Response to Klosterman

I have to admit... Klostermans article was highly unexpected on my behalf. Even after reading it, I can see he has valid arguments against "canned laughter" but I didn't think it was as serious as he made it seem. There were some things I can agree with such as ideas like the laugh track being used to cover up poorly written scripts. I can only agree because I feel as if they direct you to laugh at certain or all jokes that are intentionally set to be funny and have the potential to not be laughed at. I also agree with the idea that in general, people tend to laugh as a reflex; and I use that term lightly, people laugh when they want to. I think his analysis of the fake laughter is a bit extensive. For example: the representation of people’s insecurities. The laugh box can certainly stand for something-but a root for insecurity is beyond belief. If he wants someone to believe this, I feel, he needs add more supporting information. Also to say that normal people don’t have the confidence to actually know what is true is in my opinion insulting. I actually like laugh tracks because they make the show seem funnier… especially if I already like the show.

Response to Klosterman

I have to admit... Klostermans article was highly unexpected on my behalf. Even after reading it, I can see he has valid arguments against "canned laughter" but I didn't think it was as serious as he made it seem. There were some things I can agree with such as ideas like the laugh track being used to cover up poorly written scripts. I can only agree because I feel as if they direct you to laugh at certain or all jokes that are intentionally set to be funny and have the potential to not be laughed at. I also agree with the idea that in general, people tend to laugh as a reflex; and I use that term lightly, people laugh when they want to. I think his analysis of the fake laughter is a bit extensive. For example: the representation of people’s insecurities. The laugh box can certainly stand for something-but a root for insecurity is beyond belief. If he wants someone to believe this, I feel, he needs add more supporting information. Also to say that normal people don’t have the confidence to actually know what is true is in my opinion insulting. I actually like laugh tracks because they make the show seem funnier… especially if I already like the show.

Interview annotated bib

Sietsema, Robert. "Everyone Eats." Journal of Public Relations Research 48.5 (2010): 42-46. Communication and Mass Media Complete. Jan/Feb. 2011.


This article is about the drastic change in the way restaurants are critiqued. The process started with one man and a limited number of restaurants with a standard process for giving the readers the truth about the service and food of each. Throughout the duration of the article the author names a number of critics that continued to alter the original system of reviewing. The system eventually defied the principles originated by Claiborne and became a commercial franchise. 
The topic of the article in my opinion does not directly relate to journalism research, but the material within the article relates instead. The critic that created the rating system, Claiborne, was a New York Times columnist  and so were the rest of the people who came after him and changed the system. The author did research on the timeline of the restaurant reviewing system. The change went from a section of the newspaper to magazines and internet blogs.  He also had to do research on the change in the way restaurants adapted to being critiqued. In the beginning restaurants went from not knowing they were being reviewed to hosting special dinners for the bloggers.  

Attached to Technology and Paying a Price

The first thing I must say about this article is that it hits so close to home for me. The stories about the Campbell family are somewhat related to my family in the sense that my sister and I are for the most part computer savvy. My father is getting better but he is always on his Blackberry and laptop sending e-mails and reading and looking stuff up. My sister started with the techie stuff and I followed right behind her. No matter the circumstance we have to stay up to date with our phones. That's number one. Then once we have them, there's no separating us from them. It has become so bad that we will text each other (parents included) from the same house and sometimes even the same room. My parents noticed how much we are on our phones, so during dinner time the one rule we have is that there are no technological devices allowed at the table, except for the T.V. that sits on the kitchen counter. But getting back to the article, the technological divide that is happening is a bit scary. To know the facts about how many hours of media is consumed and that some people check e-mails 37 times an hour is crazy to me. Multitasking is also a big thing the article talks about. many people believe that they can do any 3 or 4 things at a time but to much avail, many people can't focus on doing 1 thing at a time. There are plenty of times that I have heard stories about how many hours individuals have spent on Twitter and Facebook and they didn't even notice. Lots of people get wrapped up in doing one thing until the world around them becomes a big blur, and nothing else matters. Im sure this is how car accidents occur with people who text and even talk on the phone when driving; so its not surprising. This article in general does not come in complete shock of the ability or lack thereof, when it comes to people multitasking with technology. The shock factors are the study results and facts that stem from it.