Protesters began their march early Saturday morning in a hot Houston neighborhood mostly occupied by Mexican-Americans. 300-400 people of all ages beat drums and marched, calling for law makers to create a far-reaching immigration policy to allow undocumented workers to stay in the states and with their families. Grace Bandercan, a 5 year old supporter held a sign that read, "Please don't deport my Daddy." Grace and her mother are American citizens, and her father, an immigrant construction worker is trying desperately to obtain legal papers. Grace's mother told reporters that her husband pays his taxes and is a good citizen, if only the government would recognize him.
“They need to remember the human side of things,” said Elizabeth Bandercan, referring to immigration enforcement officials. “We just want to live as a family.”
MSNBCStory
Meanwhile, on his weekly radio broadcast President Bush urged lawmakers to come together on immigration policies. Bush called it, “a critical challenge” before the nation, which is presently home to an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants.“We need a system where our laws are respected. We need a system that meets the legitimate needs of our economy. And we need a system that treats people with dignity and helps newcomers assimilate into our society,” Bush said.
Bush also challenged Congress, who are currently at a stalemate to come to a decision on immigration, arguing that his proposal doesn't mean amnesty. A recent poll done by the Wall street Journal and NBC News shows that 51% of Americans oppose Bush's immigration proposal offering a path to legal status, while 44% are in favor. Bush's argument is that illegal immigrants are taking the jobs of American citizens. Republicans proposed the idea that illegal immigrants should have to pay a fine of $10,000 to become legal citizens, but this idea was shot down by Bush, saying that illegal immigrants shouldn't;t be pushed to the front of the line, making immigrants who haven't broken the laws wait even longer to obtain citizenship. VideoLink
Also on Saturday, President Bush spoke at Miami-Dade College in Miami about immigration, a move that took some say took a lot of nerve seeing as though more than half of the graduating students were from a background not American. His message to the new grads was to get their elected officials in Washington going and make a decision about the immigration laws.
“You see every day the values of hard work, and family, and faith that immigrants bring,”the president said. “This experience gives you a special responsibility to make your voices heard.”
Bush spoke of how our immigration system is badly broken by saying,“We must address all elements of this problem together — or none of them will be solved at all."MiamiDade
As the elections draw near and Presidential candidates make their campaigns it will be interesting to see which way the public leans; will we remember that we all started off as immigrants at one point, or will we seek to send newcomers home with the message from America being, you're not welcome?
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Must have some down time...
In browsing through "On The Media" this week, I noticed something unusual. The first two stories listed (and thus the two stories most likely to be watched) were about people who were dead. The first story spoke about the obituaries for Boris Yeltsin, and the next story focussed on the war exploits of Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman. While Jessica Lynch isn't dead, Pat Tillman and Boris Yeltsin certainly are. This leads to an interesting question: are dead people just more interesting than live people, or did they just have nothing to talk about this week?
I would submit that the first assumption is more correct. Dead people are almost always more interesting than people who are alive. When we turn on the news, we expect to see stories of people being shot, or the heroic death of a fireman, or the tragic death of an innocent in the wrong place at the wrong time. On the other hand, we rarely care about people who are living and succeeding. Because we spend all day trying to "succeed" at life and get more money or a better car, we don't want to come home and see people on TV doing better than we think we're doing. Instead, we need to feel like we accomplished something today. To hear that there are three more people in the world who won't be doing better than we are is a reassurance that the work we did on that day is actually worth something.
I would submit that the first assumption is more correct. Dead people are almost always more interesting than people who are alive. When we turn on the news, we expect to see stories of people being shot, or the heroic death of a fireman, or the tragic death of an innocent in the wrong place at the wrong time. On the other hand, we rarely care about people who are living and succeeding. Because we spend all day trying to "succeed" at life and get more money or a better car, we don't want to come home and see people on TV doing better than we think we're doing. Instead, we need to feel like we accomplished something today. To hear that there are three more people in the world who won't be doing better than we are is a reassurance that the work we did on that day is actually worth something.
Saturday, April 28, 2007
I was reading an article on slate.com earlier today and came across a review of the recent Democratic candidate debate (http://www.slate.com/id/2165132) on MSNBC. The author made several good points, but one that got me thinking was a brief comment on the format that MSNBC had employed. Debate format, especially for presidential primaries, is something that always falls under scrutiny and is a good example of how the media can make or break the performance of a candidate. Here's an example; MSNBC limited each response to no more than 60 seconds, and often demanded extremely punctuated rebuttals. This would benefit candidates like Clinton or Joe Biden who are well articulated but stiff in comparison to the others. But it would also lend a disadvantage to the Barack Obamas and John Edwards of the campaign who need time to develop a relationship with the audience and show the charisma and emotion that constitutes the basis of their appeal.
Clearly with the number of candidates running, more rigid time constraints are necessary to rein in those eager to steal the spotlight. But with no interruptions or camera hogging, it was pretty clear that the debate was lacking in the flare department. Instead of fiery responses and contradicting rhetoric, it seemed that all 8 were swimming in a sea of mediocrity for a large portion of the show.
I think that it should have been clear to everyone that this special should have been an hour at the most. 90 minutes is an unnecessary amount of time to be spending this early in the race, especially with so many candidates and a short response time. MSNBC picked right in having lead anchor Brian Williams moderate, but most of the time he was more long winded then the candidates themselves and is probably the reason why the creators had it last an hour and a half in the first place (aka Brian shut up and just ask the damn question).
Overall, MSNBC seemed more focused on developing a debate format that would hook viewers with simple, rapid fire answers and concise platforms. What they got was a loquacious media icon grilling eight people of extremely similar opinion and little to get angry about. Yes the format kept the conversation rolling but left no time for anyone to give a well articulated and complete answer. In this way, networks are only contributing to the perpetuation of cookie-cutter verbosity.
Clearly with the number of candidates running, more rigid time constraints are necessary to rein in those eager to steal the spotlight. But with no interruptions or camera hogging, it was pretty clear that the debate was lacking in the flare department. Instead of fiery responses and contradicting rhetoric, it seemed that all 8 were swimming in a sea of mediocrity for a large portion of the show.
I think that it should have been clear to everyone that this special should have been an hour at the most. 90 minutes is an unnecessary amount of time to be spending this early in the race, especially with so many candidates and a short response time. MSNBC picked right in having lead anchor Brian Williams moderate, but most of the time he was more long winded then the candidates themselves and is probably the reason why the creators had it last an hour and a half in the first place (aka Brian shut up and just ask the damn question).
Overall, MSNBC seemed more focused on developing a debate format that would hook viewers with simple, rapid fire answers and concise platforms. What they got was a loquacious media icon grilling eight people of extremely similar opinion and little to get angry about. Yes the format kept the conversation rolling but left no time for anyone to give a well articulated and complete answer. In this way, networks are only contributing to the perpetuation of cookie-cutter verbosity.
Friday, April 27, 2007
Leaving Iraq???
While reading up on the Daily news I cam across an article that made me very hopeful. This article was regarding the possibility of exiting Iraq. To be honest I feel as if Iraq has taken a back burner to other events on the home front such as the VA Tech tragedy. This is fine by me because I feel like it has been the presidents top priority for too long.
In this article it stated that Congress has passed a bill that "insists on a date for surrender." While this is a huge step in the right direction, there is a problem. The president has promised to veto the bill as soon as it reaches him. The problem now becomes what does Congress do once he does this? The article states that a few people in Congress feel that some word changes might fool the president while others feel that Congress has made their anti-war statement and should now focus on funding the troops while still putting pressure on the pentagon and such. To me this is not an option. They should not just stop acting, even if their first attempt fails. If everyone stopped working if their first try didn't succeed, then no one would get anywhere. If they feel so strongly about this issue they should devote everything to it. I know that a lot of people think we shouldn't be in Iraq anymore, and will be very happy to know that Congress is trying ways to get us out, but very upset when they stop after one try.
The troops on the other hand can not just be deserted in Iraq either. We can't simply cut them off as a statement because it's not the men and women defending our ideals that we don't support, it's the reason they are there that we do. A phase out is simply not enough either. If we gradually pull out our troops more and more of them will be susceptible to attack as our numbers decrease and the enemies increase. If we want to make a statement and say defend yourselves now, we must leave Iraq 100%. We have done all that we can at this point, and by passing this bill, Congress agrees as well. All they need to do is be persistent, and do all that they can to accomplish their goal.
In this article it stated that Congress has passed a bill that "insists on a date for surrender." While this is a huge step in the right direction, there is a problem. The president has promised to veto the bill as soon as it reaches him. The problem now becomes what does Congress do once he does this? The article states that a few people in Congress feel that some word changes might fool the president while others feel that Congress has made their anti-war statement and should now focus on funding the troops while still putting pressure on the pentagon and such. To me this is not an option. They should not just stop acting, even if their first attempt fails. If everyone stopped working if their first try didn't succeed, then no one would get anywhere. If they feel so strongly about this issue they should devote everything to it. I know that a lot of people think we shouldn't be in Iraq anymore, and will be very happy to know that Congress is trying ways to get us out, but very upset when they stop after one try.
The troops on the other hand can not just be deserted in Iraq either. We can't simply cut them off as a statement because it's not the men and women defending our ideals that we don't support, it's the reason they are there that we do. A phase out is simply not enough either. If we gradually pull out our troops more and more of them will be susceptible to attack as our numbers decrease and the enemies increase. If we want to make a statement and say defend yourselves now, we must leave Iraq 100%. We have done all that we can at this point, and by passing this bill, Congress agrees as well. All they need to do is be persistent, and do all that they can to accomplish their goal.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Taking A Couple Steps Back
Since the Virginia Tech there has been much controversy; whether the school was to blame for the 2 hour gap between shootings, NBC for showing the video tape of the gunman or the media and entertainment forced the gunman to violence. There are many more arguments that can be brought up with this subject but one thing holds true; people have passed away, their lives were stolen from them in the most selfish fashion. The shootings at Virginia Tech have touched the world, and now I have come to an article that has taken me back a couple steps. The New York Times had all 29 victims pictured, with short and memorable passages beneath the photos.
This is the first good thing I have seen the media do since the shootings at VT. I did not know any of the victims’ names before I viewed this article. After looking at the pictures and reading the passages from loved ones, it made me stop and really think what it would be like to be affected by a horrific act. First and foremost the people affected by this tragedy should be given the proper time to be able to grieve and find a sense of closure, which will be extremely heart wrenching if not possible to do, before the media goes off on rants about who is to blame. To be honest, I was caught up in the “media frenzy” when I first heard the news of the situation. I could not believe that the school didn’t take proper precautions after the first shooting. But, that’s a different story.
