Is the United States racist, or does the media fire them up? Some people wonder which one is correct. Many people may hate having a black president, and say racist stuff, but in reality, the only reason why he became our president is because we voted for him. He won with clearly nine million votes. That means an awful lot of white people voted for him. Yet we still fight and say hate words towards him. Yes we have the right to freedom of speech, but on the other hand we are limited to things we can say. But i tend to believe even thought those numbers for voting for Obama are relatively small, the media is the one to blame for. It fires us American's up and can do damage.
One example can be what people believe on the health-care, and what Obama's decisions are. They are debating whether racism has been fueling the health-care debate. Some people are comparing him to Hitler. They are saying that Obama is a racist and hates white people. These are hatred words, because they are referring him to someone that was very bad. They say he's going to set up interment camps storing thousands of guillotines for mass executions. These are dangerous words to say, not only does Obama deal with this, but other people may believe it and get led on. This creates power over the media.
Leading the American's can lead into fearful times. Some people believe that the health-care debate has re-ignited the racial debate. Some believe the government was out to get Obama and was disturbed that Obama had been elected president. Someone even said, "the holocaust is a lie. Obama was created by Jews." Not only are the people getting angry, but some are even killing themselves. Which is crazy! We cant blame Obama for that, because he ran for president and won.
Some want to believe that the racist right wingers are just the left overs that greg hate in our society now. They are becoming more enlightened the more Obama is president. Not only are people getting mad on their own, the media are making them. The media state stuff that is true, but can't go that far. But because of the freedom of speech, and stating true facts, they can say anything they want. Some people tend to believe that someone will kill Obama like in the past history of what happened. For Timothy McVeigh and who murdered Martin Luther King. Or Jon Wilkes who assassinated President Lincoln. People are going to believe what they want to believe, and either way will use hatred words. As long as they don't violate the rules of what they are saying.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Is Hate Speech in the Media Directly Affecting our Culture?
The main question that Giroux, Weatherby, and Scoggins are trying to answer is does the media really propose hate speech directly to people? Some argue that is does and some argue it doesn't. This is because of the first amendment. This allows anyone the freedom of speech to the press and in general. But hate speech is directly exempted from the first amendment. Hate speech simply demonstrates a level of contempt towards other people, but really the term is meant to convey the deliberate bias towards and discrimination against any person at the time. This would be the way it is approached to the person and is incited. So both of these authors talk about the way they disguise the different forms of hate speech in different forms of media.
Scholar Henry Giroux questions why our culture has changed dramatically; becoming so mean spirited people. Girouz analyzes the politics of 'pedagogy of hate.' He concluded that this is an exercise to others for the power that ultimately has created 'culture of cruelty.' He analyzed this by addressing the media content in news and popular fare. He becomes critical of the media that covers the politics of hate in the culture. he identified how information and entertainment media normalizes the rude culture. This is taught by showing the meanness. Thereby; the creating culture shows what they think is right, so others of course are going to follow since the 'media' says is okay. But in reality, it isn't and they know that. Media just leads to one thing to another.
On the other hand, Georgie Ann Weatherby and Brian Scoggins both check out the web pages of the top four web extremist, and talk about how they persuade people. From their findings they find that the top four sites dram from traditional tactics in a soft and generous way. This emphasizes recruiting others to come. This then plays down the message of hate, so no one barely notices thinking they are not bad people. And simply good, because the media said so. From the main stream top four sites, they attempt to gain compliance from people who can be recruited to the extremist groups side. This only happens because the internet allows people to access any information that they desire and want. This then allows organizations to get their message out what they want to get across to the followers.
Either way, when the media says something is okay, people and followers are already going to assume that it is okay. But it really isn't. They just want people to be on their side. Hate speech is almost always evaluated based upon their context and the way it is presented. People may find it a way to show hatred and some may find themselves agreeing. But the first amendment states 'freedom of speech' to everyone, but it's just directly implying to the people who actually have information to share with the public and is considered important. Either way, no one will ever agree on what hate speech is really called. There will always be controversy's, and situations.
Scholar Henry Giroux questions why our culture has changed dramatically; becoming so mean spirited people. Girouz analyzes the politics of 'pedagogy of hate.' He concluded that this is an exercise to others for the power that ultimately has created 'culture of cruelty.' He analyzed this by addressing the media content in news and popular fare. He becomes critical of the media that covers the politics of hate in the culture. he identified how information and entertainment media normalizes the rude culture. This is taught by showing the meanness. Thereby; the creating culture shows what they think is right, so others of course are going to follow since the 'media' says is okay. But in reality, it isn't and they know that. Media just leads to one thing to another.
On the other hand, Georgie Ann Weatherby and Brian Scoggins both check out the web pages of the top four web extremist, and talk about how they persuade people. From their findings they find that the top four sites dram from traditional tactics in a soft and generous way. This emphasizes recruiting others to come. This then plays down the message of hate, so no one barely notices thinking they are not bad people. And simply good, because the media said so. From the main stream top four sites, they attempt to gain compliance from people who can be recruited to the extremist groups side. This only happens because the internet allows people to access any information that they desire and want. This then allows organizations to get their message out what they want to get across to the followers.
Either way, when the media says something is okay, people and followers are already going to assume that it is okay. But it really isn't. They just want people to be on their side. Hate speech is almost always evaluated based upon their context and the way it is presented. People may find it a way to show hatred and some may find themselves agreeing. But the first amendment states 'freedom of speech' to everyone, but it's just directly implying to the people who actually have information to share with the public and is considered important. Either way, no one will ever agree on what hate speech is really called. There will always be controversy's, and situations.
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Do Media Represent Realistic Image's of Arabs?
Issue three discuses whether Media represents realistic images of Arabs. Ever since September 11th happened, Arabs are viewed as whole new people. Just because the one group Al Qaeda set up this attack, and blew up the Trade Centers, it doesn't mean that every other Arab wants to too. But since it was such a tragic event, we have no one else to blame but for themselves. Since we have had history on the understanding the impact of racial profiling, based on stereotypes is what distorts the word; The Others. Since they are being singles out, we want to refer them as a whole different species, and not like us. But since we single out people these days, it can put multiple harmful effects on what we call the others.
In this issue, Gal Beckerman says yes, the media represents realistic images on Arabs. She provides the readers with interesting information. She tells us about how the Arab's use the internet and Blog about their life over in the Middle East. She list's a few examples of what they say, and it straight up tells us they live a normal lifestyle like we do here in the US. They just have different believes, but not everyone will agree with each other. But because the Arab's are blogging, it gives the public a chance to read about their situations and understand them as individuals; and rather be racist or judge on their ethnicity. This is a good thing so we can see where they are coming from. Yes there are the good people, and yes there are the bad people. But because of the tragic event that happened, now we tend to lean a judge someone on their looks; and not for who they are. But on the other hand the blogger sphere forces the Arab people with contrary opiniions to engage with each others.
On the other hand, Jack Shaheen says no the media does not represent realistic images of Arab's. He argues that Arabs have been the most maligned stereotyped in popular cultures. This has happened because of 9/11. I believe this is because now we are scared of Arabs, and every time we see one we thing of the Trade Centers. We don't want to face our fears, and remain one sided. So we simply call them the others. They have nothing to do with us. These people are just as normal as we are, but live in a demanding country. He also discusses how Hollywood influences images in movies and TV to politicians and us citizens; which of course contribute to public opinions on them people. Godfrey Cheshire states 'The Arab stereotype is the only vicious racial stereotype that's not only still permitted but actively endorsed by Hollywood. They creates images of Arab's as enemies, and bad people. If they speak a different language, come from a different town/village, wear different clothing, they are considered bad, and don't relate to us US people. Of course we are going to be influence by the media because there are 1,150 films that are made to defile Arab's.
After reading both arguments, I have come to believe what our society is really all about. If you aren't the same like everyone else, then you are considered an outsider. The US is free country, anyone can do anything they want; but cannot abide the law. So if your doing something different from someone else, they why are you to be pursued as an other. Either way, the world wont change, because the media has taken over. Stereotypes that are on the media influences people in the society; and this makes us uncomfortable what ourselves, and this leads to people being prejudice. Nothing will change. Good or bad, you will still have a name because of who you are.
In this issue, Gal Beckerman says yes, the media represents realistic images on Arabs. She provides the readers with interesting information. She tells us about how the Arab's use the internet and Blog about their life over in the Middle East. She list's a few examples of what they say, and it straight up tells us they live a normal lifestyle like we do here in the US. They just have different believes, but not everyone will agree with each other. But because the Arab's are blogging, it gives the public a chance to read about their situations and understand them as individuals; and rather be racist or judge on their ethnicity. This is a good thing so we can see where they are coming from. Yes there are the good people, and yes there are the bad people. But because of the tragic event that happened, now we tend to lean a judge someone on their looks; and not for who they are. But on the other hand the blogger sphere forces the Arab people with contrary opiniions to engage with each others.
On the other hand, Jack Shaheen says no the media does not represent realistic images of Arab's. He argues that Arabs have been the most maligned stereotyped in popular cultures. This has happened because of 9/11. I believe this is because now we are scared of Arabs, and every time we see one we thing of the Trade Centers. We don't want to face our fears, and remain one sided. So we simply call them the others. They have nothing to do with us. These people are just as normal as we are, but live in a demanding country. He also discusses how Hollywood influences images in movies and TV to politicians and us citizens; which of course contribute to public opinions on them people. Godfrey Cheshire states 'The Arab stereotype is the only vicious racial stereotype that's not only still permitted but actively endorsed by Hollywood. They creates images of Arab's as enemies, and bad people. If they speak a different language, come from a different town/village, wear different clothing, they are considered bad, and don't relate to us US people. Of course we are going to be influence by the media because there are 1,150 films that are made to defile Arab's.
After reading both arguments, I have come to believe what our society is really all about. If you aren't the same like everyone else, then you are considered an outsider. The US is free country, anyone can do anything they want; but cannot abide the law. So if your doing something different from someone else, they why are you to be pursued as an other. Either way, the world wont change, because the media has taken over. Stereotypes that are on the media influences people in the society; and this makes us uncomfortable what ourselves, and this leads to people being prejudice. Nothing will change. Good or bad, you will still have a name because of who you are.
Friday, November 5, 2010
Do Media Cause Individuals to Develope Neg. Body Images?
