In my personal opinion, the most effective platform for covering the game was the gamecast video. The reason I say this is because the gamecast video gives the audience both an audio and visual representation of the game. While there are other types of platforms that also offer an audio and visual representation of the game, the gamecast coverage is live which means you are experiencing the game as it happens. The most effective platform in terms of conveying information is the post-game wrap up because it sums up the game as well as gives statistics on player performance. The game card is also effective in terms of conveying information. The most effective platform in terms of entertainment is the gamecast video because it gives the viewer the full spectrum of the game, including the halftime show and commercials. No other platform comes close to offering the level of entertainment that the gamecast video provides. I feel that the game-card is a bad platform of covering the game because it does not give the audience a visual or audio representation of the game. If you were to read the game-card of the Super Bowl, the reader would have no idea about the historic events that took place.
The most effective platform for covering the game was the gamecast video. This method of coverage allows people to watch the game live and also see and hear exactly what is going on. Instead of just listening to radio updates, you are able to use both sight and sound to get an accurate representation of the game. I believe the gamebook was the most effective in conveying information because there was no bias and it was just straight facts. It allows people to quickly see the numbers associated with the game. In my opinion, the most entertaining is still the gamecast video. The least entertaining was definitely the gamebook because it was hard to understand and only contained numbers, no commentary or visuals. The television shows were the least effective because they are very biased and often times the people making commentary do not really know what is going on. For example in the show we watched, there was a woman sitting in the middle who was just listening to everyone talk without adding any important or insightful information. The other people in the show we very biased towards a certain team and let their personal opinions get in the way of their reporting.
I believe that the best media coverage of the superbowl was the game cast video. I say this because it includes all of the other aspects of coverage. For example, the radio coverage provided detailed audio coverage of the game. Other sources such as the play by play chart included detail about what happened in each play. The problem with those two formats is that there is no visual of the game. Without the visual aspect, the game is not as exciting of an experience. This is why I believe that the most effective coverage of the game was the game cast because it included detailed information about statistics of players, as well as details regarding what occurred in each play. It is also very exciting, and entertaining to be able to watch the game. The visual aspect is so important because for someone like myself who does not understand football all that well, it was of much assistance in understanding the game to actually see what was happening. Another reason for this being the best coverage of the game, is because it was very straight forward, and contained direct facts. In other forms of coverage such as game reviews on various sports networks, there was a lot of opinion, and bias. An example is in one of the tv show reviews of the game, there was debate regarding if a touchdown should have counted. While this is an interesting aspect of the game to cover, It does not depict the game for what it really was unlike the game cast video. This is why the game cast video was by far the most effective form of game coverage media in regards to entertainment, truth, and perception of the game.
I thought the gamecast video was the most effective platform. I think that by presenting both the live footage and commentating the game you get the most information about the game. By commentating the game the announcers are able to give viewers that do not completely understand football an idea of what is happening and the more experienced viewer more important statistics and other important information. This form also gives you other forms of entertainment like advertising and the halftime show. I think the least effective media source was the game card. This source gave no recap of what happened it just gave statistics. This source misses all of the spectacular highlights.
I thought that the different media activity was beneficial to see all the different ways the Super Bowl was covered. Personally I thought that the Gamecast Video was the most effective as to covering all aspects of the game; it showed both teams season review, highlights of the game, replays, and getting to see the game as well. Instead on an article or radio broadcast you got to visually watch what is happening in the game and fully understand what is going on. The most effective game coverage was the gamebook, this had all the information regarding the game in specific detail. Personally I thought that Twitter was the most entertaining because it had everyone's opinions and views in the game. You also got to see scores, videos and it incorporated many photos from the game. The least entertaining had to be the radio, there was too much going on and a lot to follow. I couldn't keep up with what was happening so I missed a lot of information about the game. I believe that the least effective was the Television show because it was all bias. The had more of a discussion and based it on their opinions.