The media should be doing more to extend the personal side of this tragic event. Anyone can point fingers, but to take the time and really assess the personal lose of loved ones is the best thing that can be done at this time. The NY Times impressed me with this article, and I think more has to be said about the people who were lost, and not who and what factors caused them there lives. They were all innocent, sitting in class, and probably didn’t even know the gunman personally; but their lives were stolen from them. The victims need to be remembered and the media is the best portal for it to happen.
This is the first good thing I have seen the media do since the shootings at VT. I did not know any of the victims’ names before I viewed this article. After looking at the pictures and reading the passages from loved ones, it made me stop and really think what it would be like to be affected by a horrific act. First and foremost the people affected by this tragedy should be given the proper time to be able to grieve and find a sense of closure, which will be extremely heart wrenching if not possible to do, before the media goes off on rants about who is to blame. To be honest, I was caught up in the “media frenzy” when I first heard the news of the situation. I could not believe that the school didn’t take proper precautions after the first shooting. But, that’s a different story.
The media should be doing more to extend the personal side of this tragic event. Anyone can point fingers, but to take the time and really assess the personal lose of loved ones is the best thing that can be done at this time. The NY Times impressed me with this article, and I think more has to be said about the people who were lost, and not who and what factors caused them there lives. They were all innocent, sitting in class, and probably didn’t even know the gunman personally; but their lives were stolen from them. The victims need to be remembered and the media is the best portal for it to happen.
"PBS Shelves Film on Moderate Muslims"
Recently, a debate has been started over the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's (CPB) and the Public Broadcasting System's (PBS) decision not to air a documentary on moderate Muslims. This documentary, titled 'Islam vs. Islamists,' was originally going to be a part of PBS's "America at a Crossroads," a six-night series featuring 11 documentaries. It was removed from the listing by PBS, however, because it "needs work" and is a "work in progress," said CPB spokesman Michael Levy (The Washington Times). However, people are outraged that PBS would remove the show, and Frank Gaffney, a production team member, says it is "a well-documented, textbook case of the abuse of taxpayer funding by elements in the public broadcasting system to advocate their agenda and ensure that people who have different agenda don't get on the air." This is a very controversial accusation to make, especially against such a program as PBS, but could there be some truth to it?
PBS has said that there simply was not enough room to air the documentary, and that they felt it was not ready to be aired just yet, but it could be shown later on its own. This seems to be a legitimate reasoning, and since they ultimately are the ones who get to choose what they show on their station, it does not seem to be worthy of such outrage. However, the producers of 'Islam vs. Islamists' disagree, accusing PBS of shelving the film for political reasons, namely that it shows Muslims in different countries, including the US, trying to live a moderate Islamic life amidst the pervasive fear of radical Islam. This apparently goes against CPB and PBS's views of Islam as a militant, radical religion. Personally, I am not sure that I believe PBS and CPB have these extreme views, but I can see how frustrating it is to the producers of this documentary to have their work shelved in such a manner, especially when the message they are trying to get out is such an important one. These producers are trying to show Americans how hard it is for moderate Muslims everywhere to live in societies where all people know of Islam is the radical images they see on the news. Why would PBS not want this viewpoint to be shown?
I think that this is an important issue on more than one count. First, it deals with the rights of television shows to choose what they want to air, despite public outcry, and how much public opinion influences the media. But also, it shows how important different viewpoints are, and how hard it can be to give them a voice. I agree with Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, chairman of the Arizona-based American Islamic Forum for Democracy, who said that "Until mainstream media and mainstream America understands the need to help this debate and expose the plight of moderates who push back against the Islamists within the Muslim community, we will continue to lose ground against militant Islamism (The Washington Post)." What do you think?
PBS has said that there simply was not enough room to air the documentary, and that they felt it was not ready to be aired just yet, but it could be shown later on its own. This seems to be a legitimate reasoning, and since they ultimately are the ones who get to choose what they show on their station, it does not seem to be worthy of such outrage. However, the producers of 'Islam vs. Islamists' disagree, accusing PBS of shelving the film for political reasons, namely that it shows Muslims in different countries, including the US, trying to live a moderate Islamic life amidst the pervasive fear of radical Islam. This apparently goes against CPB and PBS's views of Islam as a militant, radical religion. Personally, I am not sure that I believe PBS and CPB have these extreme views, but I can see how frustrating it is to the producers of this documentary to have their work shelved in such a manner, especially when the message they are trying to get out is such an important one. These producers are trying to show Americans how hard it is for moderate Muslims everywhere to live in societies where all people know of Islam is the radical images they see on the news. Why would PBS not want this viewpoint to be shown?
I think that this is an important issue on more than one count. First, it deals with the rights of television shows to choose what they want to air, despite public outcry, and how much public opinion influences the media. But also, it shows how important different viewpoints are, and how hard it can be to give them a voice. I agree with Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, chairman of the Arizona-based American Islamic Forum for Democracy, who said that "Until mainstream media and mainstream America understands the need to help this debate and expose the plight of moderates who push back against the Islamists within the Muslim community, we will continue to lose ground against militant Islamism (The Washington Post)." What do you think?
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Impeaching The "Attack Dog"
Dennis Kucinich, a Democratic Representative from Ohio, introduced articles of impeachment against the Vice President of the United States, Dick Cheney. He introduced these articles yesterday which consist of three articles of impeachment. The first accuses Vice President Cheney of making up the accusation that weapons of mass destruction were in Iraq, which has caused a great deal of public outcry over the years. The second article accuses him of fabricating a connection between al-Taeda and the Iraqi government, which has also been proven to not be the case. The third article refers to what Cheney is doing currently, which is "threatening war against Iran." Kucinich has claimed that threatening Iran with the possibility of a war is a violation of the Constitution, but I have never heard of such a thing (he probably knows the Constitution better than I do though).
Some people claim that Kucinich is simply doing this for his own political gain since he is relatively unknown among the Democratic candidates for president. He claims that he is doing this to Cheney through the following quote: "Our country couldn't afford this last war. We can't afford to go into another one. And somebody has to challenge the conduct of this Vice President." He also claims that he is targeting only Cheney because he believes that the country isn’t ready for two consecutive impeachments. Many people throughout America have been calling for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney and for the Congress to stand up to the Executive for quite some time and they have finally responded both with these articles of impeachment and with the recent war funding bill with an attached timetable. Although these reasons probably had a great deal to do with it the fact that he introduced these articles of impeachment at this time suggests that he has ulterior motives for impeaching the Vice President since he is not currently a Democratic frontrunner. Perhaps he feels that this will give him the advantage of some positive press and positive sentiment from the Democratic base as well as boosting his name recognition among the American people.
Some people claim that Kucinich is simply doing this for his own political gain since he is relatively unknown among the Democratic candidates for president. He claims that he is doing this to Cheney through the following quote: "Our country couldn't afford this last war. We can't afford to go into another one. And somebody has to challenge the conduct of this Vice President." He also claims that he is targeting only Cheney because he believes that the country isn’t ready for two consecutive impeachments. Many people throughout America have been calling for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney and for the Congress to stand up to the Executive for quite some time and they have finally responded both with these articles of impeachment and with the recent war funding bill with an attached timetable. Although these reasons probably had a great deal to do with it the fact that he introduced these articles of impeachment at this time suggests that he has ulterior motives for impeaching the Vice President since he is not currently a Democratic frontrunner. Perhaps he feels that this will give him the advantage of some positive press and positive sentiment from the Democratic base as well as boosting his name recognition among the American people.
A Rap Mogul That Approves Censorship?
There is a lot to say about this. Following the Imus shindig, Russel Simmons, one of the label entrepreneurs who has released music by well known artists, gave a public statement saying that 'racist remarks' should be viewed as 'extreme curse words'. This is the part where my brain explodes and I transform into The Hulk and start smashing things. Jeff smash.
Let's begin with 'extreme curse words'. Curse words exist because, as an adult, I feel curse words help me relieve 'extreme anger' (e.g. when rap moguls condone censorship). All adults should have the privilege to utter whatever 'extreme curse words' they have in their arsenal. As an asian, I feel sometimes it is necessary to scream 'CHINK' as loud as I can to express the contempt I have for people who just don't get it. What are people not getting? They fail to recognize that language is our purest form of expression and to suppress it in any way is a violation to individual rights. If I want to burn the American flag, I will. If I want to write a song about black people and women, I will.
I won't lie to you, if our government made an amendment to ban profanity. My rage would build up to a point where the only other expression I'll resort to is physical. That's probably what happened to the shooter at VT. Everyone knew he didn't talk. Since he didn't talk, he didn't get to vent his anger. So it accumulated to the point where he snapped and shot everyone.
So, Mr./Mrs. Righteous-Puritan, are you condoning the VT shootings? You are if you believe profanities should be banned from our language (yes, even racist remarks).
Author's note: This was a little more extreme than my usual posts. I am a firm believer in individual rights and if people move to step on it, I will lay down the law and pimp smack potential usurpers. I do not condone flag burning or racism, but as I said earlier, I believe in individual rights. I would be a self-collapsing vortex of hypocrisy if I were to tell others what and what not to believe in.
Let's begin with 'extreme curse words'. Curse words exist because, as an adult, I feel curse words help me relieve 'extreme anger' (e.g. when rap moguls condone censorship). All adults should have the privilege to utter whatever 'extreme curse words' they have in their arsenal. As an asian, I feel sometimes it is necessary to scream 'CHINK' as loud as I can to express the contempt I have for people who just don't get it. What are people not getting? They fail to recognize that language is our purest form of expression and to suppress it in any way is a violation to individual rights. If I want to burn the American flag, I will. If I want to write a song about black people and women, I will.
I won't lie to you, if our government made an amendment to ban profanity. My rage would build up to a point where the only other expression I'll resort to is physical. That's probably what happened to the shooter at VT. Everyone knew he didn't talk. Since he didn't talk, he didn't get to vent his anger. So it accumulated to the point where he snapped and shot everyone.
So, Mr./Mrs. Righteous-Puritan, are you condoning the VT shootings? You are if you believe profanities should be banned from our language (yes, even racist remarks).