The main question is, does the media cause people to be self conscious of themselves? But yes, the media does, they get accused of presenting images that result in negative behaviors. These behaviors shouldn't be happening just from what the people view in advertising and media. The media does have some influences on some people and they tend to construct idea's on their own. The biggest issue with this is the actions and conditions that are considered. As the Ad is being viewed, it tends to lean people to the side that if they take this product it will turn their negative image around, and they will be a whole new person. When people actually try to lose weight like the Ad's tells them and doesn't come through, the person only feels worse then before. This is where Dwrokin/Wachs and Levine/Murnen step in.
Dworkin and Wachs both analyzed that Advertisement tells both men and women that they will have a healthy body if they both buy the product that is advertised and pamper themselves fully. Because of this belief, being fat is something to be feared. Fashion is sold as an imperative. In the days that we live now, health and fitness is the mainstream to our dominant cultural construction of what we call "health." Like I said before, both men and women are starting to be combined as one, as almost the same beings. They both are fearing the topic of being fat, they are being presented in more as a similar manner as objects, and lastly what is being marketed is converging. Even though women and men are being almost similar, 38% of the dieters are men. So the results show that women obviously are more worried about their body image then men, since they are seeing ad's with slim ladies. This forces peer pressure, to be skinny. I believe that all this is just a lead to false Advertisement and to make people feel guilty.
On the other hand both Levine and Murnen investigate magazine advertisements. Their results show that the assumption that media does, is it causes eating disorders to be limited. They believe that the Ad's aren't the things thats causing the lack of body image, but what happens in the past leads up to this. They state that a wide range of social, behavioral, and cultural issues are what lead up to the negative body image's. This then lead's to negative behaviors by women since they tend to get pressured about their weight being right or wrong. Basically media causes the body to dissatisfaction. As young adults grow up and go to school, they are surrounded by Ad's telling them they will be better and more popular if they are skinny, and healthy. All the Ad's try to tell the viewers that if this works on someone then it will work on you. But sometimes that doesn't always work, then makes the person depressed or saddened. This then leads to bad choices later in their lives. Then this is what leads to eating disorders and bad reactions in the future.
I believe either way if they listen to the Ad's or not, everyone wants to be just like everyone else. It's the way of feeling fit in. If everyone is skinny, and there is one fat kid, he'll obviously stick out and then feel the pressure. Then they'll see the Ad, and fall into that same hole that everyone else does. It's like a cycle over and over again. The psychology of a person's body image is the subject that is worth to think about and talk upon. The media wont change, and the only people who can change these problems are yourselves. Ad's get us to drawn up in them, and we are the ones who have to deal with the outcomes.
Dworkin and Wachs both analyzed that Advertisement tells both men and women that they will have a healthy body if they both buy the product that is advertised and pamper themselves fully. Because of this belief, being fat is something to be feared. Fashion is sold as an imperative. In the days that we live now, health and fitness is the mainstream to our dominant cultural construction of what we call "health." Like I said before, both men and women are starting to be combined as one, as almost the same beings. They both are fearing the topic of being fat, they are being presented in more as a similar manner as objects, and lastly what is being marketed is converging. Even though women and men are being almost similar, 38% of the dieters are men. So the results show that women obviously are more worried about their body image then men, since they are seeing ad's with slim ladies. This forces peer pressure, to be skinny. I believe that all this is just a lead to false Advertisement and to make people feel guilty.
On the other hand both Levine and Murnen investigate magazine advertisements. Their results show that the assumption that media does, is it causes eating disorders to be limited. They believe that the Ad's aren't the things thats causing the lack of body image, but what happens in the past leads up to this. They state that a wide range of social, behavioral, and cultural issues are what lead up to the negative body image's. This then lead's to negative behaviors by women since they tend to get pressured about their weight being right or wrong. Basically media causes the body to dissatisfaction. As young adults grow up and go to school, they are surrounded by Ad's telling them they will be better and more popular if they are skinny, and healthy. All the Ad's try to tell the viewers that if this works on someone then it will work on you. But sometimes that doesn't always work, then makes the person depressed or saddened. This then leads to bad choices later in their lives. Then this is what leads to eating disorders and bad reactions in the future.
I believe either way if they listen to the Ad's or not, everyone wants to be just like everyone else. It's the way of feeling fit in. If everyone is skinny, and there is one fat kid, he'll obviously stick out and then feel the pressure. Then they'll see the Ad, and fall into that same hole that everyone else does. It's like a cycle over and over again. The psychology of a person's body image is the subject that is worth to think about and talk upon. The media wont change, and the only people who can change these problems are yourselves. Ad's get us to drawn up in them, and we are the ones who have to deal with the outcomes.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
RA#3 Proposal :)
Final Research Project Proposal
As I was thinking about thinking about an idea for this project, the first thing that came to me was Advertisement; but advertisement on the Spike Channel. The Ad’s on the channel are all about your health and fitness. This channel is all about sports, fitness and comedy. Since my dad watches Spike TV, every single night of the week, I figured this would be an interesting survey to try. I would also learn more about the channel. My whole point for this project is to see whether Spike TV is strictly a men’s or women’s TV show. In my opinion, I believe Spike is an all Men’s show put on the cable.
The very first thing I want to prove out of the whole project is whether this channel is an all men’s TV show, or it’s a mix. I only believe that this channel is made for men because of what is aired on it. Spike TV has extreme shows, with a lot of action and fighting. For example the top show on Spike TV is UFC. Not only is UFC extreme with a lot of blood and action, it also provides tons and tons of Ad’s in the ring where the men fight. These Ad’s are for your health and fitness. I don’t believe that women will always want to watch the extreme and intensity in the show, so that is why I predict that Spike TV is especially made for men.
As I am going to watch Spike TV throughout the day, I’m going to keep an eye out for what kind of products it advertises throughout the day; from morning till night. The main ingredients that are presented on this show’s advertisement are energy drinks, exercise equipment, sports game previews, medicine, beer and “manly food.” There is a reason why these are presented, because they know this is what manly men crave, and will only thing they will be better if they get these products. I figure that in the morning the commercials will present things about being healthy and eating right. This is because when you’re getting ready in the morning and watching the commercial it will try to change your mind and be “that way.” Then in the afternoon the commercials will be sports games previews on what time the games are and what sport is being played. Also there will be exercise equipment displayed. I believe this is put out so the men will want to buy that product and bring it home so they can be like the men on the Spike TV show. Everyone these days strive to be better then others. Then finally at night when the games and fights are being played, they commercials throughout the show will present beer (which always helps the game be better). As the men watch their fights and drink their beer they got, their young ones might be sick, so medicine Ad’s will be put on. Not only for their young ones, the men will want to wake up feeling great and strong.
So I plan on surveying both men and women on this project to see if women really do know much about the Spike TV channel; and if they do, what shows do they know of? Maybe I will be proven wrong at some point. I only predict this because since I sit at home and always have this show on TV; because of my dad, I feel like I’m the only female that really knows about this channel. I know many of my female friends have no clue what the show is or have any idea of it.
So for the whole point of this project, my point is to prove that Spike TV is a man show that is filled with sports, action, fitness and comedy. Everything on the show is considered, “macho.” A way to prove this is by the commercials that are presented throughout the day, from morning until night. Once I survey the population, I will know my true honest answers to my hypothesis. I hope to not be proven wrong that Spike TV is a man related show that is filled with men related products and commercials!
As I was thinking about thinking about an idea for this project, the first thing that came to me was Advertisement; but advertisement on the Spike Channel. The Ad’s on the channel are all about your health and fitness. This channel is all about sports, fitness and comedy. Since my dad watches Spike TV, every single night of the week, I figured this would be an interesting survey to try. I would also learn more about the channel. My whole point for this project is to see whether Spike TV is strictly a men’s or women’s TV show. In my opinion, I believe Spike is an all Men’s show put on the cable.
The very first thing I want to prove out of the whole project is whether this channel is an all men’s TV show, or it’s a mix. I only believe that this channel is made for men because of what is aired on it. Spike TV has extreme shows, with a lot of action and fighting. For example the top show on Spike TV is UFC. Not only is UFC extreme with a lot of blood and action, it also provides tons and tons of Ad’s in the ring where the men fight. These Ad’s are for your health and fitness. I don’t believe that women will always want to watch the extreme and intensity in the show, so that is why I predict that Spike TV is especially made for men.
As I am going to watch Spike TV throughout the day, I’m going to keep an eye out for what kind of products it advertises throughout the day; from morning till night. The main ingredients that are presented on this show’s advertisement are energy drinks, exercise equipment, sports game previews, medicine, beer and “manly food.” There is a reason why these are presented, because they know this is what manly men crave, and will only thing they will be better if they get these products. I figure that in the morning the commercials will present things about being healthy and eating right. This is because when you’re getting ready in the morning and watching the commercial it will try to change your mind and be “that way.” Then in the afternoon the commercials will be sports games previews on what time the games are and what sport is being played. Also there will be exercise equipment displayed. I believe this is put out so the men will want to buy that product and bring it home so they can be like the men on the Spike TV show. Everyone these days strive to be better then others. Then finally at night when the games and fights are being played, they commercials throughout the show will present beer (which always helps the game be better). As the men watch their fights and drink their beer they got, their young ones might be sick, so medicine Ad’s will be put on. Not only for their young ones, the men will want to wake up feeling great and strong.
So I plan on surveying both men and women on this project to see if women really do know much about the Spike TV channel; and if they do, what shows do they know of? Maybe I will be proven wrong at some point. I only predict this because since I sit at home and always have this show on TV; because of my dad, I feel like I’m the only female that really knows about this channel. I know many of my female friends have no clue what the show is or have any idea of it.
So for the whole point of this project, my point is to prove that Spike TV is a man show that is filled with sports, action, fitness and comedy. Everything on the show is considered, “macho.” A way to prove this is by the commercials that are presented throughout the day, from morning until night. Once I survey the population, I will know my true honest answers to my hypothesis. I hope to not be proven wrong that Spike TV is a man related show that is filled with men related products and commercials!
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Do Video Games Encourage Violent Behavior?