Personally, I thought that the gamecast video was the most effective platform for covering the media. However, for me, I enjoy the radio broadcast the most because the radio is much more in depth because there is no video, which I really like. The gamecast video was definitely more effective because it had commentating from broadcasters and it included the actual game video. It probably wasn't the most effective at displaying specific information because it was focusing on the game itself, but it was the best combination of all of the necessary thing. The gamecast also provided the most important statistics which made it the most effective form of watching the game because you got a little of everything. I believe that the stat sheet was the least effective. It is very unspecific and has no entertainment at all. It really is only helpful with the basic statistics.
In my opinion the most effective platform for covering the game was the gamecast video. While all the other platforms were unique and offered different perspectives to the game, the gamecast video combined the majority of techniques. By offering visuals, commentator opinions, and experience it live. This platform not only allows you to see the commentators perspective on the game, but allows you to form your own opinions by providing visuals. These visuals also add an entertainment benefit to the game. Seeing the game play by play live in action is a lot more exciting than experiencing the game from a statistics sheet. The visuals allow the audience to understand the game more because they see what is going on. Whereas on a platform like the radio, you only experience the audio version of the game. The gamecast video permits the audience to get the audio part while understanding the game visually. Along with the game being presented, the gamecast platform is the only platform that expands on the entertainment aspect. They provide the halftime show and commercials, commercials are apart of why the super bowl is so big. By the gamecast supplying the commercials it allows the game to appeal to a wider audience base. All in all, the gamecast surpasses the other platforms because it combines the most amount of variables to create a great viewing experience.
I believe that the most effective platform for covering the Superbowl was the Gamecast video. While the other platforms offered unique insights into the game, the gamecast video gave the audience a complete experience. The Twitter platform focused on game updates but contained mostly memes or irrelevant hashtags. The Game radio gave the audio and play by play of the game but without the visuals or complete knowledge of the sport, it was hard to pay attention and understand what was happening. For the game card and articles, the statistics and important plays were shown however, it was hard to understand the emotions of the game. As for the Game followup, that platform gave more opinions and touched on arguments that did not help the audience experience the game. The gamecast video gave immediate action of the game and the commentating explained the plays as well as added excitement. The Gamecast video also gave background of the teams season and profiles on the important players. Overall the gamecast video was the most effective platform because it gave the audience a complete experience including the emotion, action and background of the game.
In my opinion the gamebook is the most effective platform in terms of conveying information and covering the game. While some might argue that the gamecast video is the most effective or the game follow up is, I believe one of the characteristics for an effective platform is that there is no bias. With bias your interpretation of the game could be influenced in a big way, but when u look at non biased information like the gamebook you have to analyze this data and interpret it in your own way. This causes the viewers to not believe and rely on biased information like announcers and sports analysts but instead they rely on their own perception of information. In terms of entertainment definitely the gamecast video. Since this is live as well as the commentators try their best to create a fun and enjoyable dialogue that leaves you with information not previously known. The biggest aspect, though, is the fact that it is unpredictable. Many other sources like game card or articles require the game to have already happened and thus allowing you to already know about the outcome of this event. This creates a less enthusiastic environment since the game is in the past. The least effective platform would be twitter. From exploring twitter in the classroom i realized that each post does not necessarily ensure the information to be correct. Thus allowing the reader to acquire false information and spread this knowledge to more and more people. All the other platforms require extensive research to ensure that the data that is being released is correct and accurate. As well i believe the main goal of twitter posts are to make you giggle and laugh not necessarily getting you the best and most up to date information.
I think the most effective platform for covering the game is on television. I think it is the only way to get all the details of what happened. You can see the exact play and how good of a catch or play it was. You also get background information between games. You get the most information I think because you can see if a player does well. I also see this as the most entertaining. listening to it can be fun, but nothing compares to seeing an amazing catch on television.I think it is effective because of the overall information given and its entertainment. I think the only thing it misses is the communication between fans. I don't think any of the platforms are ineffective because they all serve their purpose. Twitter connect fans and the radio is perfect for the car.