Author's note: This was a little more extreme than my usual posts. I am a firm believer in individual rights and if people move to step on it, I will lay down the law and pimp smack potential usurpers. I do not condone flag burning or racism, but as I said earlier, I believe in individual rights. I would be a self-collapsing vortex of hypocrisy if I were to tell others what and what not to believe in.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Policy Makers Discuss Security, Mental Health Resources, and Communication on Campuses
In a senate hearing on April 23, lawmakers came together to discuss mental health resources, security plans, and communication systems on campuses. After reading the article “Senators Discuss Preventing College Attacks,” I have realized that through all of this tragedy something good can result. I think that the way the media has handled some of the coverage of the Virginia Tech shooting has raised awareness about many issues. At first, the major press coverage was about gun control, how the college didn’t notify people of the shooting soon enough, then it turned to interviewing the families of victims, and finally to Seung-Hui Cho’s press release about why he did what he did. After days of overkill from the press, I am finally able to see how this coverage has raised awareness to lawmakers. The devastation at Virginia Tech has brought up an issue that is long overdue to be discussed and that is a communication system on college campuses that can reach masses. I work at a college and we have no way to communicate with the student body, unless we go to their classrooms. This is very dangerous, especially if there was a shooting, a bomb, etc. My point here is that the shooting has motivated educators and lawmakers to realize and implement security and communication devices on college campuses nationwide. Another issue brought up at the meeting was whether or not schools have been providing adequate mental health resources and I was shocked to read what Dr Federman, the director of counseling and psychological services at University of Virginia, had to say. He quoted statistics of the number of students who suffer from mental problems and the surprising thing was when he said that in 2006 there was one full-time clinical staff member for every 1,697 students. This is ridiculous.
These issues needed to be addressed and I hope that something good can come from the tragedy those innocent students at Virginia Tech suffered. Hopefully everyone will be more aware of what can happen and realize that it is a necessity to take all precautions necessary, especially on college campuses where large groups of people are targets.
These issues needed to be addressed and I hope that something good can come from the tragedy those innocent students at Virginia Tech suffered. Hopefully everyone will be more aware of what can happen and realize that it is a necessity to take all precautions necessary, especially on college campuses where large groups of people are targets.
FCC Says Too Much Violence on TV
In the wake of the massacre at Virginia Tech, it is not surprising that much of the media is looking to put the blame on people or organizations other then the killer himself. As far back as history goes though, violence has been a part of it. Violence is a part of life, but that doesn't mean that it necessarily needs to be thrown in our face all the time through the media. I don't really think though that the killings at Virginia Tech were the fault of anybody except the killer himself and the fact that he was a very troubled human being.
Even so, the FCC has now decided to crack down on the amount of violence that is allowed on TV. MSNBC is reporting that the "FCC seeks to rein in violent television shows". Federal regulators are stating that they are "concerned about the effect of television violence on children, and will recommend that Congress enact legislation to give the government unprecedented powers to curb violence in entertainment programming". According to the the Federal Communications Commission, doing this would be in the best interest of the public. For the first time this plan is looking to target basic cable TV channels. They also state that in the past four years, the amount of violent acts depicted on TV have severely increased. The FCC acknowledges that there is heightened sensitivity around this issue due to the killings at Virginia Tech, and is pushing further with its recommendations.
Maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea to get rid of some of the excessive violence on Television. Watching violent acts on a daily basis could give the wrong idea to people, on the other hand though, people are also able to see the negative effects of some violent acts and learn what not to do as well. When it comes down to it, I think it should be up to each individual to make up their own decisions on what they feel is acceptable and what is not.
Even so, the FCC has now decided to crack down on the amount of violence that is allowed on TV. MSNBC is reporting that the "FCC seeks to rein in violent television shows". Federal regulators are stating that they are "concerned about the effect of television violence on children, and will recommend that Congress enact legislation to give the government unprecedented powers to curb violence in entertainment programming". According to the the Federal Communications Commission, doing this would be in the best interest of the public. For the first time this plan is looking to target basic cable TV channels. They also state that in the past four years, the amount of violent acts depicted on TV have severely increased. The FCC acknowledges that there is heightened sensitivity around this issue due to the killings at Virginia Tech, and is pushing further with its recommendations.
Maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea to get rid of some of the excessive violence on Television. Watching violent acts on a daily basis could give the wrong idea to people, on the other hand though, people are also able to see the negative effects of some violent acts and learn what not to do as well. When it comes down to it, I think it should be up to each individual to make up their own decisions on what they feel is acceptable and what is not.
Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck and Left Wing Nonsense:
Rosie O’Donnell from The View, or (Tokyo Rosie) as she is known by some is alienating the country with her political radicalism. ABC is a conglomerate of Disney will they continue to allow her spread her left wing radicalism across mainstream media? Disney is a company that one typically does not evoke “mean spirited” as synonymous, but yet this is the direction they are headed with Rosie on board. The View, this year has lost numerous viewers in relation to all other years which the show had gained, is this some kind of conspiracy or are people sick of being fed the anti-American gibberish.
This show is supposed to provide opinions to a forum of ideas but Rosie is no match for Elizabeth Hasselback on the show who by large is her greatest adversary in terms of political matters. Rosie the biggest Bush administration hater in all of media, openly advocates nutty theories like terrorists mean us no harm as the US “demonizes” them, “Don’t fear the terrorists. They’re mothers and fathers.” She continually speaks on behalf of 9/11 being some kind conspiracy, (The Lies that Led to War). She referenced two weeks ago now on the show “look at the Gulf of Tonkin” a Vietnam era conspiracy theory. Rosie also supports Iran and if you go to her website it will link you to this outrageous site,(Tell-A-Friend: StopIranWar.com) where they say things like “And isn't it easier to undertake such a dialogue now, before more die, and more martyrs are created to feed extremist passions?”. Apparently Rosie has never herd of sanctions and how they are a form of deterrence for preventing them from gaining the WMD capability, sanctions are threatened or actual interruption of economic ties by an initiator state against a target state for the purpose of that state meeting the political demand of the interior state. No body in the US wants to end up in a war with Iran, that is why sanctions are in place. How should an uneducated person know this though, well maybe that is why we should stop letting people like Rosie on TV to say whatever she feels, rather someone that actually knows what they are talking about.
Bill Maher was fired from ABC after saying the 9/11 terrorists had courage. Why is it that they let Rosie stay when she spreads hate for America and says things like "do not fear terrorists"? This is far beyond left and right party lines, how can people like her be allowed on the mainstream TV. This underlines another story we have seen most recently in the firing of Imus which comes down to the single factor which is, hate. I know that we will never see the day when five days a week we get to see Anne Coulter on a program. Anne Coulter is smarter than all of the ladies on The View combined, and yet we only get to see one side of the spectrum, left wing extremist Rosie an uneducated conspiracy theorist.
(FOXNews.com - Free Video Player)
This show is supposed to provide opinions to a forum of ideas but Rosie is no match for Elizabeth Hasselback on the show who by large is her greatest adversary in terms of political matters. Rosie the biggest Bush administration hater in all of media, openly advocates nutty theories like terrorists mean us no harm as the US “demonizes” them, “Don’t fear the terrorists. They’re mothers and fathers.” She continually speaks on behalf of 9/11 being some kind conspiracy, (The Lies that Led to War). She referenced two weeks ago now on the show “look at the Gulf of Tonkin” a Vietnam era conspiracy theory. Rosie also supports Iran and if you go to her website it will link you to this outrageous site,(Tell-A-Friend: StopIranWar.com) where they say things like “And isn't it easier to undertake such a dialogue now, before more die, and more martyrs are created to feed extremist passions?”. Apparently Rosie has never herd of sanctions and how they are a form of deterrence for preventing them from gaining the WMD capability, sanctions are threatened or actual interruption of economic ties by an initiator state against a target state for the purpose of that state meeting the political demand of the interior state. No body in the US wants to end up in a war with Iran, that is why sanctions are in place. How should an uneducated person know this though, well maybe that is why we should stop letting people like Rosie on TV to say whatever she feels, rather someone that actually knows what they are talking about.
Bill Maher was fired from ABC after saying the 9/11 terrorists had courage. Why is it that they let Rosie stay when she spreads hate for America and says things like "do not fear terrorists"? This is far beyond left and right party lines, how can people like her be allowed on the mainstream TV. This underlines another story we have seen most recently in the firing of Imus which comes down to the single factor which is, hate. I know that we will never see the day when five days a week we get to see Anne Coulter on a program. Anne Coulter is smarter than all of the ladies on The View combined, and yet we only get to see one side of the spectrum, left wing extremist Rosie an uneducated conspiracy theorist.
(FOXNews.com - Free Video Player)
Monday, April 23, 2007
War Spending Bill assumed to be vetoed by Bush
As I drudge through different ongoing stories leading up to the proposed $124 million war spending bill approval by the president that could come up as close to the end of this week, I yawn and rub my eyes.
After the New York Times reported last Friday the Democratic majority leader Harry Reid said “this war is lost”, a bold statement contradictory to what the Republicans would argue as demoralize the American troops in Iraq.
In Washington, Mr. Reid delivered a biting critique of the Iraq war, saying there was no military solution to the conflict. At a news conference, he recounted a private conversation with the president about the Vietnam War, saying he told Mr. Bush not to follow the path of President Lyndon B. Johnson, who “did not want a war loss on his watch.”
After the procedural motion was passed last Thursday about a Sept. 1, 2008 return of troops, Representative Jack Kingston, a Georgia Republican, said the administration’s troop increase deserved a chance to succeed. But if progress is not achieved by fall, he said, “a heck of a lot of us will start peeling away.” (Times)
According to Reuters, Congressional Democrats, ignoring a promised veto by President George W. Bush, on Monday pushed ahead with a war funding bill that sets March 31 as the goal for pulling most U.S. troops out of Iraq.
The article went on to describe Reid’s mentioning of President Bush’s state of denial. Reid said: "The White House transcript says the president made those remarks in the state of Michigan. I believe he made them in the state of denial."
Assuming the legislation passes Congress but the expected Bush veto is not overturned, Democratic leaders would then try to quickly write a new bill to continue funding the troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is still unclear whether any conditions would be attached.
According to The Washington Post, the bill also establishes benchmarks for the Iraqi government to meet, including the creation of a program to disarm militias.
On the local front, the bill the agreement keeps Walter Reed Army Medical Center open for now, overruling the federal commission that had planned to shutter the Washington-based facility. The bill provides $20 million for repairs at Reed, keeping it open while upgrades are made to its successors.
The final legislation will no longer fund peanut storage facilities and relief for spinach farmers harmed by product recalls. Nor will it aid Christmas tree farms, or beet or sugar cane growers.
After the New York Times reported last Friday the Democratic majority leader Harry Reid said “this war is lost”, a bold statement contradictory to what the Republicans would argue as demoralize the American troops in Iraq.
In Washington, Mr. Reid delivered a biting critique of the Iraq war, saying there was no military solution to the conflict. At a news conference, he recounted a private conversation with the president about the Vietnam War, saying he told Mr. Bush not to follow the path of President Lyndon B. Johnson, who “did not want a war loss on his watch.”
