Group items tagged

It's crazy to think how much narrowcasting and broadcasting often go hand in hand without us knowing. Not to mention how mind-boggling it is to think just how many different groups of people are affected, whether it's a political group, or even an ethnic group. It's begs the question of what group you might be included in when it comes to narrowcasting.

The article starts by defining narrowcasting and giving Fox News as being an example, as it is known for being a conservative new station. This article is interesting as it states that narrowcasting is detrimental to society as it "leads to narrow minds which is very dangerous to a society."

I thought narrowcasting is just an effective way of delivering information to a certain group of people, but this article points out the dangerousness of it, which is the bad influence that people can get by just getting one point of view

This article gives examples of narrowcasting in our American politics. It gives examples of our Presidents that have been affected by it. 

Great article, I did not realize that narrowcasting had such an effect on the voters outlook. It is interesting that someone that is not a participant in specific party can get so lost in politics because broad ideas are no longer being discussed compared to narrow ideas that are biased to one side of the debate.

This is a very percise article about narrowcasting. It exemplifies very well what we are discussing in class and gives awesome examples on what narrowcasting is, especially in politics. It also breaks down how to identify different types of narrowcasting and how the media may be potentially trying to manipulate Americans.

I thought this was interesting as it compared and contrasted broadcasting and narrowcasting. It helped me better understand their correlation. The article shows that narrowcasting tends to be a better marketing strategy.

I also agree with sebasgm. This was a very interesting article in the way that it not only defines but also puts the two ideas against one another.

Seeing the graph, I think narrowcasting will be more effective for companies or certain groups that need to gain profit from a narrow group. For me, I think narrowcasting works better.

Summarizes the benefits of narrowcasting and how it is much more efficient than broadcasting.

It's interesting that this article says narrowcasting is the dominant method of marketing in today's markets. I agree with the writer in that narrowcasting is more effective.

This article talks about advantages and disadvantages of narrowcasting and how it works together with the public

Advertisements in narrowcasting are often more effective than in broadcasting because a lot of the ads are related to what the show is about.

This video is a good example of right wing narrowcasting. It is obvious that this is directed to Fox News viewers. Not all Fox News viewer would agree with the statements made on this video. This is more focused to anti-Islam and anti-Obama supporters. The language used by the newscaster is very specific and persuasive. It is generalizing and directly connecting Islam with terrorism. Here is an example: "Islamic killers are the central problem on this planet." In my opinion these are radical ideas themselves. It shows some evidence and pictures relating Obama with Islam. These are there to tie Obama to the negativeness that the newscaster has already said about Islam. We can see that this is an example of narrowcasting because this will not appeal to most people. It will most likely appeal to a certain group of people which this video was made for.

As we know, freedom of speech is an example of a Civil Right. Many countries do not allow bias media to be published, or if they do allow it, it is usually for their own benefit. This video and some ideas expressed could be offensive to some people and many would not like it (me.) But this is one of the beauties of this country. I could respond to this video with something bias on my side without a consequence from the other party that will endanger my security. Sometimes the picture could get dirty or might not be pretty, but at the end of the day it is something we should be grateful for, civil rights.

Narrowcastingg is explained in this article by talking about the abstract method of which people go about narrowcasting. With that, it talks about the main intentions of narrowcasting and why that is and is not beneficial to America.

The author of this article is saying that even though narrowcasting is addressing less people, the viewers are emotionally connected to what they're watching because they're truly interested. Furthermore, the ads are related to what they are interested in for the most part.

This is a prezi that simply compares and contrasts broadcasting and narrowcasting. It shows the definition, pros and cons, and details of the two methods.

Broadcasting is said to be conventional. The article says that narrowcasting is based on the post modern idea that mass audiences do not exist.

Cable television is a Great example of Narrowcasting because people only see the channels they pay for, and many channels are aimed towards people with particular interests, opinions or preferences. Fox News and CNN are channels aimed towards news. You could go even further and talk about each of those channels appealing to a certain kind of person. Fox news appeals to more conservative viewers, where CNN has more Liberal Viewers. You also have ESPN, Home and Garden, History Channel, Food network and Comedy Central. All aimed towards a certain group of people.

I think it is important to identify the distinct differences between Narrowcasting and Broadcasting, as well as when each one can be useful. This is a very helpful website.

Chris Cramer is Global Editor of Multimedia at Reuters News and has editorial oversight of Reuters Insider, a multimedia information service for Thomson Reuters financial service subscribers that will be launched this year. Media organizations the world over are currently focusing on the future of their businesses.

I think news are always going to be relevant so broadcasting is always going to have a place in the market.

Something that I came to mind when reading this if we completely eliminate broadcasting will it create a bias between interests or the types of shows shown? Just something to think about.

This video is an example of "broadcasting." This has less of personal opinions and it is more factual. This means that it appeals to a wider audience (which is the definition for it.) This CNN video shows the second plane hitting the WTC in New York during 9/11. This is something that most people will listen. Why? Because it is factual rather than bias. I think that current events fall more in the broadcasting rather than the narrowcasting. The aftermath of these could fall into narrowcasting. An example of this is the previous video I posted on Obama and Islam. Please comment if you have any other thoughts on this.

Verizon is reportedly tampering with its users' data, allowing advertisers to learn about them whenever they browse the web on its network. I found this interesting because it is almost like Verizon is slowly changing their broadcasting into narrowcasting

This upcoming election will involve narrowcasting on behalf of both parties to selected audiences

This blog article shows a form of narrowcasting, Facebook, and the huge effect of it in politics.

I agree with the article, at the same time Facebook can not be blamed for its influence. As an advertisement based function, Facebook is more or less forced to submit to certain political advertisements and political groups.

Broadcasters political bias affects what news they report, as such, it transforms them into narrowcasters.

This is a clip from the GOP debate last month. Many people watched this debate both republican and democrat. This is a moment where Carson and Trump appealed to voters who are against or unsure about vaccinations, and because of that this is an example of Narrowcasting.