I believe the most effective platform was the game cast video. I believe this because it provided you with everything all in one. It gave you the commentary that you would get if you listened on the radio, it gave you visuals, it gave raw emotion, it gave statistics that can be said by commentators and seen on screen. All in all the game cast video had everything. Yes certain other platforms may excel in the given area that they are trying to portray such as the radio being commentary, but you don't get the same experience in terms of seeing the game for yourself and it gets rather boring. The stat sheet showed important stats and the playbook showed important plays which is obvious, but again they lack any sort of real emotion from commentary or visual effects. Nothing showed the game like the game cast video, it was the whole thing providing you with every category of coverage at one time.
In my opinion, I think the most effective platform for covering the game was the gamecast video. It provided both video and audio of the game to the viewer, and it literally showed the game. It is entertaining, informative, and relatively straightforward. Twitter was definitely very entertaining in that it consisted of highlights of the game with text and some videos. Articles and TV game follow-up are both very informative, but more focused on a specific player, issue, or question. The game card is the least effective in providing a game coverage because it is just numbers on a page. It is unable to show the craziness of the 25 point comeback in the same way that the other 5 media can. It cannot express Julio Jones' insane sideline catch or Julian Edelman's miraculous snag to keep the comeback alive. The gamecast video is by far the most effective because it provides the viewer with everything it needs, from footage and commentary to instant replay and historical statistics.
In my opinion, I believe the gamecast was the most effective platform for covering the Super Bowl. In terms of conveying information to the audience, the gamecast provided statistics throughout the game of the current game and past games, provided issues which were occurred throughout the NFL season relating to specific players, coaches or teams, and most importantly it provided a live visual to the audience. The gamecast was able to include nearly every aspect of media from the visuals to the statistics. The gamecast also provided the game live with a picture, and personally, I like to see things in real time. However, one aspect of media which the gamecast did not include was fan reactions to the game on social media. Viewing the fan reactions often provided additional entertainment, as many posts were humorous. The least effective platform was the game card. The game card only provided statistics on the game and was confusing to follow. There was no human opinion or interaction on the game card, which ultimately loses its entertainment value. The game card also did not include any highlights or visuals. Including different perspectives and opinions during the game provides the audience with additional entertainment.
I think that every platform conveys a few aspects of the game really well while not conveying many other aspects that are covered by other platforms. The best platform for conveying as much information as possible is the gamebook because it is pages of individual as well as team stats from the game. The most entertaining is the game cast video because it allows you to actually see what’s happening and shows you big plays and other important moments. I determined how effective each platform was by weighing how interesting a platform was against how much information it conveyed. Therefore, I think the most effective platform for conveying information and remaining interesting is the articles because they let you know stats about the team and individual players as well as telling about big plays combining the two best parts of the game cast and the game book. The least effective platform was twitter because it is hard to stay interested, doesn’t convey much information, as well as not being reliable.
In my opinion I thought that every method covered the game well, but some better than others. For example, actually watching the game helped me to understand better watching replays and listening to the announcers. The radio show was not as helpful because you really needed to know a lot of the terminology and sometimes the announces talked too quickly so it was hard to understand. The sheets of all of the records like touchdowns, flags, and timeouts was pretty boring to look at and read. It was not very effective because I really couldn't focus on it because it just looked like a bunch of numbers on a page. Twitter was probably the least effective because there was not much information on what actually happened during the game. It was a lot of ads and graphics of products and players, but not much info on stats or what occurred. Many of the platforms were interesting and I think I weighed my decision on which one was the best because of how attentative I was while in that group.
I believe that Twitter was the most effective media outlet to gain information and insight from the Super Bowl because it incorporated a little of everything. The first step in having a successful Twitter feed during the Super Bowl would be to follow both teams accounts, in addition to NFL insiders, other reporters, and fans of the teams. If you are following this wide range of users then you will be able to experience every aspect of the media. The best part about twitter is that everything is concise (under 140 characters), so your game updates will be quick and informational. Also, everything that the other media outlets lack, Twitter has, and more. You can find in-depth analysis from reporters and statistics that you wouldn't get from the gamecast, instant replay of highlights that you wouldn't get from the radio, live feed that you wouldn't get from the articles and TV follow up, and pictures and infographics that you wouldn't get from the game card.