After the procedural motion was passed last Thursday about a Sept. 1, 2008 return of troops, Representative Jack Kingston, a Georgia Republican, said the administration’s troop increase deserved a chance to succeed. But if progress is not achieved by fall, he said, “a heck of a lot of us will start peeling away.” (Times)
According to Reuters, Congressional Democrats, ignoring a promised veto by President George W. Bush, on Monday pushed ahead with a war funding bill that sets March 31 as the goal for pulling most U.S. troops out of Iraq.
The article went on to describe Reid’s mentioning of President Bush’s state of denial. Reid said: "The White House transcript says the president made those remarks in the state of Michigan. I believe he made them in the state of denial."
Assuming the legislation passes Congress but the expected Bush veto is not overturned, Democratic leaders would then try to quickly write a new bill to continue funding the troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is still unclear whether any conditions would be attached.
According to The Washington Post, the bill also establishes benchmarks for the Iraqi government to meet, including the creation of a program to disarm militias.
On the local front, the bill the agreement keeps Walter Reed Army Medical Center open for now, overruling the federal commission that had planned to shutter the Washington-based facility. The bill provides $20 million for repairs at Reed, keeping it open while upgrades are made to its successors.
The final legislation will no longer fund peanut storage facilities and relief for spinach farmers harmed by product recalls. Nor will it aid Christmas tree farms, or beet or sugar cane growers.
If it bleeds, it leads
On the program "On The Media" this week, the main topic of discussion was the Virginia Tech shootings. This is no surprise as it has been the main topic of conversation across the United States, and even on the international field.
As was discussed in "On The Media", NBC took the largest step of all the major networks in airing the home video made by the shooter. While NBC's ratings were extremely high at this point, their criticism also reached a peak. Many people believe that there are just some things you shouldn't show on TV.
Personally, I believe that we expect the mainstream media to go as far as possible. While we may not agree with their actions, we have all come to count on the media to play the images that are too graphic and report on the topics that are too gristly for the public. In addition to this, we have also come to count on the internet to fill in the gaps in the few areas that the mainstream media doesn't cover. Despite all the criticism that networks may receive, they will continue to strive for perfect ratings, and the saying will continue to apply: If it bleeds, it leads.
As was discussed in "On The Media", NBC took the largest step of all the major networks in airing the home video made by the shooter. While NBC's ratings were extremely high at this point, their criticism also reached a peak. Many people believe that there are just some things you shouldn't show on TV.
Personally, I believe that we expect the mainstream media to go as far as possible. While we may not agree with their actions, we have all come to count on the media to play the images that are too graphic and report on the topics that are too gristly for the public. In addition to this, we have also come to count on the internet to fill in the gaps in the few areas that the mainstream media doesn't cover. Despite all the criticism that networks may receive, they will continue to strive for perfect ratings, and the saying will continue to apply: If it bleeds, it leads.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
New Study: Childhood Obesity and Advertising
On March 28th, 2007, the Henry J. Kaiser Foundation released a study linking TV ads to childhool obesity. The study reviewed 8,854 television ads for age groups 2-7, 8-12, and teens. Out of these thousands of ads, not one was found promoting fruits and vegetables targeting children or teens. Before I begin the discussion, I will just lay out some shocking statistics that this study explains:
Children 8-12 see more than 7600 food ads per year or 21 per day while teens see more than 6,000 food ads per year or 17 per day.
"Of all genres on TV, shows specifically designed for children under 12 have the highest proportion of food advertising (50% of all ad time)."
"Of all food ads in the study, 34% are for candy and snacks, 28% are for cereal, 10% are for fast foods, 4% are for dairy and 1% for fruit juices."
In regards to nutritional food and exercise public service announcements:
"Children 2-7 and 8-12 see an average of one such message every 2-3 days (164 a year for 2-7 year olds and 158 a year for 8-12 year olds)."
Looking at these statistics, we see that children ages 8-12 are viewing 7600 food ads per year (of which around 34% of are for candy and snacks) but only 158 nutritional food or exercise public service announcements a year. Compare this to a study done by the American Obesity Association which finds that "the prevalence of obesity quadrupled over 25 years among boys and girls." The sample group was U.S. Children ages 6-11 and the study conducted was done from 1971 to 2000. These statistics seem to be revealing strong evidence that children are being targeted by food ad companies and it is contributing to childhood obesity. Now I understand that there are other factors to this problem but in our "fast-paced" American lives, having a television helps parents get more done in their lives while the television is a substitute parent. With more children watching television, ad companies understand that at young ages, say 8-12, children are extremely influential. They are just growing into themselves and becoming independent consumers. This age seems to be when children form brand loyalties or buying habits of one brand or another. If Ad Companies can target these children and gain their loyalty, the Ad company may have a buyer for life. Get them while there young.
I find this evidence extremely engaging and I think it is showing us something of a deeper problem. The influence of the television on the youth. I believe that the more negative images that are imprinted on a child's mind at young ages, the more likely those images will mold into that child's personality. Not that a child who sees murder or stealing on television will automatically turn into a murderer or thief but that it brings down the moral rectitude to understand that those things are not ok in a civil society. As children see more and more negative images on the television (rudeness, rape, violence, sexism etc.) with few moral and positive images to counter the negative, I believe young kids see these things as norms. We need to recognize how powerful the television really is over the mindsets of Americans, especially children, and work to counter a growing culture of immoral nihilists.
Children 8-12 see more than 7600 food ads per year or 21 per day while teens see more than 6,000 food ads per year or 17 per day.
"Of all genres on TV, shows specifically designed for children under 12 have the highest proportion of food advertising (50% of all ad time)."
"Of all food ads in the study, 34% are for candy and snacks, 28% are for cereal, 10% are for fast foods, 4% are for dairy and 1% for fruit juices."
In regards to nutritional food and exercise public service announcements:
"Children 2-7 and 8-12 see an average of one such message every 2-3 days (164 a year for 2-7 year olds and 158 a year for 8-12 year olds)."
Looking at these statistics, we see that children ages 8-12 are viewing 7600 food ads per year (of which around 34% of are for candy and snacks) but only 158 nutritional food or exercise public service announcements a year. Compare this to a study done by the American Obesity Association which finds that "the prevalence of obesity quadrupled over 25 years among boys and girls." The sample group was U.S. Children ages 6-11 and the study conducted was done from 1971 to 2000. These statistics seem to be revealing strong evidence that children are being targeted by food ad companies and it is contributing to childhood obesity. Now I understand that there are other factors to this problem but in our "fast-paced" American lives, having a television helps parents get more done in their lives while the television is a substitute parent. With more children watching television, ad companies understand that at young ages, say 8-12, children are extremely influential. They are just growing into themselves and becoming independent consumers. This age seems to be when children form brand loyalties or buying habits of one brand or another. If Ad Companies can target these children and gain their loyalty, the Ad company may have a buyer for life. Get them while there young.
I find this evidence extremely engaging and I think it is showing us something of a deeper problem. The influence of the television on the youth. I believe that the more negative images that are imprinted on a child's mind at young ages, the more likely those images will mold into that child's personality. Not that a child who sees murder or stealing on television will automatically turn into a murderer or thief but that it brings down the moral rectitude to understand that those things are not ok in a civil society. As children see more and more negative images on the television (rudeness, rape, violence, sexism etc.) with few moral and positive images to counter the negative, I believe young kids see these things as norms. We need to recognize how powerful the television really is over the mindsets of Americans, especially children, and work to counter a growing culture of immoral nihilists.
Virginia Tech Massacre on Wikipedia
As of today, the media coverage of the shootings at Virginia Tech have begun to wind down, which I am sure in many ways is a relief to the families and friends of the victims. Out of curiosity, however, I decided to check on Wikipedia and see if maybe something could be found there about Virginia Tech and Cho Seung-hui, the killer. I was surprised to find full articles on both, something that I really did not expect.
It might just be me, but it seems a bit odd that there can already be a Wikipedia page on both the Virginia Tech Massacre and Cho Seunh-hui. I feel like it is too soon for there to be enough concrete evidence and knowledge about what happened and why for an encyclopedia website to create pages on it. I understand that Wikipedia can be constantly updated, but the story of what happened has also been updated with great frequency, and while news stations report the latest, breaking news, even if it turns out later to be false, a website like Wikipedia should not be playing that game too. Or should it? In this case I feel like Wikipedia has stepped into the domain of "reporter" or "news source," updating what it posts when the information changes. Personally, I feel that there are enough news sources out there to satisfy any one's appetite, and for Wikipedia to jump on the bandwagon and start doing what the news stations do only adds to the overabundance of mass media frenzy.
However, I could also see how this sort of posting can be beneficial. Unlike ABC News, CNN, Fox News, or the like, Wikipedia takes information from all over and compiles it into one page on one site. In the article on the Virginia Tech massacre, at the bottom of the page, Wikipedia listed 123 references and 11 external links, providing a wealth of further information. This seems to be incredibly helpful for people who want more information but don't want it to all come from one news station. In this way I could see how having a page with a full description of the event from start to finish can be a good source for someone who wants a summary without having to piece it all together from the bits of information in each online or news article. Wikipedia has therefore provided a competent description of the shootings and numerous links to where people could find more information.
This discovery has really got me thinking about what sort of venues are appropriate to report the news and which ones are not. When a huge event such as this happens, every one decides to report on it, for better or for worse. Do you think Wikipedia is right in creating pages on the "Virginia Tech Massacre" and "Cho Seung-hui," or should it leave the reporting to the news stations and create the pages once the whole story has been unfolded and officials are sure of what happened? This touches upon much of what we have discussed in class, and in my opinion at least, it is a tough question to answer. What are your thoughts?
It might just be me, but it seems a bit odd that there can already be a Wikipedia page on both the Virginia Tech Massacre and Cho Seunh-hui. I feel like it is too soon for there to be enough concrete evidence and knowledge about what happened and why for an encyclopedia website to create pages on it. I understand that Wikipedia can be constantly updated, but the story of what happened has also been updated with great frequency, and while news stations report the latest, breaking news, even if it turns out later to be false, a website like Wikipedia should not be playing that game too. Or should it? In this case I feel like Wikipedia has stepped into the domain of "reporter" or "news source," updating what it posts when the information changes. Personally, I feel that there are enough news sources out there to satisfy any one's appetite, and for Wikipedia to jump on the bandwagon and start doing what the news stations do only adds to the overabundance of mass media frenzy.
