Contributed by Jill Keskimaki
Last Friday (04/21), students gathered in Old Main 12 for the final Communication Symposium of the semester. The symposium was held during Dr. Casey R. Schmitt’s Introduction to Mass Media course, but the conversation was open for anyone to join. Lindsey Vagnini, a senior communication student, was the guest speaker for the event. She gave a brief presentation, followed by a Q&A session with the group. She discussed her experience with the program here at Lakeland University, as well as her various internship experiences. In her three years at Lakeland, Lindsey has had six different internships in which she developed a variety of skills, from selling ads to managing social media accounts to having conversations with the grieving families of hospice patients. Through those opportunities she has learned many valuable skills, but she credits much of her success to her love for communication and the natural ability that she already had. She explained, “If you find something that you like, something you enjoy doing, and that you have a natural talent for, go with that. You can always build skill, but when you’re naturally good at something, you’re always going to excel.” Professor Schmitt closed the symposium by explaining that everybody has communication people on staff. There may be few communication companies, but all organizations and businesses of any size have a communication department. Vagnini added, “The door is open to any field—everyone needs someone to communicate for them effectively, to be their ‘mouthpiece.’” Congratulations to Lindsey and all LU 2017 graduates! For more information about the communication program, or if you have comments or questions, leave a comment below or contact Professor Schmitt at [email protected].
0 Comments
Contributed by Jill Keskimaki
Last Friday, the third Communication Symposium of the semester was held in the 1862 Lounge. This new location allowed for the relaxed, free-form style of conversation that is encouraged within the atmosphere of the symposium. With the NCAA basketball tournament recently underway, symposium participants had a lengthy discussion about the massive media event that is “March Madness.” The conversation started with various explanations for why it is worthwhile to broadcast sports—whether it is for the public interest or simply interesting to the public. Many attendees agreed that sports have a unifying quality, giving people a sense of belonging when they become passionate about a certain team. Another appeal to sports is that the results of an athletic competition are not open for interpretation; it’s all there in the final score: one team won, and the other lost. One student called attention to the difference between the competition found in sports and that of politics, stating that when watching sports, people have no trouble looking to an athlete and saying, “I really dislike them, but they’re good at what they do,” whereas in politics, you rarely, if ever, hear, “I really dislike them, but I agree with their policies.” If sports media are important because they allow millions of people to watch a game, why isn’t a single livestream camera sufficient? Many argue that the programming that we see on television provides crucial information that isn’t seen in the stadium or arena, such as commentary, graphics, and sideline reports. These extra features get the audience excited about the game, give context to the conflict, and keep people entertained when there is a dull or quiet moment in the game. To anyone who watches sports on TV, it is clear to see that most of these commentators are men, which leads to another topic of discussion in the symposium. Are sports media sexist? When women are hired, is it for sex appeal? Or is it the simple fact that sports were historically male-dominated? Erin Andrews, a well-known, knowledgeable football reporter, has always been a sideline reporter instead of a panelist. Aside from the commentators, sports media in general seem to place more value on men’s sports than women’s. This is still a highly debated issue, one about which the participants of the communication symposium had a lot to say. Some argued that men’s sports are more combative than women’s; therefore, they are more entertaining. Others argued that it comes down to money: men’s sports have a bigger audience, so the media will cater to them instead of the smaller audiences who watch women’s sports. Many agreed that as time goes on, we will begin to see more female reporters, and perhaps even see women playing in the men’s professional leagues. The conversation started by describing how sports are unifying, but yet people tend to get defensive and divisive when they are passionate about a specific player, team, or sport. Take, for example, the NFL rivalry between the Packers and Bears. Fans of each team feel strongly one way or another and refuse to budge. The Olympics, however, seem to bring people together, unifying them with patriotism and spirit. Sports communication is the fastest growing area of media-based communication, so we will likely see some big changes in the near future. Where do you see the future of sports communication? Do you think sports media are indeed sexist? Are sports more unifying or divisive? Leave a comment below! Contributed by Willie Franke and Jill Keskimaki Dr. Casey R. Schmitt hosted the second Communication Symposium of the semester this morning, where Lakeland community members gathered to discuss communication aspects of the upcoming Academy Awards. Of all the symposia Schmitt has hosted throughout his time at Lakeland, this is the first to focus on movies as a medium. The group discussed issues surrounding the Academy Awards such as race and gender, how the winners for each category are chosen, and common themes among the films nominated for best picture. A major talking point was the fact that there are non-white people nominated in the acting categories, after two years in a row with all-white nominations. Students discussed diversity in the film industry and whether or not they thought it was reflected in The Oscars. Schmitt brought up the thought-provoking point that perhaps the issue goes back to Hollywood casting—that white actors are more likely to be nominated for the awards since they are offered more roles. It was mentioned that the group of people who make up the Academy—those who vote for the winners of each category, may be biased or have connections to the nominated filmmakers and actors, creating a flaw in the system. Of the nearly 30 people present, only a handful had seen any of the films nominated for Best Picture. That fact led to a discussion about what makes a movie “good” vs. what makes a movie “popular.” Most of the nominated films were not top-grossing films of the year, meaning that those that did make the most money were not nominated for Best Picture. After briefly summarizing each film, there was a theme emerging. Multiple films feature family issues, particularly broken families. Schmitt closed the session by urging everyone to pay attention to the Academy Awards in one way or another. “Even if you’re not into movies, if you’re interested in communication, I encourage you to follow the coverage on social media. Watch for hashtags, pay attention to who wins, and look for common themes in the winning films.” |
SymposiaOn this page, you'll find summaries of each Symposium held by the Communication program. Archives
April 2017
Categories |