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.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
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!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)