The real question is, Do Violent Games Encourage Violent Behavior? Both Craig Anderson and Henry Jenkins argued this topic. Anderson believes that the games do put us into a violent act, and Jenkins highly disagrees. Parents of the gamers and critics believe that games are a unique form of entertainment that warrants special consideration put into place. Since the majority of the games are played alone, the creates the users interactions with the game to be interactive and directed. Many don't really put much attention on how the games affect adults, its more directed to how teens and adolescents are affected. I believe they shouldn't target a certain group, only because everyone is affect in the same way with the violence in the game. Anderson conclude her results from research and Jenkins concluded his answers from studies and professionals.
Let's start with Anderson's argument; who is an expert on the effects of violence in television and film. She argued strictly for yes, video games do encourage violent behavior. She explains that upon her research she has done and comes to believe that the game prompt young people towards even more aggression and violence then other media content. Upon her research she has found varies of proof which has been studied for 40 plus years. There are four types of media violence; laboratory experiment, field experiment, cross sectional correlation studies, and longitudinal studies. The average effect sizes for experimental studies and correlation studies appear to be comparable between the two. One thing that is wrong is that some games actually reward someone if they have a completed kill. To my beliefs, this is just wrong. In real life, they are only going to be successful in the kill, but wont get anything in return. Some studies show that the high level video games expose links to more violent behavior in school and social life. This has been an increase, even with unrealistic games. I think since it's unrealistic, no one should be offended by it, but they still do. Even people are more addicted to games then they are to tobacco. This is because games make people feel positive and good about themselves.
On the other hand, Henry Jenkins highly disagrees. He argues that the primary audience aren't just children, and the violence is not increasing in society. Even though he has some sort of proof of this, i still disagree very much. He is concerned about the isolation, desensitization, and violence gets overblown. In the US, 90% of the gamers are boys, and only 40% are women. The rate of the juvenile violent crimes is at 30 years times low. This doesn't mean anything thought because this is the result they collected awhile back. The new generation is a whole different thing. The US Surgeon states that 'the way they grow up is what effects them and the way they were raised, not the media." I sort of agree with this statement some what only because if you were raised in a violent family, that's is what you are taught and how your going to be. So you only do what you were taught. Because of this, the result are that 83% of the game purchases are made of underage children. So the parents are just letting their children play this. There is proof right there. Even though the games are violent, it also can enhance your learning and social skills on a way thinks Jenkins. 60% of the gamers play with others and friends. 33% play with their siblings and 25% play with their spouses. The numbers can go on and on. Even though men are huge on video games, women outnumbered men on web-based games. Women usage rate went up when the game Sim's came out; women liked the fact they can control what the house looks like and how the family was ran. Either way these games have a way for people to show and express their feelings and impulse.
I believe even though this controversy can go on and on, violent play always will lead to more violent play. It's just something you can change. These games get you so addicted to them, that when you go out and social you automatically do something without realizing it. It is as almost as if you are a robot; your brain can't control you. Your body has. This type of controversy with violent video games has been taken into consideration whether a media industry can control access information to questionable material through the rating system. I believe that the games do have some kind of impact on you, but on the other hand you can control yourself. But that isn't always the case. Since I'm not a gamer, i couldn't say. I have experience in my past that a lot of people are addicted. Either way video games will always be a part of television, film and recorded music.
Let's start with Anderson's argument; who is an expert on the effects of violence in television and film. She argued strictly for yes, video games do encourage violent behavior. She explains that upon her research she has done and comes to believe that the game prompt young people towards even more aggression and violence then other media content. Upon her research she has found varies of proof which has been studied for 40 plus years. There are four types of media violence; laboratory experiment, field experiment, cross sectional correlation studies, and longitudinal studies. The average effect sizes for experimental studies and correlation studies appear to be comparable between the two. One thing that is wrong is that some games actually reward someone if they have a completed kill. To my beliefs, this is just wrong. In real life, they are only going to be successful in the kill, but wont get anything in return. Some studies show that the high level video games expose links to more violent behavior in school and social life. This has been an increase, even with unrealistic games. I think since it's unrealistic, no one should be offended by it, but they still do. Even people are more addicted to games then they are to tobacco. This is because games make people feel positive and good about themselves.
On the other hand, Henry Jenkins highly disagrees. He argues that the primary audience aren't just children, and the violence is not increasing in society. Even though he has some sort of proof of this, i still disagree very much. He is concerned about the isolation, desensitization, and violence gets overblown. In the US, 90% of the gamers are boys, and only 40% are women. The rate of the juvenile violent crimes is at 30 years times low. This doesn't mean anything thought because this is the result they collected awhile back. The new generation is a whole different thing. The US Surgeon states that 'the way they grow up is what effects them and the way they were raised, not the media." I sort of agree with this statement some what only because if you were raised in a violent family, that's is what you are taught and how your going to be. So you only do what you were taught. Because of this, the result are that 83% of the game purchases are made of underage children. So the parents are just letting their children play this. There is proof right there. Even though the games are violent, it also can enhance your learning and social skills on a way thinks Jenkins. 60% of the gamers play with others and friends. 33% play with their siblings and 25% play with their spouses. The numbers can go on and on. Even though men are huge on video games, women outnumbered men on web-based games. Women usage rate went up when the game Sim's came out; women liked the fact they can control what the house looks like and how the family was ran. Either way these games have a way for people to show and express their feelings and impulse.
I believe even though this controversy can go on and on, violent play always will lead to more violent play. It's just something you can change. These games get you so addicted to them, that when you go out and social you automatically do something without realizing it. It is as almost as if you are a robot; your brain can't control you. Your body has. This type of controversy with violent video games has been taken into consideration whether a media industry can control access information to questionable material through the rating system. I believe that the games do have some kind of impact on you, but on the other hand you can control yourself. But that isn't always the case. Since I'm not a gamer, i couldn't say. I have experience in my past that a lot of people are addicted. Either way video games will always be a part of television, film and recorded music.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Is Advertising Good for Society?
Once advertisement was used as a way to keep the cost for newspaper down. But not for long. As newspapers expanded, advertisement wasn't in the need for help anymore, so then they simply were doing their job just placing an ad in the Newspaper. This is called commercial media, where it is a system for delivering audience to advertise their stuff. This whole point was that the company's trying to sell their products were using the audience as their "market." They basically reflect the orientation in where we stand in the current media system, and work from there.
Advertising is a very useful to people and the information that does the job, advertising, helps the consumers make better decisions on what they are buying, stated John Calfee. Calfee is a former U.S. Trade Commission economist, and strongly agrees with his position, saying that there can't be any negative criticism that beats his. He argues that the Ad's help and benefit the consumer on what the right product is to buy. Advertising is a tool for communicating information and shaping markets in any way possible. This is where persuasive comes in, this provides an immense amount of information that benefits to primary parties. An example would be that eating a lot of Fiber, can reduce the amount of chances to get cancer. So here comes Kellogg, advertising that their article is high in fiber; this makes more people want their cereal, for their own health. Not only can Ad's be good, but they can also be bad. But the whole point is to sell the product. Someone is always trying to change someone else's mind, that the product is better then another. I believe without the use of advertising, no one would know from right and wrong; where to fit in.
On the other hand, Dinyar Godreg highly disagrees. This person believes that advertising doesn't tell us anything. Where i disagree, with out the Ad, we wouldn't know anything about the product and what makes it so good or bad. But Godreg states that Ad's don't tell us anything "new." We the audience should already know about the product, and know from our common senses, but this isn't always true. I do agree with Godreg that us Americans consume way more then we actually need; but ad's only want and make us come back for it. This pretty much permeates our lifestyles as whole. Either way ad's don't really worry about the product it's self, but they try to relate and make a connection to the consumer or buyers. They work with your image, lifestyle, dreams, and emotions. Once the Ad clicks into your emotions, your done. It has done the trick. Human beings only care about their image, and their image only. This is our everything, so if i ad can make a connection and make you look even "better," your going to want. Godreg once said, all the effort can fail or succeed. This portrays our lifestyles, and were are viewed as "apolitical."
But in the end, we all know with out the use of Advertising, nothing would be sold. Not only are ad's helping out their sellers, they are also reducing prices and helping handle money with Newspaper Company's. The Ad industry has responded to many criticism's in many ways, nothing can change that. Everyone will have different views, but in the last line, Ad's wont change or they wont leave. Since technology is being more and more used, Ad's will to. Ad's will be placed as pop up ads, banners, and will promise easy consumption in sites. This all makes it complicated. Both authors came to conclusion that Advertisement will always infiltrate society on many levels, not just one.
Advertising is a very useful to people and the information that does the job, advertising, helps the consumers make better decisions on what they are buying, stated John Calfee. Calfee is a former U.S. Trade Commission economist, and strongly agrees with his position, saying that there can't be any negative criticism that beats his. He argues that the Ad's help and benefit the consumer on what the right product is to buy. Advertising is a tool for communicating information and shaping markets in any way possible. This is where persuasive comes in, this provides an immense amount of information that benefits to primary parties. An example would be that eating a lot of Fiber, can reduce the amount of chances to get cancer. So here comes Kellogg, advertising that their article is high in fiber; this makes more people want their cereal, for their own health. Not only can Ad's be good, but they can also be bad. But the whole point is to sell the product. Someone is always trying to change someone else's mind, that the product is better then another. I believe without the use of advertising, no one would know from right and wrong; where to fit in.
On the other hand, Dinyar Godreg highly disagrees. This person believes that advertising doesn't tell us anything. Where i disagree, with out the Ad, we wouldn't know anything about the product and what makes it so good or bad. But Godreg states that Ad's don't tell us anything "new." We the audience should already know about the product, and know from our common senses, but this isn't always true. I do agree with Godreg that us Americans consume way more then we actually need; but ad's only want and make us come back for it. This pretty much permeates our lifestyles as whole. Either way ad's don't really worry about the product it's self, but they try to relate and make a connection to the consumer or buyers. They work with your image, lifestyle, dreams, and emotions. Once the Ad clicks into your emotions, your done. It has done the trick. Human beings only care about their image, and their image only. This is our everything, so if i ad can make a connection and make you look even "better," your going to want. Godreg once said, all the effort can fail or succeed. This portrays our lifestyles, and were are viewed as "apolitical."
But in the end, we all know with out the use of Advertising, nothing would be sold. Not only are ad's helping out their sellers, they are also reducing prices and helping handle money with Newspaper Company's. The Ad industry has responded to many criticism's in many ways, nothing can change that. Everyone will have different views, but in the last line, Ad's wont change or they wont leave. Since technology is being more and more used, Ad's will to. Ad's will be placed as pop up ads, banners, and will promise easy consumption in sites. This all makes it complicated. Both authors came to conclusion that Advertisement will always infiltrate society on many levels, not just one.