However, I could also see how this sort of posting can be beneficial. Unlike ABC News, CNN, Fox News, or the like, Wikipedia takes information from all over and compiles it into one page on one site. In the article on the Virginia Tech massacre, at the bottom of the page, Wikipedia listed 123 references and 11 external links, providing a wealth of further information. This seems to be incredibly helpful for people who want more information but don't want it to all come from one news station. In this way I could see how having a page with a full description of the event from start to finish can be a good source for someone who wants a summary without having to piece it all together from the bits of information in each online or news article. Wikipedia has therefore provided a competent description of the shootings and numerous links to where people could find more information.
This discovery has really got me thinking about what sort of venues are appropriate to report the news and which ones are not. When a huge event such as this happens, every one decides to report on it, for better or for worse. Do you think Wikipedia is right in creating pages on the "Virginia Tech Massacre" and "Cho Seung-hui," or should it leave the reporting to the news stations and create the pages once the whole story has been unfolded and officials are sure of what happened? This touches upon much of what we have discussed in class, and in my opinion at least, it is a tough question to answer. What are your thoughts?
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Pointing Fingers
The students and families, involved in the Virginia Tech shootings, do need time to grieve. However most will never fully recover from this horrific incident. It may seem too soon to start pointing fingers to who was at fault. It is a very sensitive subject, and it has to be looked at carefully before jumping to conclusions; like the media loves to do.
Gun control is a very popular and extremely easy way to explain how these types of events happened. Right after the Columbine shootings, where 12 students and 1 teacher were killed, while injuring 24 others, people attacked the right to bear arms. The media along with most people in the United States jump to the fact that guns are to blame for all fatal shootings. Yes, guns are used in many situations where people die but so are other types of weapons. What if the shooting at VT came in the form of a bombing, or that of a fire? Who is to say what the sick individual who committed these crimes was thinking. He was a complete psychopath. I know it may wrong to say, but there are many different ways to commit such a sick and twisted crime that occurred on the campus of Virginia Tech. All I am trying to say is that; if the shootings came in another form, the media would be covering this story in a totally different way. Instead of gun control, the media would be jumping on the fact that a person was able to obtain bomb making materials. I guess it is easy for me to say this in hindsight, but is the way I feel.
I am in no way trying to belittle the events that unfolded at Virginia Tech. I feel horrible for the students and family involved. Whenever a situation like this occurs however, the media attacks the most vulnerable target; in this case the sales of guns. I do not agree with this and I think the media should let nature take its course, and put all the pieces of the puzzle together before they start to point fingers.
Gun control is a very popular and extremely easy way to explain how these types of events happened. Right after the Columbine shootings, where 12 students and 1 teacher were killed, while injuring 24 others, people attacked the right to bear arms. The media along with most people in the United States jump to the fact that guns are to blame for all fatal shootings. Yes, guns are used in many situations where people die but so are other types of weapons. What if the shooting at VT came in the form of a bombing, or that of a fire? Who is to say what the sick individual who committed these crimes was thinking. He was a complete psychopath. I know it may wrong to say, but there are many different ways to commit such a sick and twisted crime that occurred on the campus of Virginia Tech. All I am trying to say is that; if the shootings came in another form, the media would be covering this story in a totally different way. Instead of gun control, the media would be jumping on the fact that a person was able to obtain bomb making materials. I guess it is easy for me to say this in hindsight, but is the way I feel.
I am in no way trying to belittle the events that unfolded at Virginia Tech. I feel horrible for the students and family involved. Whenever a situation like this occurs however, the media attacks the most vulnerable target; in this case the sales of guns. I do not agree with this and I think the media should let nature take its course, and put all the pieces of the puzzle together before they start to point fingers.
VTech Media Scapegoat
The shooting that occurred last Monday has shocked the nation, but the media feels the need to take advantage of that and pass out blame where they believe it is due when they should simply be reporting on the conditions of the victims and honoring their memories. All they seemed to be interested in early on was finding some random students that didn’t even know the victims or the perpetrator and interviewing them. Later on they attempted to blame the school for the crisis since the media always has to have a scapegoat.
Couldn’t it just be that nobody was to blame for this incident since it has no real precedent in US History (in that he had a documented history of mental illness)? This young man was obviously mentally ill but there have been several mentally ill people all over the US that have never shot anyone and actually ended up turning out okay with the help of some counseling. I think the state of Virginia probably should have had a law that prevented people who have been diagnosed as mentally ill in a court of law from obtaining a firearm (it could be added to their background file since every firearm sale through a dealer requires the dealer to call the FBI to give the okay for the transaction to take place), but if they had done that then he probably would have just found another way to kill a bunch of people. Some people in this country are just mentally unstable, and all we can really do is try to detect the problem and assist them as early as possible. This could just as easily happen here at UNH or any college campus around the US, and there are mentally ill people all over the country. Maybe if everyone would just be kind to everyone around them there would be less outcasts in society that end up becoming mentally ill or violent towards their peers.
Overall I just think that the media needs to give the people that were involved in the tragedy at Virginia Tech and their loved ones some time to grieve and recover to a degree, since they will probably never fully recover from an atrocity like this. Maybe they could’ve just given it a week or two before they started playing the blame game, but that’s what the media is all about: finding the scapegoat.
Couldn’t it just be that nobody was to blame for this incident since it has no real precedent in US History (in that he had a documented history of mental illness)? This young man was obviously mentally ill but there have been several mentally ill people all over the US that have never shot anyone and actually ended up turning out okay with the help of some counseling. I think the state of Virginia probably should have had a law that prevented people who have been diagnosed as mentally ill in a court of law from obtaining a firearm (it could be added to their background file since every firearm sale through a dealer requires the dealer to call the FBI to give the okay for the transaction to take place), but if they had done that then he probably would have just found another way to kill a bunch of people. Some people in this country are just mentally unstable, and all we can really do is try to detect the problem and assist them as early as possible. This could just as easily happen here at UNH or any college campus around the US, and there are mentally ill people all over the country. Maybe if everyone would just be kind to everyone around them there would be less outcasts in society that end up becoming mentally ill or violent towards their peers.
Overall I just think that the media needs to give the people that were involved in the tragedy at Virginia Tech and their loved ones some time to grieve and recover to a degree, since they will probably never fully recover from an atrocity like this. Maybe they could’ve just given it a week or two before they started playing the blame game, but that’s what the media is all about: finding the scapegoat.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Give them time to grieve...
It has been just about 36 hours since tragedy struck the Virginia Tech campus and it has taken less time than that for the media to want to place blame for the tragic events. Innocent students lost their lives, families have been torn apart and a campus has been shattered. The first priority of the media should be to cover what happened and to seem sympathetic. But in reality the media is criticizing the decisions the university made, and not paying attention to what really matters.
When I first heard about the events I was shocked. I didn't know what to think and was a little unnerved. If it could happen there, what's stopping it from happening at UNH. As the news of the shooting first broke details were scattered. There were conflicting reports of the number of dead and injured. As time passed the numbers were cleared up and in the end a total of 33 people were dead and at least another 29 were injured. As I watched the news in awe I began to question the motive behind the interviews. During a press conference with the Chief of Police reporters were asking if the bodies were still inside the buildings, and and other unnecessary questions. Questions like those were not mattered at that point in time. People were mourning and did not need to know that their loved one could still be inside.
Over the course of the day, the manner in which the media covered the tragedy seemed to change. The attention switched from the number of casualties to why the university didn't do certain things. They questioned the manner in which the lock down was administered and how the off campus students were alerted. While flipping through the channels, I landed on WMUR News 9 and noticed that they were doing a story on the nor'easter, and no mention on the massacre that had occurred. I found this odd and continued to watch it. Fifteen minutes went by and still no word of the tragic events that were unfolding. This surprised me because WMUR is normally really good about covering breaking news.
What happened on the campus of Virginia Tech is awful. Words can not describe how I feel about this. It deeply saddens me, and makes me wonder what could make someone knowingly murder 32 people and injure another 29. My thoughts and prayers go out to all those affected by this tragedy.
When I first heard about the events I was shocked. I didn't know what to think and was a little unnerved. If it could happen there, what's stopping it from happening at UNH. As the news of the shooting first broke details were scattered. There were conflicting reports of the number of dead and injured. As time passed the numbers were cleared up and in the end a total of 33 people were dead and at least another 29 were injured. As I watched the news in awe I began to question the motive behind the interviews. During a press conference with the Chief of Police reporters were asking if the bodies were still inside the buildings, and and other unnecessary questions. Questions like those were not mattered at that point in time. People were mourning and did not need to know that their loved one could still be inside.
Over the course of the day, the manner in which the media covered the tragedy seemed to change. The attention switched from the number of casualties to why the university didn't do certain things. They questioned the manner in which the lock down was administered and how the off campus students were alerted. While flipping through the channels, I landed on WMUR News 9 and noticed that they were doing a story on the nor'easter, and no mention on the massacre that had occurred. I found this odd and continued to watch it. Fifteen minutes went by and still no word of the tragic events that were unfolding. This surprised me because WMUR is normally really good about covering breaking news.
What happened on the campus of Virginia Tech is awful. Words can not describe how I feel about this. It deeply saddens me, and makes me wonder what could make someone knowingly murder 32 people and injure another 29. My thoughts and prayers go out to all those affected by this tragedy.
People Want to Know Why
It has been barely a day since the deadliest massacre to ever hit the United States shattered the rural campus of Virginia Tech yesterday morning. 32 lives are lost, and the survivors want to know why. Last night reporters were already trying to place the blame on the school for not shutting down the campus earlier, which I personally think is way to early to do. Today though, it seems that the media is changing a bit. Now that people are aware who the single person that created so much devastation is, they want to know what kind of individual is capable of such a thing, and could it of been prevented. "The Psychology of Mass Murder" from MSNBC suggests that the only answer science has found to this question is shadows and darkness, misfiring neurons and psychic pain. Those who knew the gunman Cho Seung-Hui, a 23 year English Major, described him as depressed, erratic and a violent individual. Yahoo News!'s article "VA Tech Gunman Writings Raised Concerns" states that he was a loner who rarely talked to anyone. In Cho's creative writing classes, some alarms were raised. Professor Carolyn Rude, the Chairman of the English department said that "Cho's writing was so disturbing that he was referred to the counseling center" Still though, authorities are not really sure what could of set him off, and how do u know who is going to become a school shooter and who is just a troubled individual. The school tried to get Cho counseling, but you can't force someone to be helped if they don't want to be.
