From FMMC0104
Revision as of 11:39, 23 November 2010 by Jason Mittell (talk | contribs) (Report #1)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Report #1

This report outlines some solid details about CNN, with a clear structure. Your account is too descriptive, lacking in analysis of the significance of the details you mention, and overlooking some key issues like target audience, funding base, and strategies to distinguish the channel amongst its competitors. Be sure to proofread more thoroughly for typos and proper use of italics of TV titles. Your presentation had some good points, but tended to be a bit vague and lacking in analysis. --Jason Mittell 02:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Report #2 and 3

These reports raise some good points and issues, but feel underdeveloped in terms of detailed analysis. In the discussion of the programs, you do not sufficiently explore the shows' form and content, or strategies behind the programs in depth. In the report on online strategies, your discussion of the core website is too vague, and the iReport is underanalyzed in terms of the trends in citizen journalism and viewer participation. You should proofread for grammar & clarity, and fix the citation format in the third report. Your presentations were mixed - the 3rd was effective and clear, while the 2nd was too vague in details and structure. --Jason Mittell 15:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)