How well is the Society Informed From Tech? (RA#2)
RA #2 How Informed Are You
Do you believe the more technology you use; the more aware you will be about politics? This is what I am testing for my class on. In Professor Andrews’s class, I had to survey five percent of my population (friends and family), and see how aware the people are about the Governor’s Race. I will need to hand each person a list of five questions, and have them answer it to the best of their ability. The whole point of this test is to see what people know already, regarding the governor race and for them not to look up the answers. I believe that the more hours someone spends using technology, then the more informed they will be and consume about any topic relating to politics. I find this true because someone that uses technology versus someone who does not use technology are much more informed about news, topics, and world events. This is why I decided to survey my friends and family, to get the true findings of what they really know about politics.
I started my survey with five basic questions regarding the governor’s race, and to test the 5 percent of my population. The five questions I asked were, who is democrat and who is republican, what day do you cast your vote, how long can a governor stay in office, where does Whitman and Brown get their money to advertise themselves, and lastly, has anyone been in office before. I wanted to start the survey seeing if people even knew who was running for the 2010 election, because if they didn’t, then there was no reason to ask them anything else. If they did know, then I wanted to see if they knew when they could vote because that is very important for the election. If the people voted the person of their choice, then they should know how long the governor will be in office, so I thought that was another important question. Then, I wanted to see if anyone knew where their governors were getting the money to advertise themselves. This shows the citizens how responsible the governors are with their money. Then wrapping up the survey, I figured I’d see if the population knew anything about Whitman or Brown past and if either one of them have ever ran for office before. I figured these were straight up easy questions, and if they didn’t know anything about these, they were not informed at all.
The way I tested the population, was that I sent out a mass e-mail through Facebook asking people to participate in this survey about the governor race. I wanted to find out how much people knew about their governor race. I sent out about 70 messages to my friends and family, and got about 50 responses back. I sent out the survey asking people to answer the questions to their best of knowledge without looking anything up, because that was the whole point of this project. I was surprised with the amount of responses I got right away. I got way more responses then I needed, but I used them anyway to make the survey more accurate. After getting the answers, I knew what to conclude right at that point.
From gathering up all the answers from the surveys I collected, I have come to conclusion; the more hours someone use of technology; such as test messaging, internet, TV and online newspaper. I knew this from the start, only because I know with out technology, what can you really know? Technology is the usage and knowledge of tools, to help better inform you about life, politics, sports, and etc. Without the use of technology, people wouldn’t know fact from fiction, true from false in the news that surrounds us. I found from my surveys, that men spend more hours per day with technological devices then women. This show’s that men are informed of information all day long compared to women. On the other hand, women spend more hours at a single time with technological devices, rather then the whole day. These results didn’t really show a difference at all. Either way both genders are still exposed to the same amount of news about politics and the Governors Race, on the same day; either for the whole day or for a longer extend periods of time. From the results, both genders knew pretty much the same amount as the other. The only people who rarely knew anything were the ones who use less then two hours a day accessing internet, TV, or phone. I was surprised with my findings that two of my friends used about five to six hours of technology a day, and they didn’t know one thing about the Governor’s Race. I found this very interesting, because if they were exposed to that much media, weren’t they exposed to something at least regarding the 2010 elections? I also found that many people were confused about the day you cast your vote. Many people said November 4th was the day to cast your vote for the Governor election, but the majority said November 2nd. I couldn’t figure out why many people said the second, and not the forth. Every question was straight forward, you either knew it or didn’t. They weren’t trick questions; they were to test your logical skills.
So in conclusion I found that the more exposed someone is to any type of
technology; it proves they are more informed on any given topic; whether it was news, sports, politics, or religion.. Just from my survey alone, this is what I have found. I’m sure if I surveyed hundreds more people, the conclusion may be different, but I doubt it. The more hours you put into it, the more you will get out of it; not just about the governor race, but all the other news stories that are happening in the world right now. Technology is a way to inform you, and connect you with the other sides of the world. Technology brings the tools of empowerment into the hands and minds of those who use them today. Without this, the would get their information from printed newspapers and TV. Technology such as the internet and cell phones, have brought the world close then we could have ever imagined. Information is just a click away now, simple as that!
(Questions) How much do you really know about the Governor Race?
Please answer the following questions:
1. Who is Democratic _____________ and who is Republican _____________?
2. What day do you cast vote for the governor you’d like______________?
3. If they get elected, how long can a governor stay in office ____________?
4. Where is Meg Whitman getting her money to advertise herself ______________, and where is Jerry Brown getting his money to advertise himself_____________?
5. Has Meg Whitman or Jerry Brown been in office before, if so who___________?
How much technology do you use a day?
-hours______
-how many times a day______
-Text message? ___Internet?___ TV? ___ Newspaper? ___ (Yes or no?)
Do you believe the more technology you use; the more aware you will be about politics? This is what I am testing for my class on. In Professor Andrews’s class, I had to survey five percent of my population (friends and family), and see how aware the people are about the Governor’s Race. I will need to hand each person a list of five questions, and have them answer it to the best of their ability. The whole point of this test is to see what people know already, regarding the governor race and for them not to look up the answers. I believe that the more hours someone spends using technology, then the more informed they will be and consume about any topic relating to politics. I find this true because someone that uses technology versus someone who does not use technology are much more informed about news, topics, and world events. This is why I decided to survey my friends and family, to get the true findings of what they really know about politics.
I started my survey with five basic questions regarding the governor’s race, and to test the 5 percent of my population. The five questions I asked were, who is democrat and who is republican, what day do you cast your vote, how long can a governor stay in office, where does Whitman and Brown get their money to advertise themselves, and lastly, has anyone been in office before. I wanted to start the survey seeing if people even knew who was running for the 2010 election, because if they didn’t, then there was no reason to ask them anything else. If they did know, then I wanted to see if they knew when they could vote because that is very important for the election. If the people voted the person of their choice, then they should know how long the governor will be in office, so I thought that was another important question. Then, I wanted to see if anyone knew where their governors were getting the money to advertise themselves. This shows the citizens how responsible the governors are with their money. Then wrapping up the survey, I figured I’d see if the population knew anything about Whitman or Brown past and if either one of them have ever ran for office before. I figured these were straight up easy questions, and if they didn’t know anything about these, they were not informed at all.
The way I tested the population, was that I sent out a mass e-mail through Facebook asking people to participate in this survey about the governor race. I wanted to find out how much people knew about their governor race. I sent out about 70 messages to my friends and family, and got about 50 responses back. I sent out the survey asking people to answer the questions to their best of knowledge without looking anything up, because that was the whole point of this project. I was surprised with the amount of responses I got right away. I got way more responses then I needed, but I used them anyway to make the survey more accurate. After getting the answers, I knew what to conclude right at that point.
From gathering up all the answers from the surveys I collected, I have come to conclusion; the more hours someone use of technology; such as test messaging, internet, TV and online newspaper. I knew this from the start, only because I know with out technology, what can you really know? Technology is the usage and knowledge of tools, to help better inform you about life, politics, sports, and etc. Without the use of technology, people wouldn’t know fact from fiction, true from false in the news that surrounds us. I found from my surveys, that men spend more hours per day with technological devices then women. This show’s that men are informed of information all day long compared to women. On the other hand, women spend more hours at a single time with technological devices, rather then the whole day. These results didn’t really show a difference at all. Either way both genders are still exposed to the same amount of news about politics and the Governors Race, on the same day; either for the whole day or for a longer extend periods of time. From the results, both genders knew pretty much the same amount as the other. The only people who rarely knew anything were the ones who use less then two hours a day accessing internet, TV, or phone. I was surprised with my findings that two of my friends used about five to six hours of technology a day, and they didn’t know one thing about the Governor’s Race. I found this very interesting, because if they were exposed to that much media, weren’t they exposed to something at least regarding the 2010 elections? I also found that many people were confused about the day you cast your vote. Many people said November 4th was the day to cast your vote for the Governor election, but the majority said November 2nd. I couldn’t figure out why many people said the second, and not the forth. Every question was straight forward, you either knew it or didn’t. They weren’t trick questions; they were to test your logical skills.
So in conclusion I found that the more exposed someone is to any type of
technology; it proves they are more informed on any given topic; whether it was news, sports, politics, or religion.. Just from my survey alone, this is what I have found. I’m sure if I surveyed hundreds more people, the conclusion may be different, but I doubt it. The more hours you put into it, the more you will get out of it; not just about the governor race, but all the other news stories that are happening in the world right now. Technology is a way to inform you, and connect you with the other sides of the world. Technology brings the tools of empowerment into the hands and minds of those who use them today. Without this, the would get their information from printed newspapers and TV. Technology such as the internet and cell phones, have brought the world close then we could have ever imagined. Information is just a click away now, simple as that!
(Questions) How much do you really know about the Governor Race?
Please answer the following questions:
1. Who is Democratic _____________ and who is Republican _____________?
2. What day do you cast vote for the governor you’d like______________?
3. If they get elected, how long can a governor stay in office ____________?
4. Where is Meg Whitman getting her money to advertise herself ______________, and where is Jerry Brown getting his money to advertise himself_____________?
5. Has Meg Whitman or Jerry Brown been in office before, if so who___________?
How much technology do you use a day?
-hours______
-how many times a day______
-Text message? ___Internet?___ TV? ___ Newspaper? ___ (Yes or no?)
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Are people better Informed in the Information Society?
As I read Issue 18, Are people better informed in the information Society, I noted that there were two strong arguments. This first argument, Linda Jackson took place as yes people are better informed by the usage of internet. The second argument took place as a no by Mark Bauerlein where he argued that we aren't getting a smart, were just getting dumber. Many people would like to believe that the more technology that we invent or have, that the better quality of life we will receive. To us the internet helps and shows us the potential to enhance our academic achievements in life. Because we have the inter, it is a source which helps us people use a source of communication to capture and learn something.