The least effective platform was definitely the articles because along with the TV follow up, it was not live. As a sports fan, you do not want to learn about the biggest sports event of the year a day later, you want to be experiencing it as it happens. Having your media platform be live is the most important aspect of coverage. The reason why the articles are worse than the TV follow up is because the follow has the analysis that the article has, but the articles lack any videos, which are the most exciting aspects of the game. Although you have photographs, nothing can take the place of watching the entire play. Also, in an article you do not hear the excitement of the game because on TV and the radio, you can hear the expression and emotion of the commentators or reporters.
I believe that the gamecast video had the best impact on the audience and the people that were not at the game. It allows you to have the chance to watch something live and see play by play. Whereas, an article is not live nor something that you can receive right away. The gamecast video explains what is happening in that moment and you are able to hear/see to get a good representation of what is occurring in the game. When it comes to conveying information to the audience, the gamecast gave statistics throughout the game, gave you background on the players and their past seasons, and lastly, give you a live visual of what is happening. I feel that the people that are watching the game vs someone who is reading an article, find it more entertaining since it feels live, you are also able to get a better understanding visually, but when you are reading an article you are not getting to see the players/peoples reactions to the game, or have the chance to listen to the spokesperson discuss the players actions. If you are someone who is not so familiar with the sport, I find it is very helpful and more interesting to listen to a spokesperson while watching the game live in order to hear and see the rules of the game.
I think the game cast video was the most effective platform for covering the game. During the game cast video not only were you able to see literally the entire game but you also go commentary with the visual. You got to hear and see play by play and also got to listen to the announcers talk about other things besides the game. The game cast was the most entertaining by far because of the ability of being able to see each play of the game and know what was going on at all times. Along with being the most entertaining I think it did the best job conveying information. There was always a live sore you could see. The announcers with the play by play also helped understand what was happening if you didn't know already. They also talked about other past super bowls or players stats or even records that were broken. That insightful information helped that platform be the best one to use if you wanted to get a well-rounded picture of the game.
I think the least effective platform was probably the articles. They get lengthy and boring. You also don't get any audio which is a huge part of the game. When theres no audio there really is no excitement and no emotion. The articles definitely didn't keep the viewers attention nearly as well as the audio or visual platforms.
Although all the different types of media that were used to convey the game had individual aspects that were better than others, the game cast video was the most effective way to cover the game. The most clear reason as to why this method was the most effective was its live visual component. Visually, the football game consisted of much more than the actual gameplay. From player information popping up on screen to the ability to replay an event, the viewer is able to have a more fluid experience watching the game from Gamecast than listening to it from a radio broadcast. The Gamecast is both effective in conveying information as well as entertaining their audience. The many comedic commercials that are played during the Superbowl is the reason why some people watch is in the first place. Radio, gamebook, social media, and others are all combined into a Gamecast to make it the most effective way of covering a game. Alone, social media is by far the most inefficient, least effective way of covering a game. Many of the hashtags led straight to a purely humor based outlet and not an accurate depiction of the game. Many of those that use social media also have a bias and that can greatly influence the type of information that is shared. It would be rare to find a social media outlet that can cover a game accurately and timely without any bias.
I think the gamecast was the most effective way to watch the game. By seeing the live game and hearing the commentating, this allowed me to know the most about what is happening in the game. The commentating allowed the viewers to learn more about football, whether you are die-hard fan or a novice. They found the perfect balance of appealing to all types of viewers. This form also gives you other forms of entertainment like advertising and the halftime show. I think the least effective media source was the articles. The articles allowed for no replay of any part of the game, it also took all the excitement right out of the game. Many events can be covered in an article but with sporting events, especially the Super Bowl, you need to see and hear the excitement in the voice of the announcers, fans, and of course, the players.
