The internet has had a huge effect on media writing. One example of this is how journalism has been changed. Before the internet, journalists would be criticized next issue in editorials if anywhere, now they have to deal with comments on their posts instantly and 24/7 (11). Also, new things popularized by the internet such as ARGs have changed fiction writing, because you now have to account for and reference things explained and discovered in ones such as this Lost ARG. These are just some of the examples of how the internet and its associated culture have greatly changed writing over the last few years.
2. The trend away from the individual and towards corporate ownership.
These days, nearly every outlet is corporate owned in some way. The consolidation started in the 90s and now six companies own an overwhelming majority of media outlets in the country. This is one of the defining characteristics of the US media landscape.
In the book, Hilliard talks about how in radio, the decisions on what gets played in a market has reversed it's trend, and now is almost uniformly decided by an external corporate planner (305). In my opinion, this is a bad thing. Local content should be decided locally, not by some suit in an office in Manhattan or LA.
3. The fact that companies aim at the LCD or lowest common denominator
I have always somewhat been aware of this. In fact, my parents always talk about this when we see something stupid come on TV. I guess it makes sense from a production point of view, as you are spending money, and you naturally want to get the most return from your money. This is the reason according to Hilliard, who says that in TV, people generally write and produce for the LCD because it gives them the broadest audience (3). I think this kind of programming really brings us down as a nation though. I mean, I enjoy watching some lowbrow TV every once and a while, but some people watch it all the time. Shows like "Jersey Shore" also make us look stupid internationally.
4. The variety of scripting formats for the variety of formats.
It makes sense, but nearly every type of programming, regardless of medium, has its own specific scripting format. This way, the script can be carefully tailored to the needs of the format.
Different mediums have different needs, for instance, a radioscript has no need for any sort of camera directions. Putting them in there would only take up space, but a TV or movie script requires them. Hilliard mentions how there are several common types of script, ranging from the single column format that is generally used in radio, to the two column TV script, and the consecutively numbered film and screenplay format (50).5. The need to understand your audience.
Writers get nowhere if they don't understand the people the are aiming their writing at. Knowing your demos is just as important as knowing what you are writing about.
If you don't understand the audience then you risk offending them or just not getting to them. In the book, it talks about how differently the same message can be taken by people in different situations and demographics, and how you need to stress certain parts of the message in order to appeal to different demos.(4-5)
6. How scripted so called "Reality" TV is.
I had always thought that reality tv was more or less unscripted. I knew that some of the content was more or less created though editing, but I didn't know how much, and how it was edited to create a story, rather than edited to show a story that developed on its own. According to the book however, the writers and editors and producers all sit down together and create the content by selective editing to create the story we see. They do all this after the fact, but still, the reality we see is the reality they construct for us (253).
8. The amount of background work in interviews.
Interviews always seemed spontaneous to me. I figured that the interviewer had come up with a list of questions to ask based on the current stuff dealing with the person they were interviewing, and that the first time that the interviewee heard the questions was when they were actually being interviewed. This is not so, according to the book, which claims that interviewees are often treated to a "preinterview" which briefs them on the questions they are to be asked in varying degrees (269). It seems like this somehow cheapens interviews to me. If the person is prepared for the questions, how do we know they are honest answers, and not prepared ones?
9. The difficulty of adapting something for television or film
One of the hardest things to do successfully is to take something like a book and bring it to the big or small screen. When you do this, you are already getting judged against something, and it is generally something already popular or critically acclaimed, unpopular books are generally not adapted. You have to contend with a legion of fans who are going to get you for the smallest canonical mistakes. Your work will not be judged on it's own merits. Hilliard talks about other pitfalls such as following too closely, and the difficulties of having to show everything and explain nothing inherent to screen media (433). Its often interesting to see our favorite books and plays on the big screen, but I wouldn't want to be the person in charge of bringing it there.
10. My final and maybe most important revelation: The importance of sound.
When we watch something, our mind probably focuses on the visual. It is moving around, its there in front of us, and it draws our attention and mind. However, the video is really almost secondary to the sound. Without sound working the way it should, our suspension and focus is ruined. Good sound can make or break a video. Sound sells a scene, and can cover up other problems. In addition to this, sound is huge in terms of ambiance. Hilliard talks about how music can add to the mood and content, but must be used subtlety, or it can distract (42). In the Transformers trailer I post along with this, you can see how the presence of absences of background music can really change the mood.