The first argument, by Linda Jackson truly believes the more we use the internet, the smarter we will get. This makes sense, because the more we read, and the more we are exposed to words, the more you can learn. That is no lie. Studies show that over 500 people found positive effects on computer applications. In the Educational Testing Service, they found that there were a higher performance by the grades of forth and eight graders. This takes place because computers all provide cognitive, visual, and intelligence skills. This skills are strongly for science and math, because they have the best applications. There were several projects which looked for the frequency of usage and nature, what they actually do on the internet such as e-mails. But back in 1995, there were studies that showed that 95% users of the internet were men. But when the year 2002 came, women took over by more then half. This is because women were attracted to the way of communications as a tool. Homenettoo was a studies where they took 140 children from low income homes who never had a computer at home, and watched them. They then provided the children with computers and took notes on them for 16 months, and noticed a dramatic change. Their GPA's raised quite a bit. Jackson believes that as technology evolves, it may be better able to accommodate cultural influences on communication and other preferences.
On the other hand, Mark Bauerlein completely disagrees. He believes that kids are getting dumber and dumber, and getting to attached to the internet. Studies show that 90% students spend five or less hours on homework in 2006, and 55% spend 1 hour or less. This shows that more and more students aren't really worried about their homework and future. I would say i agree with him on this note, but it truly has to do with what background they come from, and how their parents care. It is to be said that 56% adults in the US think parents place to little pressure on their kids, and 15% say to much pressure. It all narrows down to how the parent copes with the rules on homework and TV; because 31% students said they admit they watch tv and play video games before homework, while another 25% just surf the internet. But the argument is, if they surf the net, are they learning something since they are reading information and facts? People need to start caring a little more about their history and religions, to get things straight. The democracy and tradition only happens in the classrooms.
Even though people may agree or disagree on the topic of internet being useful or not, technology will never stop. People will never stop trying to better then they already are. The better the technology, the better and more you'll gain from it. New technology has yet to challenge to US. We look back at the past and see how much we have improved, and yet we look into the future to see what we can improve on. This all depends on the different generations.
The first argument, by Linda Jackson truly believes the more we use the internet, the smarter we will get. This makes sense, because the more we read, and the more we are exposed to words, the more you can learn. That is no lie. Studies show that over 500 people found positive effects on computer applications. In the Educational Testing Service, they found that there were a higher performance by the grades of forth and eight graders. This takes place because computers all provide cognitive, visual, and intelligence skills. This skills are strongly for science and math, because they have the best applications. There were several projects which looked for the frequency of usage and nature, what they actually do on the internet such as e-mails. But back in 1995, there were studies that showed that 95% users of the internet were men. But when the year 2002 came, women took over by more then half. This is because women were attracted to the way of communications as a tool. Homenettoo was a studies where they took 140 children from low income homes who never had a computer at home, and watched them. They then provided the children with computers and took notes on them for 16 months, and noticed a dramatic change. Their GPA's raised quite a bit. Jackson believes that as technology evolves, it may be better able to accommodate cultural influences on communication and other preferences.
On the other hand, Mark Bauerlein completely disagrees. He believes that kids are getting dumber and dumber, and getting to attached to the internet. Studies show that 90% students spend five or less hours on homework in 2006, and 55% spend 1 hour or less. This shows that more and more students aren't really worried about their homework and future. I would say i agree with him on this note, but it truly has to do with what background they come from, and how their parents care. It is to be said that 56% adults in the US think parents place to little pressure on their kids, and 15% say to much pressure. It all narrows down to how the parent copes with the rules on homework and TV; because 31% students said they admit they watch tv and play video games before homework, while another 25% just surf the internet. But the argument is, if they surf the net, are they learning something since they are reading information and facts? People need to start caring a little more about their history and religions, to get things straight. The democracy and tradition only happens in the classrooms.
Even though people may agree or disagree on the topic of internet being useful or not, technology will never stop. People will never stop trying to better then they already are. The better the technology, the better and more you'll gain from it. New technology has yet to challenge to US. We look back at the past and see how much we have improved, and yet we look into the future to see what we can improve on. This all depends on the different generations.
Monday, October 11, 2010
RA #1 Anyalysis
Meggan Craviotto Craviotto #1
Andrews/World History
October 11, 2010
RA #1
Analysis Paper
To Whom It May Concern:
As I was reading your BBC (England paper) print that was put out October 6, 2010 online, I noticed many things that I like and didn’t like. As I viewed the pages, I looked at the way the paper was laid out, the Ad’s you put in it, the stories, the photography and the story Headlines.
While reading through the most recent news that has been posted on BBC, I noticed one thing. The England BBC news is a well balanced out paper, presenting news from all over the world. The main story was an article that was about US prosecutors in a terror case. In the News Section there was an article on how Saudi Arabia doesn’t approve of gay relationships. Another example would be in the Business section, where it showed the Stock Data on Dow Jones, Nasdaq, FTSE 100, Dax, and Cac 40. This is worldwide news. This help gives readers an opportunity to see what is going on all around the world, in this one paper. The paper is informative and easy to read.
The very first thing that caught my eye as the page came up on the computer screen was the Main Story. I thought to myself, why would a European Press put a US story as their Main Page? If I lived in England and I read from BBC as my major newspaper, I would want to know what is happening in my country as major news. Even though the US Terror Case is big all over the US, it’s not an issue that just came out. Try putting something from your country as the Main Story.
One thing that made me love your paper was the lay out. I absolutely loved the organization where you put the news, sports, science and environment, entertainment, weather, business, travel, world service, TV channels, and radio all in their very own section. The paper is nice and neat, so I know exactly where to look for what ever topic I was looking for. Even more, under each section there follow up stories bullet pointed, of the most recent stuff happening.
Another great thing that kept the News of BBC exciting and interesting was pretty much each section provided a picture for the main story in that one section. For example in the Sports Section it presents a picture of Uganda Kipsiro winning his 5,000m race winning the gold. For the entertainment, there is a picture of Sam Neill wading into Hobbit row. These pictures bring in a bigger idea of what the story will explain and talk about.
Lastly, the Ad’s; they are pretty large and noticeable too. These are presenting to the viewers the new 2011 E-Class car coming out soon. I wondered why the Mercedes car of all things, but then I knew; Mercedes Cars are European made. The British Broadcasting Corporation is trying to present something from their country to worldwide viewers. This is to help their European countries sell their car worldwide.
But overall, I would say this paper is well laid out, and very informative to many people and places.
Sincerely,
Meggan Craviotto
Andrews/World History
October 11, 2010
RA #1
Analysis Paper
To Whom It May Concern:
As I was reading your BBC (England paper) print that was put out October 6, 2010 online, I noticed many things that I like and didn’t like. As I viewed the pages, I looked at the way the paper was laid out, the Ad’s you put in it, the stories, the photography and the story Headlines.
While reading through the most recent news that has been posted on BBC, I noticed one thing. The England BBC news is a well balanced out paper, presenting news from all over the world. The main story was an article that was about US prosecutors in a terror case. In the News Section there was an article on how Saudi Arabia doesn’t approve of gay relationships. Another example would be in the Business section, where it showed the Stock Data on Dow Jones, Nasdaq, FTSE 100, Dax, and Cac 40. This is worldwide news. This help gives readers an opportunity to see what is going on all around the world, in this one paper. The paper is informative and easy to read.
The very first thing that caught my eye as the page came up on the computer screen was the Main Story. I thought to myself, why would a European Press put a US story as their Main Page? If I lived in England and I read from BBC as my major newspaper, I would want to know what is happening in my country as major news. Even though the US Terror Case is big all over the US, it’s not an issue that just came out. Try putting something from your country as the Main Story.
One thing that made me love your paper was the lay out. I absolutely loved the organization where you put the news, sports, science and environment, entertainment, weather, business, travel, world service, TV channels, and radio all in their very own section. The paper is nice and neat, so I know exactly where to look for what ever topic I was looking for. Even more, under each section there follow up stories bullet pointed, of the most recent stuff happening.
Another great thing that kept the News of BBC exciting and interesting was pretty much each section provided a picture for the main story in that one section. For example in the Sports Section it presents a picture of Uganda Kipsiro winning his 5,000m race winning the gold. For the entertainment, there is a picture of Sam Neill wading into Hobbit row. These pictures bring in a bigger idea of what the story will explain and talk about.
Lastly, the Ad’s; they are pretty large and noticeable too. These are presenting to the viewers the new 2011 E-Class car coming out soon. I wondered why the Mercedes car of all things, but then I knew; Mercedes Cars are European made. The British Broadcasting Corporation is trying to present something from their country to worldwide viewers. This is to help their European countries sell their car worldwide.
But overall, I would say this paper is well laid out, and very informative to many people and places.
Sincerely,
Meggan Craviotto
Thursday, October 7, 2010
RA #1...BBC was my Choice
The BBC (The British Broadcasting Corporation) was the online news source that i have chosen to critique. I chose this one because i already knew that it was one of the largest sites online for news sources, and many people rad it. After reviewing and reading the BBC front page, i have found this was the only news website with the most realistic and straight to the main facts page, and it was filled with many facts. I found that there were some titles that have caught me attention, which lead me for this decision. The titles made the article more eye catching. There were some articles put into the front page that weren't really that realistic, but got the job done. Everything can't always be serious, or else it will draw the readers away. They will get bored. Even thought there weren't some news stories that was very realistic, it still got my attention. So in my letter, i'll critique the BBC Co. on how they can improve and balance things out more worldwide.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
International News Differences
As I was reading and watching the different news stations and websites, I noticed one huge thing. Every single article provided similar, yet different facts. I found this strange because, we the people rely on the media, and we are being provided with false information. I read about the NATO tankers attack, that happened in Pakistan. The main articles that i read were off of the BBC News, the Pravda, the AlJazzera, and the Guardian. All the articles are from different countries, and they are writing on the same scene that happened in Pakistan.
After reading the article off the BBC news, I noticed they had stated that 27 tankers were attacked, and that there were at least six people killed, and a dozen more were injured. But in the Pravda article they stated that 27 tankers were attacked, and never mentioned the deaths or injuries that occurred in the event. In the Aljazeera article, they stated that only 20 NATO tanks were attacked, which confuses me; because that's not what I got from the previous articles. In this paper, there are three killed. And in the AFP article there are three dead and 20 NATO tanks are attacked. Now I'm at the point where I'm not sure how many NATO tankers were attacked.
All these articles are on the same track that there was an attack in Pakistan on the NATO tankers, but all the information is switched up. Some say three people are killed on the attacked and some say 6 were killed and dozen injured. And another article does not even mention the deaths the attack caused. Even the numbers are wrong for the amount of NATO tanks that been attacked. The AFP and AlJazeera state that only 20 were attacked, and the Pravda, BBC News, and the guardian simply state 27. Now I want to re-think this whole thing, and want to know which people are right.