In my personal opinion, the most effective platform for covering the game was the gamecast video. The reason I say this is because the gamecast video gives the audience both an audio and visual representation of the game. While there are other types of platforms that also offer an audio and visual representation of the game, the gamecast coverage is live which means you are experiencing the game as it happens. The most effective platform in terms of conveying information is the post-game wrap up because it sums up the game as well as gives statistics on player performance. The game card is also effective in terms of conveying information. The most effective platform in terms of entertainment is the gamecast video because it gives the viewer the full spectrum of the game, including the halftime show and commercials. No other platform comes close to offering the level of entertainment that the gamecast video provides. I feel that the game-card is a bad platform of covering the game because it does not give the audience a visual or audio representation of the game. If you were to read the game-card of the Super Bowl, the reader would have no idea about the historic events that took place.
ReplyDeleteThe most effective platform for covering the game was the gamecast video. This method of coverage allows people to watch the game live and also see and hear exactly what is going on. Instead of just listening to radio updates, you are able to use both sight and sound to get an accurate representation of the game. I believe the gamebook was the most effective in conveying information because there was no bias and it was just straight facts. It allows people to quickly see the numbers associated with the game. In my opinion, the most entertaining is still the gamecast video. The least entertaining was definitely the gamebook because it was hard to understand and only contained numbers, no commentary or visuals. The television shows were the least effective because they are very biased and often times the people making commentary do not really know what is going on. For example in the show we watched, there was a woman sitting in the middle who was just listening to everyone talk without adding any important or insightful information. The other people in the show we very biased towards a certain team and let their personal opinions get in the way of their reporting.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the best media coverage of the superbowl was the game cast video. I say this because it includes all of the other aspects of coverage. For example, the radio coverage provided detailed audio coverage of the game. Other sources such as the play by play chart included detail about what happened in each play. The problem with those two formats is that there is no visual of the game. Without the visual aspect, the game is not as exciting of an experience. This is why I believe that the most effective coverage of the game was the game cast because it included detailed information about statistics of players, as well as details regarding what occurred in each play. It is also very exciting, and entertaining to be able to watch the game. The visual aspect is so important because for someone like myself who does not understand football all that well, it was of much assistance in understanding the game to actually see what was happening. Another reason for this being the best coverage of the game, is because it was very straight forward, and contained direct facts. In other forms of coverage such as game reviews on various sports networks, there was a lot of opinion, and bias. An example is in one of the tv show reviews of the game, there was debate regarding if a touchdown should have counted. While this is an interesting aspect of the game to cover, It does not depict the game for what it really was unlike the game cast video. This is why the game cast video was by far the most effective form of game coverage media in regards to entertainment, truth, and perception of the game.
ReplyDeleteI thought the gamecast video was the most effective platform. I think that by presenting both the live footage and commentating the game you get the most information about the game. By commentating the game the announcers are able to give viewers that do not completely understand football an idea of what is happening and the more experienced viewer more important statistics and other important information. This form also gives you other forms of entertainment like advertising and the halftime show. I think the least effective media source was the game card. This source gave no recap of what happened it just gave statistics. This source misses all of the spectacular highlights.