What happened at Virginia Tech was absolutely horrible and it makes me sick to think about. For the most part I think the media has been doing a good job of covering this event. I'm glad that at least it seems that as more of the facts start to come out, the media is taking a more rational approach to try and look at the person who committed this act and to reflect more on the victims and heroes of that day. It has only been a one day, the shock is barely fading and reality is just starting to set in for these people. There will be plenty of time for the media to make accusations, for now the media should do its best to let people heal, and the answers will come with time.
What happened at Virginia Tech was absolutely horrible and it makes me sick to think about. For the most part I think the media has been doing a good job of covering this event. I'm glad that at least it seems that as more of the facts start to come out, the media is taking a more rational approach to try and look at the person who committed this act and to reflect more on the victims and heroes of that day. It has only been a one day, the shock is barely fading and reality is just starting to set in for these people. There will be plenty of time for the media to make accusations, for now the media should do its best to let people heal, and the answers will come with time.
A Tragedy For The History Books:
Yesterdays’ events struck the American people and media with utter shock. ('You Caused Me to Do This') were some of the words left in a note from the killer Cho Seung-Hui. A legal immigrant to the US was said to have displayed warning signs for being unstable. The gunman had been recommended for counseling services by one of his English professors for the fact that some of his (writings raised concerns). This man was a loner and clearly noteworthy after his creative writings made it all the way to the chairman of the English department, despite never having had him as a student for his alarmingly vivid and disturbing writing pieces. He was in fact described by one of his professors’ as “troubled”.
He bought the (massacre gun) one of his weapons a 9mm glock for $571 just 3 short days before opening fire and killing 32 people. "He was as cordial as could be, and there was nothing unusual in his manner that suggested any thing wrong," Markell said that the pawn shop owner that sold Cho the gun. Prior to this event the deadliest campus shooting in U.S. history was a “rampage that took place in 1966 at the University of Texas at Austin, where Charles Whitman climbed the clock tower and opened fire with a rifle from the 28th-floor observation deck. He killed 16 people before he was shot to death by police.”
Coincidently Tuesday is a current event day in the eighth grade classes that I intern with, today much like the media the only topic that we could talk about was the shooting. The students in my classes, are well spoken children and seem very aware of what is going on around them; all of them seemed to come to the same point as I have which is, why? What is the motive? (Could Many of the Deaths Have Been Averted?) This is what remains, are those questions. The idea has been thrown out there on several news programs that the President of VT is to blame for his unwillingness to cancel classes after the first incident. I imagine that UNH in the same situation would have the same fate and this is not a matter for details of the Presidents action, but rather one for the educational system itself and for the future how much freedom is too much freedom when we think in terms of college campus's.
Furthermore, this morning on ‘Good Morning America’ they had some of the family members of the dead students. My sentiments are it is too soon for such interviews, but nevertheless it was nice to hear about the victims and their lives, such as a professor that was killed and him being a holocaust survivor. Ryan Stack one of the victims had his sister and brother talking about him this morning, it was truly amazing they were able to keep there composure and talk about this seemingly amazing young man that was a triple major at VT. (Lives Lost -- Portraits of Grief). This is a disturbing tragedy that hits close to all of us at UNH and across the states that are in college; this is supposed to be the “time of your life” as some say. President Bush said it best, "Our nation grieves with those who have lost loved ones at Virginia Tech…We lift them up in our prayers and we ask a loving God to comfort those who are suffering."
He bought the (massacre gun) one of his weapons a 9mm glock for $571 just 3 short days before opening fire and killing 32 people. "He was as cordial as could be, and there was nothing unusual in his manner that suggested any thing wrong," Markell said that the pawn shop owner that sold Cho the gun. Prior to this event the deadliest campus shooting in U.S. history was a “rampage that took place in 1966 at the University of Texas at Austin, where Charles Whitman climbed the clock tower and opened fire with a rifle from the 28th-floor observation deck. He killed 16 people before he was shot to death by police.”
Coincidently Tuesday is a current event day in the eighth grade classes that I intern with, today much like the media the only topic that we could talk about was the shooting. The students in my classes, are well spoken children and seem very aware of what is going on around them; all of them seemed to come to the same point as I have which is, why? What is the motive? (Could Many of the Deaths Have Been Averted?) This is what remains, are those questions. The idea has been thrown out there on several news programs that the President of VT is to blame for his unwillingness to cancel classes after the first incident. I imagine that UNH in the same situation would have the same fate and this is not a matter for details of the Presidents action, but rather one for the educational system itself and for the future how much freedom is too much freedom when we think in terms of college campus's.
Furthermore, this morning on ‘Good Morning America’ they had some of the family members of the dead students. My sentiments are it is too soon for such interviews, but nevertheless it was nice to hear about the victims and their lives, such as a professor that was killed and him being a holocaust survivor. Ryan Stack one of the victims had his sister and brother talking about him this morning, it was truly amazing they were able to keep there composure and talk about this seemingly amazing young man that was a triple major at VT. (Lives Lost -- Portraits of Grief). This is a disturbing tragedy that hits close to all of us at UNH and across the states that are in college; this is supposed to be the “time of your life” as some say. President Bush said it best, "Our nation grieves with those who have lost loved ones at Virginia Tech…We lift them up in our prayers and we ask a loving God to comfort those who are suffering."
Virginia Tech Tragedy
It’s 24 hours after the Virginia Tech shooting and we don’t know much more than we did yesterday. Although police have made a preliminary id of the shooter, this has not been released by officials yet. Americans are on the edge, wondering who he is, if he was a student and why he would shoot all of those innocent students.
One of the focuses of media coverage in this story is the fact that Virginia Tech, didn’t take enough action to protect its students, while the other issue being brought up is gun control. One New York Times article said that “the university did not evacuate the campus or notify students of that attack until several hours later.” This has been a problem for many students. It is important that they feel safe and that everything that can be done to protect them,is done. Reports like this are often followed with the university’s president Charles Steger, saying “Today, the university was struck with a tragedy that we consider of monumental proportions” and the campus police chief Wendell Flinchum’s quote “we acted on the best information we had at the time.” Both of these statements may be true, but I don’t think it is going to stop all of the controversy that is will arise, since the only notification, after the 7:15 a.m. shooting, came two hours later and it apparently didn’t seem serious enough to readers. One student said that he read it and it seemed like the university had the situation under control.
This is a tragic, but interesting story for the media. Hopefully, the real story of these students will not be lost because of issues like gun control and finding fault in Virginia Tech officials for not letting students know what was going on. While these issues should be raised and are important in preventing a future incident like this, right now I think the focus should be on the people who have suffered from this disaster.
To the students of Virginia Tech, our hearts, thoughts, and prayers are with you.
One of the focuses of media coverage in this story is the fact that Virginia Tech, didn’t take enough action to protect its students, while the other issue being brought up is gun control. One New York Times article said that “the university did not evacuate the campus or notify students of that attack until several hours later.” This has been a problem for many students. It is important that they feel safe and that everything that can be done to protect them,is done. Reports like this are often followed with the university’s president Charles Steger, saying “Today, the university was struck with a tragedy that we consider of monumental proportions” and the campus police chief Wendell Flinchum’s quote “we acted on the best information we had at the time.” Both of these statements may be true, but I don’t think it is going to stop all of the controversy that is will arise, since the only notification, after the 7:15 a.m. shooting, came two hours later and it apparently didn’t seem serious enough to readers. One student said that he read it and it seemed like the university had the situation under control.
This is a tragic, but interesting story for the media. Hopefully, the real story of these students will not be lost because of issues like gun control and finding fault in Virginia Tech officials for not letting students know what was going on. While these issues should be raised and are important in preventing a future incident like this, right now I think the focus should be on the people who have suffered from this disaster.
To the students of Virginia Tech, our hearts, thoughts, and prayers are with you.
Monday, April 16, 2007
Mass Shooting In VA
Today as New Hampshire residents woke up to their own small nightmare; vast flooding and power outages, students at Virginia Tech were fighting for their lives. This morning, around 7:15 an unidentified gunman opened fire at West Ambler Johnston Hall. At 9:15, the gunman resurfaced at Norris Hall, an engineering building nearby. At 9:50 an email was sent to students by university police informing them that there was a shooting; police are investigating and to stay inside and away from windows. VTTimeline
Virginia Tech, a school of 25,000 issued this announcement on its home page. "Two shooting incidents on campus today have left 33 dead. Thirty-one, including the gunman, died at Norris Hall; two died at West Ambler Johnston Hall. Fifteen other victims from Norris are being treated at area hospitals." VTHomepage
Many are now wondering what went wrong? Why was there such a lapse in time between the first and second shooting. Virginia Tech President Charles Steger when asked why he didn't lock down the school replied,""Where do you lock them down?"
"You can only make a decision based on the information you know at that moment in time. You don't have hours to reflect on it." PressRelease
Many students are rightfully upset over the obvious lack of emergency plan the University had in place. However a massacre this catastrophic has never occurred before so the school was unprepared. The massacre at Virginia Tech has now been identified as the deadliest shooting in the United States. DeadliestInHistory
I hope that this becomes an eye opener for all universities across the country. Every school including UNH should have a plan in place to respond to a shooting. The trend over the last 15 years is horrifying; a disaster plan needs to be in place to try and save as many lives as possible.
To close here are some statements made by VT students. What they say is more important than anything I have posted above.
“He didn’t say a single word the whole time,” said Trey Perkins. “He didn’t say get down, he didn’t say anything. He just came in and started shooting.”
“There was blood pretty much everywhere. It’s just completely unreal … so hard to describe,”
“It seemed so strange,” Erin Sheehan reportedly said. “Because he peeked in twice, earlier in the lesson, like he was looking for someone, somebody, before he started shooting. But then we all heard something like drilling in the walls, and someone thought they sounded like bullets. That's when we blockaded the door to stop anyone from coming in.”
MSNBCStatements
Our thoughts and prayers are with you.
Virginia Tech, a school of 25,000 issued this announcement on its home page. "Two shooting incidents on campus today have left 33 dead. Thirty-one, including the gunman, died at Norris Hall; two died at West Ambler Johnston Hall. Fifteen other victims from Norris are being treated at area hospitals." VTHomepage
Many are now wondering what went wrong? Why was there such a lapse in time between the first and second shooting. Virginia Tech President Charles Steger when asked why he didn't lock down the school replied,""Where do you lock them down?"
"You can only make a decision based on the information you know at that moment in time. You don't have hours to reflect on it." PressRelease
Many students are rightfully upset over the obvious lack of emergency plan the University had in place. However a massacre this catastrophic has never occurred before so the school was unprepared. The massacre at Virginia Tech has now been identified as the deadliest shooting in the United States. DeadliestInHistory
I hope that this becomes an eye opener for all universities across the country. Every school including UNH should have a plan in place to respond to a shooting. The trend over the last 15 years is horrifying; a disaster plan needs to be in place to try and save as many lives as possible.