Either way, all these different news stories are put out into the media, and provide us people of what happened in the event; even though the numbers didn't all come out the same. We know that there were several armed suspected militants that have set at least 20 or more NATO tanks on fire, and caused a few deaths; which we don't know the exact amount. Because of this event, Pakistan has shut down the border and stopped some NATO supplies that crossed to Afghanistan.
While reading the different articles that were written by different countries, I noticed everyone has a different opinion on what has happened in the scene. Not that they have placed sides on a country, but on how cruel the attackers were. Either way everyone will base their article on what they and their country believe in. Which I found interesting, even though all the facts weren't straight forward and truthful!
After reading the article off the BBC news, I noticed they had stated that 27 tankers were attacked, and that there were at least six people killed, and a dozen more were injured. But in the Pravda article they stated that 27 tankers were attacked, and never mentioned the deaths or injuries that occurred in the event. In the Aljazeera article, they stated that only 20 NATO tanks were attacked, which confuses me; because that's not what I got from the previous articles. In this paper, there are three killed. And in the AFP article there are three dead and 20 NATO tanks are attacked. Now I'm at the point where I'm not sure how many NATO tankers were attacked.
All these articles are on the same track that there was an attack in Pakistan on the NATO tankers, but all the information is switched up. Some say three people are killed on the attacked and some say 6 were killed and dozen injured. And another article does not even mention the deaths the attack caused. Even the numbers are wrong for the amount of NATO tanks that been attacked. The AFP and AlJazeera state that only 20 were attacked, and the Pravda, BBC News, and the guardian simply state 27. Now I want to re-think this whole thing, and want to know which people are right.
Either way, all these different news stories are put out into the media, and provide us people of what happened in the event; even though the numbers didn't all come out the same. We know that there were several armed suspected militants that have set at least 20 or more NATO tanks on fire, and caused a few deaths; which we don't know the exact amount. Because of this event, Pakistan has shut down the border and stopped some NATO supplies that crossed to Afghanistan.
While reading the different articles that were written by different countries, I noticed everyone has a different opinion on what has happened in the scene. Not that they have placed sides on a country, but on how cruel the attackers were. Either way everyone will base their article on what they and their country believe in. Which I found interesting, even though all the facts weren't straight forward and truthful!
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Fox Primary: Complicated, Contractual
There are four people who have in their mind one thing, will they run for president? These people are Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Mike Huckabee. Not only are they thinking about running for president, they are making a fat pay check for no reason at all. Fox News asked for one favor, and that is to keep their information to themselves. If they do so, they will be handed a pay check. It is as almost there four people are exclusive to Fox News. This is starting a little spark and anger between other news stations.
These four paying contributors are starting to piss off the news networks, and starting to create rivals. All the rivals want is some feedback of what is happening and keeping updated on the Presidential race, and they cant receive nothing. They are almost as if they were called, "the Fox candidates." Fox doesn't own these people, so it is really not fair to the others. C-Span tried interviewing Palin, and Palin straight up said she needed permission from Fox, if not then sorry. This same thing happened to several other news stations.
Fox news stated that once these people are elected or declared Presidency, they have all the rights to deal with the media. Even though the (president) will be being interviewed for being elected president at the time, they probably will be also be getting shit from news networks on why they never talked before. Palin, Gingrich, Santorum, and Huckabee are not being forced at any time to keep quiet and stick with Fox, as a matter in fact, they can bounce when ever they want. They signed a contract, but it can be broken at any time.
To me i feel like so far Fox are been in power over these candidates with one tool, and that is the paycheck. The longer these four remain "undecided," the longer and the fatter the paycheck with be. With this paycheck it prevents these people from talking with any other news networks. To me it isnt fair to the others, but at the same time, its business. So far this year surprisingly, none of the four have appeared on any other television, except for Gingrich. He has appeared two times on ABC, and three times on NBC in January. I wonder if he asked for permission or felt that he should. I wonder if anything has happened ever since that incident. But on the other hand Palin appeared in Iowa, and they were disappointed that she failed to meet with the local officials, and wouldn't take any advice. Yet, she followed her orders like she should have.
This whole thing i believe is about the power a news network can gain over people. And to me, they are doing a pretty good job. For them to keep four HUGE people that may take roll in our country one day mouths shut, is pretty big. This person can make a huge impact on our lives, and we can't even find out what or how they will. But we can find out on the Fox News.
These four paying contributors are starting to piss off the news networks, and starting to create rivals. All the rivals want is some feedback of what is happening and keeping updated on the Presidential race, and they cant receive nothing. They are almost as if they were called, "the Fox candidates." Fox doesn't own these people, so it is really not fair to the others. C-Span tried interviewing Palin, and Palin straight up said she needed permission from Fox, if not then sorry. This same thing happened to several other news stations.
Fox news stated that once these people are elected or declared Presidency, they have all the rights to deal with the media. Even though the (president) will be being interviewed for being elected president at the time, they probably will be also be getting shit from news networks on why they never talked before. Palin, Gingrich, Santorum, and Huckabee are not being forced at any time to keep quiet and stick with Fox, as a matter in fact, they can bounce when ever they want. They signed a contract, but it can be broken at any time.
To me i feel like so far Fox are been in power over these candidates with one tool, and that is the paycheck. The longer these four remain "undecided," the longer and the fatter the paycheck with be. With this paycheck it prevents these people from talking with any other news networks. To me it isnt fair to the others, but at the same time, its business. So far this year surprisingly, none of the four have appeared on any other television, except for Gingrich. He has appeared two times on ABC, and three times on NBC in January. I wonder if he asked for permission or felt that he should. I wonder if anything has happened ever since that incident. But on the other hand Palin appeared in Iowa, and they were disappointed that she failed to meet with the local officials, and wouldn't take any advice. Yet, she followed her orders like she should have.
This whole thing i believe is about the power a news network can gain over people. And to me, they are doing a pretty good job. For them to keep four HUGE people that may take roll in our country one day mouths shut, is pretty big. This person can make a huge impact on our lives, and we can't even find out what or how they will. But we can find out on the Fox News.
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Can Media Regain Public Trust?
Many studies show that people don't trust the media. According to Pew Research Center, it shows that only 29% people and viewers believe that the news get their facts straight. Bu the media is a mixture of a bunch of things. It is filled with news, facts, opinions, and analysis's. Many articles and writing from journalist are based on their opinions using facts they gather to support their sides. The results show that only 18% of the people believe that the press deals fairly with all sides of an issue. So don't you blame the public to no trust the media, when they are trying to side you. Believe it or not the press and journalist like to rely and favor the high government officials because they work in a high professional culture just like them. Sad to say, 71% of the people see the press as a necessary watchdog on the government, this doesn't sound right does it? They are basically trying to use the government for answers.
I personally believe either way if you try to believe the Media or not, you'll always receive some kind of false information. Journalist know how to make you side with them on some arguments, because they are smart like that. They use the Normative Theory which deals with the ideal ways to structure and operate a news system. Using this, journalist use facts, specific details, investigation notes, and analysis's to prove to their audience that they are right.
Journalism is a thing that uses sources to gain control over some democracy. Michael Schudson writes a book, "Why Democracies Need an Unlovable Press," and this provides us with some good feedback. In the book he refers that good journalism needs seven things for the news for the use of democracy. You start out with information, investigation, analysis, creating social empathy, facilitating a public forum, mobilization, and end with publicizing a representative democracy. Schudson then argues that journalist are obsessed with facts and events, they never focus on their own power over the situation. They also focus on confrontation and the outsider status, but yet these are foundations that must be removed if the journalist want to gain trust from their audience.
No matter if the journalist care about if the audience believe them or not, they aren't free people. Journalist aren't free agents, they are constrained by a set of complex institutional relations which leads them to opinions and idea's, especially on high government officials. This is proof of why they get so wound up on them. But i believe if we didn't have media, then there would be no way they the people would know what is happening around the world. Media is a tool to store and deliver information to what is to be told.
I personally believe either way if you try to believe the Media or not, you'll always receive some kind of false information. Journalist know how to make you side with them on some arguments, because they are smart like that. They use the Normative Theory which deals with the ideal ways to structure and operate a news system. Using this, journalist use facts, specific details, investigation notes, and analysis's to prove to their audience that they are right.
Journalism is a thing that uses sources to gain control over some democracy. Michael Schudson writes a book, "Why Democracies Need an Unlovable Press," and this provides us with some good feedback. In the book he refers that good journalism needs seven things for the news for the use of democracy. You start out with information, investigation, analysis, creating social empathy, facilitating a public forum, mobilization, and end with publicizing a representative democracy. Schudson then argues that journalist are obsessed with facts and events, they never focus on their own power over the situation. They also focus on confrontation and the outsider status, but yet these are foundations that must be removed if the journalist want to gain trust from their audience.
No matter if the journalist care about if the audience believe them or not, they aren't free people. Journalist aren't free agents, they are constrained by a set of complex institutional relations which leads them to opinions and idea's, especially on high government officials. This is proof of why they get so wound up on them. But i believe if we didn't have media, then there would be no way they the people would know what is happening around the world. Media is a tool to store and deliver information to what is to be told.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
California's Governor's Race
As I was learning more about the governor's race, it actually change my views on Whitman and Brown a lot. I haven't really been paying attention to the campaign at all, and the only information that I was really getting was off their advertisements on television. I noticed that when they both advertise themselves on TV, they try to make themselves look better then they really are. Both Brown and Whitman say they will pull California out of the "hard time." I personally fell like this is a fib, because not ONE person can make such a dramatic change to the State.
I absolutely, first off did not know that Meg Whitman was 54 years old, and have two children. She is a republican. That shocked me a lot. Then as I was reading more, I noticed that Meg attended Princeton and Harvard; who would have thought. She is well known of her name through her former CEO Presidential. She even is the Vice President of The Walt Disney Company. How random is that? Whitman supports the rights to bear arms, favors Prop 4 and also supports Prop 8. That was very unusual because not many people support Prop 8. I feel that if Meg eliminates pension, lays off 40,000 workers, and propose to contracting out work; the would will be in a downfall. She already spend $118 on herself and her campaign alone, maybe she is trying to hard?