ReplyDeleteI thought that the different media activity was beneficial to see all the different ways the Super Bowl was covered. Personally I thought that the Gamecast Video was the most effective as to covering all aspects of the game; it showed both teams season review, highlights of the game, replays, and getting to see the game as well. Instead on an article or radio broadcast you got to visually watch what is happening in the game and fully understand what is going on. The most effective game coverage was the gamebook, this had all the information regarding the game in specific detail. Personally I thought that Twitter was the most entertaining because it had everyone's opinions and views in the game. You also got to see scores, videos and it incorporated many photos from the game. The least entertaining had to be the radio, there was too much going on and a lot to follow. I couldn't keep up with what was happening so I missed a lot of information about the game. I believe that the least effective was the Television show because it was all bias. The had more of a discussion and based it on their opinions.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I thought that the gamecast video was the most effective platform for covering the media. However, for me, I enjoy the radio broadcast the most because the radio is much more in depth because there is no video, which I really like. The gamecast video was definitely more effective because it had commentating from broadcasters and it included the actual game video. It probably wasn't the most effective at displaying specific information because it was focusing on the game itself, but it was the best combination of all of the necessary thing. The gamecast also provided the most important statistics which made it the most effective form of watching the game because you got a little of everything. I believe that the stat sheet was the least effective. It is very unspecific and has no entertainment at all. It really is only helpful with the basic statistics.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion the most effective platform for covering the game was the gamecast video. While all the other platforms were unique and offered different perspectives to the game, the gamecast video combined the majority of techniques. By offering visuals, commentator opinions, and experience it live. This platform not only allows you to see the commentators perspective on the game, but allows you to form your own opinions by providing visuals. These visuals also add an entertainment benefit to the game. Seeing the game play by play live in action is a lot more exciting than experiencing the game from a statistics sheet. The visuals allow the audience to understand the game more because they see what is going on. Whereas on a platform like the radio, you only experience the audio version of the game. The gamecast video permits the audience to get the audio part while understanding the game visually. Along with the game being presented, the gamecast platform is the only platform that expands on the entertainment aspect. They provide the halftime show and commercials, commercials are apart of why the super bowl is so big. By the gamecast supplying the commercials it allows the game to appeal to a wider audience base. All in all, the gamecast surpasses the other platforms because it combines the most amount of variables to create a great viewing experience.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the most effective platform for covering the Superbowl was the Gamecast video. While the other platforms offered unique insights into the game, the gamecast video gave the audience a complete experience. The Twitter platform focused on game updates but contained mostly memes or irrelevant hashtags. The Game radio gave the audio and play by play of the game but without the visuals or complete knowledge of the sport, it was hard to pay attention and understand what was happening. For the game card and articles, the statistics and important plays were shown however, it was hard to understand the emotions of the game. As for the Game followup, that platform gave more opinions and touched on arguments that did not help the audience experience the game. The gamecast video gave immediate action of the game and the commentating explained the plays as well as added excitement. The Gamecast video also gave background of the teams season and profiles on the important players. Overall the gamecast video was the most effective platform because it gave the audience a complete experience including the emotion, action and background of the game.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion the gamebook is the most effective platform in terms of conveying information and covering the game. While some might argue that the gamecast video is the most effective or the game follow up is, I believe one of the characteristics for an effective platform is that there is no bias. With bias your interpretation of the game could be influenced in a big way, but when u look at non biased information like the gamebook you have to analyze this data and interpret it in your own way. This causes the viewers to not believe and rely on biased information like announcers and sports analysts but instead they rely on their own perception of information. In terms of entertainment definitely the gamecast video. Since this is live as well as the commentators try their best to create a fun and enjoyable dialogue that leaves you with information not previously known. The biggest aspect, though, is the fact that it is unpredictable. Many other sources like game card or articles require the game to have already happened and thus allowing you to already know about the outcome of this event. This creates a less enthusiastic environment since the game is in the past. The least effective platform would be twitter. From exploring twitter in the classroom i realized that each post does not necessarily ensure the information to be correct. Thus allowing the reader to acquire false information and spread this knowledge to more and more people. All the other platforms require extensive research to ensure that the data that is being released is correct and accurate. As well i believe the main goal of twitter posts are to make you giggle and laugh not necessarily getting you the best and most up to date information.
ReplyDeleteI think the most effective platform for covering the game is on television. I think it is the only way to get all the details of what happened. You can see the exact play and how good of a catch or play it was. You also get background information between games. You get the most information I think because you can see if a player does well. I also see this as the most entertaining. listening to it can be fun, but nothing compares to seeing an amazing catch on television.I think it is effective because of the overall information given and its entertainment. I think the only thing it misses is the communication between fans. I don't think any of the platforms are ineffective because they all serve their purpose. Twitter connect fans and the radio is perfect for the car.