To close here are some statements made by VT students. What they say is more important than anything I have posted above.
“He didn’t say a single word the whole time,” said Trey Perkins. “He didn’t say get down, he didn’t say anything. He just came in and started shooting.”
“There was blood pretty much everywhere. It’s just completely unreal … so hard to describe,”
“It seemed so strange,” Erin Sheehan reportedly said. “Because he peeked in twice, earlier in the lesson, like he was looking for someone, somebody, before he started shooting. But then we all heard something like drilling in the walls, and someone thought they sounded like bullets. That's when we blockaded the door to stop anyone from coming in.”
MSNBCStatements
Our thoughts and prayers are with you.
Reporting the Virginia Tech shootings; history, grief and under the microscope of viewers
So when I woke up to the wind-ridden stretching of my window screen this morning and found out classes were cancelled, I turned on the television at 10 a.m. to MSNBC to receive the tragic news of the Virginia Tech school shootings. I felt compelled to watch the coverage all day on the tube and Internet, and blog right after the print got to their deadlines.
This is monumental news, marking this event the deadliest school shooting (college, high school or elementary) in U.S. history. This is also the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history, according to MSNBC.
At this point by 6 18 p.m. today the death toll is 33 on MSNBC. They report the shootings took place at two different locations on campus set about 2 hours apart from each other starting during the early morning commute.
By 1:30 p.m. the report came in about the death toll reaching 21, and 21 wounded. Before 3:00 p.m. the death toll came up to 31.
MSNBC also reported by 6:18 p.m. that the shooter had shot himself, in the head, closing that question.
According to the Washington Post article by 6 p.m., law enforcement authorities, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the shooter used two 9mm pistols.
The shootings, which included both students and staff members, took place at West Ambler Johnston, a dormitory, and Norris Hall, which houses the College of Engineering, at opposite ends of the sprawling campus. Authorities said the first shooting was reported shortly after 7 a.m. at the dorm and the second about two hours later at Norris Hall. (Post)
The television programs (Headline News, CNN, MSNBC) were round the clock at keeping information relative. Although, the reporting you watched went right back to crisis mode competition to get the facts straight. The Internet reports by staff writers were more aesthetic and accurate after hitting refresh constantly.
It is interesting to see how each online article, which is constantly being updated and followed up on hour-by-hour, is presented in writing.
The television reports give you more of the bare bones and visual appeal of the coverage. However, it is more evident among the words, the style at which each writer writes.
The Post’s writer started the lead with the death toll number, followed with paragraphs on the shooter’s brief information, and then a couple paragraphs in detail about the locations of the shootings and a witness’ account. More information followed, such as the history of school shootings in America, such as this being eight days before the April 20, 1999 Columbine massacre. Also, facts that the governor of Virginia decided to leave his business trip in Japan today to come back to the Commonwealth.
The MSNBC report began with a similar lead about the death toll and the “5 Ws”. However, their following paragraphs went into depth about the victims, Columbine and fact that students in the dorms did not receive first warning emails until the gunman had struck a second time.
This makes me so scared about how this could happen at any college, leaving us so vulnerable to being taken out by some psychotic, depressed lunatic.
According to the New York Times article by 6:40 p.m. tonight, they reported in their lead about the death toll as being 32, not 33.
I want to write more, but I feel this topic is going to be talked about very soon. I need this to be posted.
Our reliability on the news, such as 9/11, Hurricane Katrina and this event (probably the biggest of 2007 thus far), continues to be marginalized and more wide spread. Picking your outlet, and who you believe, is the only strategy on this one.
This is monumental news, marking this event the deadliest school shooting (college, high school or elementary) in U.S. history. This is also the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history, according to MSNBC.
At this point by 6 18 p.m. today the death toll is 33 on MSNBC. They report the shootings took place at two different locations on campus set about 2 hours apart from each other starting during the early morning commute.
By 1:30 p.m. the report came in about the death toll reaching 21, and 21 wounded. Before 3:00 p.m. the death toll came up to 31.
MSNBC also reported by 6:18 p.m. that the shooter had shot himself, in the head, closing that question.
According to the Washington Post article by 6 p.m., law enforcement authorities, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the shooter used two 9mm pistols.
The shootings, which included both students and staff members, took place at West Ambler Johnston, a dormitory, and Norris Hall, which houses the College of Engineering, at opposite ends of the sprawling campus. Authorities said the first shooting was reported shortly after 7 a.m. at the dorm and the second about two hours later at Norris Hall. (Post)
The television programs (Headline News, CNN, MSNBC) were round the clock at keeping information relative. Although, the reporting you watched went right back to crisis mode competition to get the facts straight. The Internet reports by staff writers were more aesthetic and accurate after hitting refresh constantly.
It is interesting to see how each online article, which is constantly being updated and followed up on hour-by-hour, is presented in writing.
The television reports give you more of the bare bones and visual appeal of the coverage. However, it is more evident among the words, the style at which each writer writes.
The Post’s writer started the lead with the death toll number, followed with paragraphs on the shooter’s brief information, and then a couple paragraphs in detail about the locations of the shootings and a witness’ account. More information followed, such as the history of school shootings in America, such as this being eight days before the April 20, 1999 Columbine massacre. Also, facts that the governor of Virginia decided to leave his business trip in Japan today to come back to the Commonwealth.
The MSNBC report began with a similar lead about the death toll and the “5 Ws”. However, their following paragraphs went into depth about the victims, Columbine and fact that students in the dorms did not receive first warning emails until the gunman had struck a second time.
This makes me so scared about how this could happen at any college, leaving us so vulnerable to being taken out by some psychotic, depressed lunatic.
According to the New York Times article by 6:40 p.m. tonight, they reported in their lead about the death toll as being 32, not 33.
I want to write more, but I feel this topic is going to be talked about very soon. I need this to be posted.
Our reliability on the news, such as 9/11, Hurricane Katrina and this event (probably the biggest of 2007 thus far), continues to be marginalized and more wide spread. Picking your outlet, and who you believe, is the only strategy on this one.
The Magazine Struggle and a New Attempt
Today in the business section of the New York Times, an article entitled “In a Troubled Time, a New Business Magazine” managed to capture my attention. Even though the subject matter relates more so to what we talked about at the beginning of the semester, I still felt that it was interesting to see the problems that magazines are facing from the business world perspective. The piece addressed a daring move to introduce a new business magazine called Portfolio by the company Conde Nast that will take an innovative approach to presenting business focused stories.
One manner in which they choose to change the media medium was by adding a huge amount of advertisements. According to the article, out of the 335 pages that make up Portfolio, 185 of those pages are filled by advertisements. I know advertisements are vital to the survival of magazines, but I become incredibly discouraged when I find that a magazines mostly consists of ploys for selling material instead of actual stories, therefore I tend to not buy those types of magazines. Yet, this mass amount of advertisement is what has the editors of the paper so incredibly excited. Compared to other business magazines, Portfolio has managed to grab a large number of interested investors, many of whom would not typically buy placement in a business magazine. It seems that they hope this surge of investors will breathe new life into the magazine industry, especially in the business sector.
This new interest has the editors changing the formatting of not only the magazine itself, but the website as well. The site has interactive features, streaming videos, blog spaces – many attractive features that will enrapture a widespread online reader community. Since the magazine is focused on groups of individuals with large amounts of money and possible investment opportunities, they are bound to be technology savvy and apt to use the online version of Portfolio. Through the use of their internet site, I agree that these editors have found the key to magazine success. Through this new media, the magazine staff expands itself past the simple paper world, touching with a base in the business sphere who may feel they do not have the time to flip through paper magazine version, but are more than willing to infosnack on the website which contains the same exact material as the paper version – for free. In the long run, mastering online as a media medium will help save struggling newspapers, giving them a second chance.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Imus is nothing compared to Nancy Grace
For those who haven't heard about the three, Duke lacrosse, team members accused of raping a black woman, they were recently found innocent of the rape charges. This is not the aspect I am going to focus on, however. With every injustice, there seems to be the King/Queen Justice there to condemn all those, who think otherwise, to hell. In this case, the Queen Justice was Nancy Grace.
Explanations will follow after you watch this: (trust me, it's worth it and very applicable to the recent events related to Imus)
For those that didn't want to watch it because you hate/don't trust me, it is a video clip of someone who actually SHOULD make an apology, get fired, impaled, and left rotting over a big bridge as an example.
It is a clip of Nancy Grace accusing the three lacrosse team members of rape, on unfounded evidence and just good old-fashioned Campbell's stupidity, literally making those poor college students' lives a living hell. All she did, on her show, was rant incessantly and boldly because "the victim is always right". What ended up happening the day after when they were found innocent was that she had someone SUBSTITUE HOST for her. That meant she had too much pride to at least apologize for her inane behavior.
So how does this relate to Imus? If you haven't found the parallel yet, allow me to connect the proverbial dots for you. Imus was in a different situation where he didn't have to apologize, but he did. And he got fired for it. If Nancy Grace doesn't get fired for causing distress (being accused of rape is some serious fandango), then I will call sexism into play. The door swings both ways.
Explanations will follow after you watch this: (trust me, it's worth it and very applicable to the recent events related to Imus)
For those that didn't want to watch it because you hate/don't trust me, it is a video clip of someone who actually SHOULD make an apology, get fired, impaled, and left rotting over a big bridge as an example.
It is a clip of Nancy Grace accusing the three lacrosse team members of rape, on unfounded evidence and just good old-fashioned Campbell's stupidity, literally making those poor college students' lives a living hell. All she did, on her show, was rant incessantly and boldly because "the victim is always right". What ended up happening the day after when they were found innocent was that she had someone SUBSTITUE HOST for her. That meant she had too much pride to at least apologize for her inane behavior.
So how does this relate to Imus? If you haven't found the parallel yet, allow me to connect the proverbial dots for you. Imus was in a different situation where he didn't have to apologize, but he did. And he got fired for it. If Nancy Grace doesn't get fired for causing distress (being accused of rape is some serious fandango), then I will call sexism into play. The door swings both ways.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
The difference between US and International News
While trying to find a news story that caught my attention to write about here, I stumbled across what seemed to me to be a trend. I had a feeling that the Imus issue would be discussed already so I checked out the world news section. What caught my attention was the themes of all the top stories in both the World and US sections. The U.S. section seems to always have stories varying in subject matter, but the World news appeared to have one common thread, death.