On the other hand there is Jerry Brown. Jerry is a democrat and lives in Oakland, Ca. He also went to school nearby me, in Berkley, and also Yale. He received a bachelors degree in classics at Berkley, and a law degree at Yale. Apparently when Jerry ran for Governor in the 1900's, he failed the state miserably. I believe if he gets elected, the same thing will happen the last time he tried. Everyone lost jobs and the money became a big issue. Brown on the other hand supports full time workers pensions, health care reforms, and wants to create more jobs. He doesn't believe in the death penalty, and the legalization of pot. Where as Brown, he wants to try to help the state by cutting taxes by $4 billion, but I highly doubt he will be about to do.
Either way, on November 2, 2010, someone will become Governor of the state of California. Both electives have opposite opinions, and one way may work and another may not. The state will go in even deeper depression, and we might spring out of it. Meg Whitman and Jerry Brown both have great idea's in my opinion, and I am looking forwards in seeing what will happen in a couple months.
I absolutely, first off did not know that Meg Whitman was 54 years old, and have two children. She is a republican. That shocked me a lot. Then as I was reading more, I noticed that Meg attended Princeton and Harvard; who would have thought. She is well known of her name through her former CEO Presidential. She even is the Vice President of The Walt Disney Company. How random is that? Whitman supports the rights to bear arms, favors Prop 4 and also supports Prop 8. That was very unusual because not many people support Prop 8. I feel that if Meg eliminates pension, lays off 40,000 workers, and propose to contracting out work; the would will be in a downfall. She already spend $118 on herself and her campaign alone, maybe she is trying to hard?
On the other hand there is Jerry Brown. Jerry is a democrat and lives in Oakland, Ca. He also went to school nearby me, in Berkley, and also Yale. He received a bachelors degree in classics at Berkley, and a law degree at Yale. Apparently when Jerry ran for Governor in the 1900's, he failed the state miserably. I believe if he gets elected, the same thing will happen the last time he tried. Everyone lost jobs and the money became a big issue. Brown on the other hand supports full time workers pensions, health care reforms, and wants to create more jobs. He doesn't believe in the death penalty, and the legalization of pot. Where as Brown, he wants to try to help the state by cutting taxes by $4 billion, but I highly doubt he will be about to do.
Either way, on November 2, 2010, someone will become Governor of the state of California. Both electives have opposite opinions, and one way may work and another may not. The state will go in even deeper depression, and we might spring out of it. Meg Whitman and Jerry Brown both have great idea's in my opinion, and I am looking forwards in seeing what will happen in a couple months.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Will Evolving Forms of Journalism Be an Improvement?
Do you think Journalism will change as time goes on? I honestly think journalism wont change. I mean what more can you change about it. Journalism is basically stating facts about an event, and putting some opinions and quotes into the story. High end journalism requires essential information about our government and society. This is a profession, not something to mess around with. To be a writer, you have to be fully committed; like a full time job, and trained from day one. I believe in two theories about journalism; one is high end journalism is leading to a downfall and my other opinion is journalism wont change.
My first theory is that I believe that high end journalism is leading to a downfall, because of the strong tool called the internet. The internet is known to be the informational delivery system of our future. It can be for our future reference, but has nothing on the first generation reporting idea's. The internet leads to many new publications where in this leads to ideas, and blogging. Where this becomes a repetition, commentary, and froth. Blogging is a state of news, but in reality it is really a readers opinion, and post of their own idea's. This is where bloggers then get false information from other bloggers, then before you know it, everyone gets the facts wrong.
The second theory that I believe is that high end journalism won't change as time goes on, meaning as in the future. This is because, what more can we change about journalism. Even in different countries everything is the same about the newspaper, and they provide their country with the facts they want. Every journalist travel to different places to get the facts right, and this requires time. News stories are all about the facts that are put into them, and full of peoples opinions; including witnesses. These are the keys facts for a new story that a journalist writes. They are the sources to their story, to make it more real and alive.
Either way, if journalism changes or not, it will still be in the same format. Full of facts and opinions from others. People believe that high end journalism is dying, and wont change unless there is a new economic model that is achieved. This wont be achieved on the web anyhow. David Simon believed that modern newspaper writing is the hardest job, and the most gratifying. This is because when you gather the information, it must all be full of truth, if otherwise you will provide the world with false facts. But the whole point of being a journalist is to provide your people with true facts about our problems, and about the world.
My first theory is that I believe that high end journalism is leading to a downfall, because of the strong tool called the internet. The internet is known to be the informational delivery system of our future. It can be for our future reference, but has nothing on the first generation reporting idea's. The internet leads to many new publications where in this leads to ideas, and blogging. Where this becomes a repetition, commentary, and froth. Blogging is a state of news, but in reality it is really a readers opinion, and post of their own idea's. This is where bloggers then get false information from other bloggers, then before you know it, everyone gets the facts wrong.
The second theory that I believe is that high end journalism won't change as time goes on, meaning as in the future. This is because, what more can we change about journalism. Even in different countries everything is the same about the newspaper, and they provide their country with the facts they want. Every journalist travel to different places to get the facts right, and this requires time. News stories are all about the facts that are put into them, and full of peoples opinions; including witnesses. These are the keys facts for a new story that a journalist writes. They are the sources to their story, to make it more real and alive.
Either way, if journalism changes or not, it will still be in the same format. Full of facts and opinions from others. People believe that high end journalism is dying, and wont change unless there is a new economic model that is achieved. This wont be achieved on the web anyhow. David Simon believed that modern newspaper writing is the hardest job, and the most gratifying. This is because when you gather the information, it must all be full of truth, if otherwise you will provide the world with false facts. But the whole point of being a journalist is to provide your people with true facts about our problems, and about the world.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Segements of The Daily Show and Fox News
After viewing both, The Daily Show and Fox News, I have noticed they are so much alike, but very different. I choose to watch the segments that were related to Meghan McCain. These two shorts shows were about Meghan McCain's new book that was just published; "Dirty Sexy Politics." Both, Fox News and The Daily Show advertised the new book, and talked about the different strategies that Meghan used in them. Fox News was more informative, and The Daily Show just joked around about the book.
I noticed that both of these show's gave out a lot of information regarding Meghan McCain's new book. Everything that was stated and remarked were true statements, and nothing false. Both of the head people of the show basically tried to help Meghan sell the book by advertising it on their show, and talk about what her beliefs are on the campaign and new book.
Watching The Daily Show, I noticed that the show was full of laughter. It made everything so much more interesting about news, and you wanted to hear more if it. As Jon Stewart and Meghan McCain chatted about her new book, Jon made some funny remarks about her book cover. Jon made Meghan laugh, smile, act silly, and just be herself. He wasn't mocking Meghan, he was just joking around. He had the crowd in the background, he had constant laughter throughout the show, and even provided the audience with political facts in between. There was just so much more going on. The viewers were gaining interest and learning something at the same time. I believe because of the way he runs the show with the laughter and smiles, that is how he wins over all the other news channels.
On the other hand, The Fox News was more of an informative show and trying to get straight to the point. They straight up stated facts one after another, and talked more then Meghan actually did. The show host talked so much Meghan barely got some words out of her mouth, and had a chance to even smile or laugh. There was obviously no crowd, music, or any excitement going on; unlike the daily show. Fox News was more calming and talking straight politics. They showed the viewers Meghan's new book on what it looked like, and what it was about. There was very little laughter and smiles. Where in The Daily Show just made jokes, but wasn't really telling is the core elements.
I have definitely formed opinions on both of the shows after just watching short little segments. I would prefer watching The Daily Show over Fox News, only because I'm a huge fan of comedy. So if I can watch a show that's funny and get some educational information out of it, then why not? This is why I believe The Daily Show is more well known, and more watched.
I noticed that both of these show's gave out a lot of information regarding Meghan McCain's new book. Everything that was stated and remarked were true statements, and nothing false. Both of the head people of the show basically tried to help Meghan sell the book by advertising it on their show, and talk about what her beliefs are on the campaign and new book.
Watching The Daily Show, I noticed that the show was full of laughter. It made everything so much more interesting about news, and you wanted to hear more if it. As Jon Stewart and Meghan McCain chatted about her new book, Jon made some funny remarks about her book cover. Jon made Meghan laugh, smile, act silly, and just be herself. He wasn't mocking Meghan, he was just joking around. He had the crowd in the background, he had constant laughter throughout the show, and even provided the audience with political facts in between. There was just so much more going on. The viewers were gaining interest and learning something at the same time. I believe because of the way he runs the show with the laughter and smiles, that is how he wins over all the other news channels.
On the other hand, The Fox News was more of an informative show and trying to get straight to the point. They straight up stated facts one after another, and talked more then Meghan actually did. The show host talked so much Meghan barely got some words out of her mouth, and had a chance to even smile or laugh. There was obviously no crowd, music, or any excitement going on; unlike the daily show. Fox News was more calming and talking straight politics. They showed the viewers Meghan's new book on what it looked like, and what it was about. There was very little laughter and smiles. Where in The Daily Show just made jokes, but wasn't really telling is the core elements.
I have definitely formed opinions on both of the shows after just watching short little segments. I would prefer watching The Daily Show over Fox News, only because I'm a huge fan of comedy. So if I can watch a show that's funny and get some educational information out of it, then why not? This is why I believe The Daily Show is more well known, and more watched.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Does Fake News Mislead the Public?
After reading issue nine, "Does Fake News Mislead the Public," I have come to an agreement. I absolutely believe that Fake News misleads the public in many ways. Not just the media, but also in print sources too. Reading this has made me come to realize that late night shows puts out false information for it's viewers, especially for a majority of people under the age of 30. A prime example can be The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. His shows are to be known for the humor part in the political remarks, rather then being filled with substances.
The late night show that Jon Stewart puts on, The Daily Show, is a widely known watched show all over the United States. Jon Stewart's shows are full of not just comedy, but comedy on politics. It is to be known that 21% of people under the age of thirty rely on this show for gaining and receiving facts on politics and campaigns. The Daily Show with Jon Stewart may be full of humor, and this is what can lead to false information and beliefs. The show may not be putting out false facts, but it is argued that uneducated people may believe in the facts Jon says and not get the "joke," that Jon Stewart was putting out. This leads to a kind of imagination. Which then leads them to the wrong understanding. This can affect a majority of people on their knowledge, beliefs and behaviors; which then can really screw up the campaign.