ReplyDeleteI believe the most effective platform was the game cast video. I believe this because it provided you with everything all in one. It gave you the commentary that you would get if you listened on the radio, it gave you visuals, it gave raw emotion, it gave statistics that can be said by commentators and seen on screen. All in all the game cast video had everything. Yes certain other platforms may excel in the given area that they are trying to portray such as the radio being commentary, but you don't get the same experience in terms of seeing the game for yourself and it gets rather boring. The stat sheet showed important stats and the playbook showed important plays which is obvious, but again they lack any sort of real emotion from commentary or visual effects. Nothing showed the game like the game cast video, it was the whole thing providing you with every category of coverage at one time.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, I think the most effective platform for covering the game was the gamecast video. It provided both video and audio of the game to the viewer, and it literally showed the game. It is entertaining, informative, and relatively straightforward. Twitter was definitely very entertaining in that it consisted of highlights of the game with text and some videos. Articles and TV game follow-up are both very informative, but more focused on a specific player, issue, or question. The game card is the least effective in providing a game coverage because it is just numbers on a page. It is unable to show the craziness of the 25 point comeback in the same way that the other 5 media can. It cannot express Julio Jones' insane sideline catch or Julian Edelman's miraculous snag to keep the comeback alive. The gamecast video is by far the most effective because it provides the viewer with everything it needs, from footage and commentary to instant replay and historical statistics.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, I believe the gamecast was the most effective platform for covering the Super Bowl. In terms of conveying information to the audience, the gamecast provided statistics throughout the game of the current game and past games, provided issues which were occurred throughout the NFL season relating to specific players, coaches or teams, and most importantly it provided a live visual to the audience. The gamecast was able to include nearly every aspect of media from the visuals to the statistics. The gamecast also provided the game live with a picture, and personally, I like to see things in real time. However, one aspect of media which the gamecast did not include was fan reactions to the game on social media. Viewing the fan reactions often provided additional entertainment, as many posts were humorous. The least effective platform was the game card. The game card only provided statistics on the game and was confusing to follow. There was no human opinion or interaction on the game card, which ultimately loses its entertainment value. The game card also did not include any highlights or visuals. Including different perspectives and opinions during the game provides the audience with additional entertainment.
ReplyDeleteI think that every platform conveys a few aspects of the game really well while not conveying many other aspects that are covered by other platforms. The best platform for conveying as much information as possible is the gamebook because it is pages of individual as well as team stats from the game. The most entertaining is the game cast video because it allows you to actually see what’s happening and shows you big plays and other important moments. I determined how effective each platform was by weighing how interesting a platform was against how much information it conveyed. Therefore, I think the most effective platform for conveying information and remaining interesting is the articles because they let you know stats about the team and individual players as well as telling about big plays combining the two best parts of the game cast and the game book. The least effective platform was twitter because it is hard to stay interested, doesn’t convey much information, as well as not being reliable.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion I thought that every method covered the game well, but some better than others. For example, actually watching the game helped me to understand better watching replays and listening to the announcers. The radio show was not as helpful because you really needed to know a lot of the terminology and sometimes the announces talked too quickly so it was hard to understand. The sheets of all of the records like touchdowns, flags, and timeouts was pretty boring to look at and read. It was not very effective because I really couldn't focus on it because it just looked like a bunch of numbers on a page. Twitter was probably the least effective because there was not much information on what actually happened during the game. It was a lot of ads and graphics of products and players, but not much info on stats or what occurred. Many of the platforms were interesting and I think I weighed my decision on which one was the best because of how attentative I was while in that group.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Twitter was the most effective media outlet to gain information and insight from the Super Bowl because it incorporated a little of everything. The first step in having a successful Twitter feed during the Super Bowl would be to follow both teams accounts, in addition to NFL insiders, other reporters, and fans of the teams. If you are following this wide range of users then you will be able to experience every aspect of the media. The best part about twitter is that everything is concise (under 140 characters), so your game updates will be quick and informational. Also, everything that the other media outlets lack, Twitter has, and more. You can find in-depth analysis from reporters and statistics that you wouldn't get from the gamecast, instant replay of highlights that you wouldn't get from the radio, live feed that you wouldn't get from the articles and TV follow up, and pictures and infographics that you wouldn't get from the game card.
