article I feel as though the research is more of theory than statistically correct. I do think that the author of this does have the write idea about how if writing doesn’t catch the readers eye within the first paragraph that they either give up or zone out while reading the rest of the article.
This article brings up a valid point of how people of the decode do give up on things that don’t interest them. People are very careful about what they chose and do not chose to read these days.