People are still debating whether The Daily Show with Jon Stewart is an informative late night show, or just a comedy show that is a joke. But the facts clearly show that people do take the show seriously, which rely and gain information from it about our campaign. People who rely on the network evening show for campaign information have almost the same percentage as those who watch The Daily Show. The network evening news have 23% of people who rely on it; which are the ages thirty and under. I believe that people can argue all they want, but when the result's come in, it tells all. The network news only has 2% more people that watch their stations, then the late night (comedy) shows.
Either way I believe that both the news and the late night shows are both filled with truthful and valuable information. Americans are going to need to learn something about who they vote for; therefore they need some form of direction. The Daily Show with Jon Stewart may mislead people in the wrong direction with the jokes, but what can you do? It's a show, anyone is going to believe what they hear on television, true or false. To me the news is dull and boring, so when you find something with a little comedy in it, then why not try it out? This makes the televisions network is the primary source of news and information for the presidential elections, so this makes the printed sources secondary. But yes, the answer is yes, fake news does mislead the public.
The late night show that Jon Stewart puts on, The Daily Show, is a widely known watched show all over the United States. Jon Stewart's shows are full of not just comedy, but comedy on politics. It is to be known that 21% of people under the age of thirty rely on this show for gaining and receiving facts on politics and campaigns. The Daily Show with Jon Stewart may be full of humor, and this is what can lead to false information and beliefs. The show may not be putting out false facts, but it is argued that uneducated people may believe in the facts Jon says and not get the "joke," that Jon Stewart was putting out. This leads to a kind of imagination. Which then leads them to the wrong understanding. This can affect a majority of people on their knowledge, beliefs and behaviors; which then can really screw up the campaign.
People are still debating whether The Daily Show with Jon Stewart is an informative late night show, or just a comedy show that is a joke. But the facts clearly show that people do take the show seriously, which rely and gain information from it about our campaign. People who rely on the network evening show for campaign information have almost the same percentage as those who watch The Daily Show. The network evening news have 23% of people who rely on it; which are the ages thirty and under. I believe that people can argue all they want, but when the result's come in, it tells all. The network news only has 2% more people that watch their stations, then the late night (comedy) shows.
Either way I believe that both the news and the late night shows are both filled with truthful and valuable information. Americans are going to need to learn something about who they vote for; therefore they need some form of direction. The Daily Show with Jon Stewart may mislead people in the wrong direction with the jokes, but what can you do? It's a show, anyone is going to believe what they hear on television, true or false. To me the news is dull and boring, so when you find something with a little comedy in it, then why not try it out? This makes the televisions network is the primary source of news and information for the presidential elections, so this makes the printed sources secondary. But yes, the answer is yes, fake news does mislead the public.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Similarities between Glenn Beck and Chris Matthews view on Obama
After watching two short shows on Glenn Beck and Chris Matthews, I now see where their minds are at. They both basically believe that everything Obama says is a lie or a fib. Both of their shows are straight up making fun of Obama's speeches, and saying he doesn't really know what is really going on out in the world. Obama says in his speeches that everyone has the right to do what they want. But in reality, do they? Obama, as he give's his speech that anyone can practice their own religion, but then how come he's against so many countries? Obama is basically trying to build his reducibility with the public and wants to spread the word that he is a proud American.
I believe that Obama does care about his people, but he can't fully focus on his people. This is because he has so much other stuff going on in the office, and can't put full attention on us. So when he gives his speeches to his American's, he tries to make himself look like he really does care. He is proud that his people practice their own religion, he is proud that his American's teach their children "the right way." But my question is, what is the right way in his opinion? Obama also explains that a country that has responsibility, deserves hard work. Don't we all work hard,, and all want to deserve the same? So what ever you put into your work, you will get out of it.
Obama clearly states that everyone should have to right to believe and practice their own religion. But if this is so, then why cant everyone have to right to what ever they want? For example, the gay people. I know it is against some of the religion rights, but America is suppose to be all about freedom. This country is all about freedom and opportunity says the President. Either way, I believe Obama has a lot of responsibilities on his country, and he tries to make the most of it that he can.
Either way, there will always be someone who makes fun of another. Everyone will form opinions on another. And that's where Glenn beck and Chris Matthew's steps in. They form their own beliefs and make people believe that their view is right, and that is what forms our country. No one really thinks on their own. Obama tries to make himself look all goody good, and wants to make a connection with a certain group of Americans. I'm sure he has made a ton of connections, and in reality no one is going to stop him. Obama is the President, and Beck and Matthews are just news men who like to spread words.
I believe that Obama does care about his people, but he can't fully focus on his people. This is because he has so much other stuff going on in the office, and can't put full attention on us. So when he gives his speeches to his American's, he tries to make himself look like he really does care. He is proud that his people practice their own religion, he is proud that his American's teach their children "the right way." But my question is, what is the right way in his opinion? Obama also explains that a country that has responsibility, deserves hard work. Don't we all work hard,, and all want to deserve the same? So what ever you put into your work, you will get out of it.
Obama clearly states that everyone should have to right to believe and practice their own religion. But if this is so, then why cant everyone have to right to what ever they want? For example, the gay people. I know it is against some of the religion rights, but America is suppose to be all about freedom. This country is all about freedom and opportunity says the President. Either way, I believe Obama has a lot of responsibilities on his country, and he tries to make the most of it that he can.
Either way, there will always be someone who makes fun of another. Everyone will form opinions on another. And that's where Glenn beck and Chris Matthew's steps in. They form their own beliefs and make people believe that their view is right, and that is what forms our country. No one really thinks on their own. Obama tries to make himself look all goody good, and wants to make a connection with a certain group of Americans. I'm sure he has made a ton of connections, and in reality no one is going to stop him. Obama is the President, and Beck and Matthews are just news men who like to spread words.
Monday, September 6, 2010
Are American Value's Shaped by the Mass Media?
After reading Issue One, Are American Value's Shaped by the Media Mass, I have picked a side. I am strongly for yes; the media has definitely affected Americans. The media has affected Americans in so many ways; I don't know where to start. Once the media manipulates us, our social arrangement's are unconsidered. People today don't want to face the truth in life, so we look ahead into reality. These are the transmissions that send signals and messages across to us.
The media becomes so persuasive, it makes is hard for Americans to believe that they don't have important affect on us. But many people don't want to admit the truth that the media has an observable impact on their everyday lives, and even others around them. Therefore I believe the media has influenced people to buy products, such as clothes, toys, furniture, cars, and etc. When the product is displayed, it's put out as of a product that you have to have. They display it as the best product you can buy, and that it is better then it looks. They will have people smiling in the commercials having the greatest time with the product , and that you will be happy forever with it. But in reality, the media is shaping the attitudes of individuals in the society. It is making someone form an opinion and illusion of what they want, in order to win them over.
Herbert Schiller outlines five myths that forms and structures the manipulation of media on the Americans. These five myths maintain social powers over individuals, and repeat the same thing over and over untill they agree with them. Even though the technology is increasing over the years, Schiller argues that the advertisments ideological core of media still remains the same. I know that the media is so persuasive; it is affecting millions of people in a negative cause. No on can think on their own anymore. It is as if we are being trained as robots, and doing what they tell us to do.
On the other hand, I dont entirely agree with James Cary's ideas. He stresses the view of communications as a process of negotiation on images and issues. He argues that people just commit themselves and time to the mdeia, which is how they get attached. They want to make themselves think they are getting taken over. But in reality, they are torturing themselves. The transmission model of communications has focused our attention on the issues of power, and control. He thinks that people are being affected by others who are affected by the media. Where I don't think that is entirely true. Everyone at least does one of the following; watches TV, reads the newspaper, reads magazines, or listens to the radio. They have to form opinions or hear what they media has to say. We have something to value.
Either way, television is persuasive to Americans, and always will be. Either it is the cultral approach to communication or the mind managers, the media is still geting their products or items out there on advetisement, and they are selling worldwide. Even if the commercial is persuasive or not, they are being successful. This is changing the nature of public discourse. All this persuasion is negatively affecting Americans, because they can't have a mind of their own. We can't believe what is right and wrong because others are being affected too. If we think on our own, then other people who are being affected will think we are crazy for our own thoughts. It is a cycle, everyone is manipulation each other.
The media becomes so persuasive, it makes is hard for Americans to believe that they don't have important affect on us. But many people don't want to admit the truth that the media has an observable impact on their everyday lives, and even others around them. Therefore I believe the media has influenced people to buy products, such as clothes, toys, furniture, cars, and etc. When the product is displayed, it's put out as of a product that you have to have. They display it as the best product you can buy, and that it is better then it looks. They will have people smiling in the commercials having the greatest time with the product , and that you will be happy forever with it. But in reality, the media is shaping the attitudes of individuals in the society. It is making someone form an opinion and illusion of what they want, in order to win them over.
Herbert Schiller outlines five myths that forms and structures the manipulation of media on the Americans. These five myths maintain social powers over individuals, and repeat the same thing over and over untill they agree with them. Even though the technology is increasing over the years, Schiller argues that the advertisments ideological core of media still remains the same. I know that the media is so persuasive; it is affecting millions of people in a negative cause. No on can think on their own anymore. It is as if we are being trained as robots, and doing what they tell us to do.
On the other hand, I dont entirely agree with James Cary's ideas. He stresses the view of communications as a process of negotiation on images and issues. He argues that people just commit themselves and time to the mdeia, which is how they get attached. They want to make themselves think they are getting taken over. But in reality, they are torturing themselves. The transmission model of communications has focused our attention on the issues of power, and control. He thinks that people are being affected by others who are affected by the media. Where I don't think that is entirely true. Everyone at least does one of the following; watches TV, reads the newspaper, reads magazines, or listens to the radio. They have to form opinions or hear what they media has to say. We have something to value.
Either way, television is persuasive to Americans, and always will be. Either it is the cultral approach to communication or the mind managers, the media is still geting their products or items out there on advetisement, and they are selling worldwide. Even if the commercial is persuasive or not, they are being successful. This is changing the nature of public discourse. All this persuasion is negatively affecting Americans, because they can't have a mind of their own. We can't believe what is right and wrong because others are being affected too. If we think on our own, then other people who are being affected will think we are crazy for our own thoughts. It is a cycle, everyone is manipulation each other.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)