ReplyDeleteThe least effective platform was definitely the articles because along with the TV follow up, it was not live. As a sports fan, you do not want to learn about the biggest sports event of the year a day later, you want to be experiencing it as it happens. Having your media platform be live is the most important aspect of coverage. The reason why the articles are worse than the TV follow up is because the follow has the analysis that the article has, but the articles lack any videos, which are the most exciting aspects of the game. Although you have photographs, nothing can take the place of watching the entire play. Also, in an article you do not hear the excitement of the game because on TV and the radio, you can hear the expression and emotion of the commentators or reporters.
I believe that the gamecast video had the best impact on the audience and the people that were not at the game. It allows you to have the chance to watch something live and see play by play. Whereas, an article is not live nor something that you can receive right away. The gamecast video explains what is happening in that moment and you are able to hear/see to get a good representation of what is occurring in the game. When it comes to conveying information to the audience, the gamecast gave statistics throughout the game, gave you background on the players and their past seasons, and lastly, give you a live visual of what is happening. I feel that the people that are watching the game vs someone who is reading an article, find it more entertaining since it feels live, you are also able to get a better understanding visually, but when you are reading an article you are not getting to see the players/peoples reactions to the game, or have the chance to listen to the spokesperson discuss the players actions. If you are someone who is not so familiar with the sport, I find it is very helpful and more interesting to listen to a spokesperson while watching the game live in order to hear and see the rules of the game.
ReplyDeleteI think the game cast video was the most effective platform for covering the game. During the game cast video not only were you able to see literally the entire game but you also go commentary with the visual. You got to hear and see play by play and also got to listen to the announcers talk about other things besides the game. The game cast was the most entertaining by far because of the ability of being able to see each play of the game and know what was going on at all times. Along with being the most entertaining I think it did the best job conveying information. There was always a live sore you could see. The announcers with the play by play also helped understand what was happening if you didn't know already. They also talked about other past super bowls or players stats or even records that were broken. That insightful information helped that platform be the best one to use if you wanted to get a well-rounded picture of the game.
ReplyDeleteI think the least effective platform was probably the articles. They get lengthy and boring. You also don't get any audio which is a huge part of the game. When theres no audio there really is no excitement and no emotion. The articles definitely didn't keep the viewers attention nearly as well as the audio or visual platforms.
Although all the different types of media that were used to convey the game had individual aspects that were better than others, the game cast video was the most effective way to cover the game. The most clear reason as to why this method was the most effective was its live visual component. Visually, the football game consisted of much more than the actual gameplay. From player information popping up on screen to the ability to replay an event, the viewer is able to have a more fluid experience watching the game from Gamecast than listening to it from a radio broadcast. The Gamecast is both effective in conveying information as well as entertaining their audience. The many comedic commercials that are played during the Superbowl is the reason why some people watch is in the first place. Radio, gamebook, social media, and others are all combined into a Gamecast to make it the most effective way of covering a game. Alone, social media is by far the most inefficient, least effective way of covering a game. Many of the hashtags led straight to a purely humor based outlet and not an accurate depiction of the game. Many of those that use social media also have a bias and that can greatly influence the type of information that is shared. It would be rare to find a social media outlet that can cover a game accurately and timely without any bias.
ReplyDeleteI think the gamecast was the most effective way to watch the game. By seeing the live game and hearing the commentating, this allowed me to know the most about what is happening in the game. The commentating allowed the viewers to learn more about football, whether you are die-hard fan or a novice. They found the perfect balance of appealing to all types of viewers. This form also gives you other forms of entertainment like advertising and the halftime show. I think the least effective media source was the articles. The articles allowed for no replay of any part of the game, it also took all the excitement right out of the game. Many events can be covered in an article but with sporting events, especially the Super Bowl, you need to see and hear the excitement in the voice of the announcers, fans, and of course, the players.
ReplyDelete