Practically every story in the world news section had a byline with the words killed, death or slain in them. At first I didn't think anything of it due to the ongoing war and violence plaguing the region, but then I thought about it some more. There must be other things going on in the world outside of the United States other than death. Is this the influence of the media? Do Americans really only want to know about how many people were killed during a suicide bomb? Or are we just not told of other things for various reasons?
I think the answers to these questions is yes to an extent. I believe that the media as an entity picks up on what people want to hear about and covers said stories. The media alone does not have the power to say what it will and will not cover. They cover anything from war, weather and women. I feel that if the American public showed an interest in what the newest scientific findings were in China, the media would cover them. However, I think that maybe the government plays a role in what is shown. The current president wants us all to be for the war in Iraq, and therefore I feel that he may be indirectly supporting the stories of murders and bombings in an attempt to gain support for his cause.
There is death and murder in the United States every day as well, but it is not the only thing we hear about. The every day occurrences abroad are just as important as those on the home front. If we want to be aware of what is going on in the world, the media should do a better job at covering occurrences other than death and murder.
Practically every story in the world news section had a byline with the words killed, death or slain in them. At first I didn't think anything of it due to the ongoing war and violence plaguing the region, but then I thought about it some more. There must be other things going on in the world outside of the United States other than death. Is this the influence of the media? Do Americans really only want to know about how many people were killed during a suicide bomb? Or are we just not told of other things for various reasons?
I think the answers to these questions is yes to an extent. I believe that the media as an entity picks up on what people want to hear about and covers said stories. The media alone does not have the power to say what it will and will not cover. They cover anything from war, weather and women. I feel that if the American public showed an interest in what the newest scientific findings were in China, the media would cover them. However, I think that maybe the government plays a role in what is shown. The current president wants us all to be for the war in Iraq, and therefore I feel that he may be indirectly supporting the stories of murders and bombings in an attempt to gain support for his cause.
There is death and murder in the United States every day as well, but it is not the only thing we hear about. The every day occurrences abroad are just as important as those on the home front. If we want to be aware of what is going on in the world, the media should do a better job at covering occurrences other than death and murder.
Watch Out -- The Media Can Get You
As I'm sure most everybody has heard, CBS radio has just fired its long-time radio personality, Don Imus, for making a racial, sexist comment about the Rutgers women's basketball team. Since the comment was made Imus has been all over the media, with various people, including Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson, calling on CBS to take him off the air. Apparently, the media pressure has worked, and Imus is now out of a job. This begs the question: if the media had not jumped on this issue and discussed it to such great (and often obnoxious) length, would Imus still have gotten the boot?
It is probably an impossible question to answer, because the media was going to have a field day with this issue no matter what. However, it is interesting to see how many other celebrity-type figures have been hurt by excessive media coverage of something they have said or done. It is obvious that we live in a time where if you say something wrong or offensive, the media is going to pick up on it very quickly and likely ruin your reputation/career in no time. I am certainly not saying that I disagree with any of this, because personally I feel that what Don Imus said was in very poor taste and he deserved to lose his job, especially knowing that this was not the first time he has said something of this nature. What is interesting is how much of a role the media has played in his downfall, and the fall from grace that many other prominent people have received as well.
Michael Richards, for example ("Kramer" on Seinfeld), was also publicly reprimanded not long ago for his racist remarks during one of his comedy acts. This got a massive amount of media coverage and sparked much discussion and debate on racism in America and our rights to free speech, just as the Imus case has. In both of these cases, the media played a crucial role in broadcasting these remarks and stirring up debate over them. Even for beloved TV characters like Kramer, the media that one day loves them can just as easily turn on them. This just goes to show that the media can be a fickle friend, and that nothing gets by it unnoticed.
It is probably an impossible question to answer, because the media was going to have a field day with this issue no matter what. However, it is interesting to see how many other celebrity-type figures have been hurt by excessive media coverage of something they have said or done. It is obvious that we live in a time where if you say something wrong or offensive, the media is going to pick up on it very quickly and likely ruin your reputation/career in no time. I am certainly not saying that I disagree with any of this, because personally I feel that what Don Imus said was in very poor taste and he deserved to lose his job, especially knowing that this was not the first time he has said something of this nature. What is interesting is how much of a role the media has played in his downfall, and the fall from grace that many other prominent people have received as well.
Michael Richards, for example ("Kramer" on Seinfeld), was also publicly reprimanded not long ago for his racist remarks during one of his comedy acts. This got a massive amount of media coverage and sparked much discussion and debate on racism in America and our rights to free speech, just as the Imus case has. In both of these cases, the media played a crucial role in broadcasting these remarks and stirring up debate over them. Even for beloved TV characters like Kramer, the media that one day loves them can just as easily turn on them. This just goes to show that the media can be a fickle friend, and that nothing gets by it unnoticed.
Ultimate Big Brother
Closed circuit video cameras are placed all over the city of London. These cameras pan across anything from streets, subways and shops to parks or right outside of an apartment on a busy London street. The cameras are monitored by staff members and “it allows the person behind the lens, to now verbally correct someone if they step out of line.”
The story on Foxnews.com showed many examples of people being corrected on the streets of London. In one instance, a woman flicked a cigarette butt on the ground, and then a staff member controlling the camera happened to see it. He went over the loud-speaker and described what the women was wearing and what she had done. The voice then nicely asked for her to pick up the cigarette butt and dispose of it accordingly. This particular incident is one of hundreds that happens everyday in London that the eye in the sky will catch.
London has over four million of these “security cameras” which are all on twenty-four hours of the day, seven days a week. Britain has become “security camera mad” says Nicolas Thompson, head editor for Wired Magazine. It is not too much of a shock to me that London has taken security to such a high level, with the implications of these new camera systems. London, along with the United States, has been under a state of emergency, ever since the 911 Attacks. However, London has experienced more attacks of terrorism within the past year.
I can stand with having security cameras keeping an eye on things throughout the city, but I would now what a camera telling me what to do. These cameras even tell people to step off the grass and step onto the side-walk. This is the ultimate version of Big Brother. Security cameras are great for catching people doing something illegal such as robbing a bank, mugging someone on the street or even to the extend of traffic violations. But telling people to throw away cigarette butts; I think it is a little drastic. I know you are all thinking; it’s a great idea because it keeps people safe and helps keep the environment reasonably clean. But imagine this verbal system coming to the United States. I think people would have a totally different view of this system. Imagine walking to class you take out a piece of gum and casually toss the wrapper to the side, because you know you do it. Then out of the blue comes a voice singling you out, asking you to go back to retrieve your litter, and throw it into the garbage can. Not only is it annoying and embarrassing, it’s a waste of money. The average security camera costs anywhere from 500 to 1000 dollars, now add that onto full time employees that have to monitor these said cameras. That is a lot of money. So basically London has hired a new high-tech system of police. What the point of having police if everything can be handled through a camera and micro-phone? And the reason is, is that it can’t. Video cameras may be able to tell people to throw trash away, and catch the occasional robber, but it can never take over the job of a trained law enforcement officer.
This story does not quite tie into how the media portrayed this particular story. However, the media would have a field day with the “talking cameras” if they ever came to the United States. The only thing good to come from this would be a new Fox comedy series showing how stupid people really are when they think no one is watching. But hey, that’s my opinion.
The story on Foxnews.com showed many examples of people being corrected on the streets of London. In one instance, a woman flicked a cigarette butt on the ground, and then a staff member controlling the camera happened to see it. He went over the loud-speaker and described what the women was wearing and what she had done. The voice then nicely asked for her to pick up the cigarette butt and dispose of it accordingly. This particular incident is one of hundreds that happens everyday in London that the eye in the sky will catch.
London has over four million of these “security cameras” which are all on twenty-four hours of the day, seven days a week. Britain has become “security camera mad” says Nicolas Thompson, head editor for Wired Magazine. It is not too much of a shock to me that London has taken security to such a high level, with the implications of these new camera systems. London, along with the United States, has been under a state of emergency, ever since the 911 Attacks. However, London has experienced more attacks of terrorism within the past year.
I can stand with having security cameras keeping an eye on things throughout the city, but I would now what a camera telling me what to do. These cameras even tell people to step off the grass and step onto the side-walk. This is the ultimate version of Big Brother. Security cameras are great for catching people doing something illegal such as robbing a bank, mugging someone on the street or even to the extend of traffic violations. But telling people to throw away cigarette butts; I think it is a little drastic. I know you are all thinking; it’s a great idea because it keeps people safe and helps keep the environment reasonably clean. But imagine this verbal system coming to the United States. I think people would have a totally different view of this system. Imagine walking to class you take out a piece of gum and casually toss the wrapper to the side, because you know you do it. Then out of the blue comes a voice singling you out, asking you to go back to retrieve your litter, and throw it into the garbage can. Not only is it annoying and embarrassing, it’s a waste of money. The average security camera costs anywhere from 500 to 1000 dollars, now add that onto full time employees that have to monitor these said cameras. That is a lot of money. So basically London has hired a new high-tech system of police. What the point of having police if everything can be handled through a camera and micro-phone? And the reason is, is that it can’t. Video cameras may be able to tell people to throw trash away, and catch the occasional robber, but it can never take over the job of a trained law enforcement officer.
This story does not quite tie into how the media portrayed this particular story. However, the media would have a field day with the “talking cameras” if they ever came to the United States. The only thing good to come from this would be a new Fox comedy series showing how stupid people really are when they think no one is watching. But hey, that’s my opinion.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Emergings of a Cult?
In an OnTheMedia clip airing last Friday, Bob Garfield interviewed Jeff Sharlet who wrote quite an interesting article in the newest issue of The Rolling Stone magazine. The article focuses on Ron Luce who is the founder of an evangelical youth group named "BattleCry". Sharlet describes Luce as, "this brilliant media strategist who recognizes that, look, if I speak about war - if I say that media makers, in fact, are like al Qaeda, which he does in his book, BattleCry - if I say these things, these things are so sensational I'm going to get a lot of attention, and I'm going to grab the attention of kids." ("Hear Their Roar", OnTheMedia, Apr. 6, 07.) Jeff Sharlet spent around a week with the teens behind "BattleCry" in Texas at Luce's own Honor Academy. He began to see that many of these teens were just confused at where they were in life.
Sharlet goes on to explain the hatred that Luce and his followers (or confused teens) have for mainstream media and secularism. In the Rolling Stone article, Sharlet describes the BattleCry rhetoric as "militaristic" and as a huge "youth crusade." Ron Luce is quoted from a rally in San Francisco last March as saying, "When you enlist in the military, there's a code of honor, same as being a follower of Christ." Luce believes that mainstream media is corrupting our society and that him and his followers need to destroy it. This evangelical leader hates the media so much that his Honor Academy is a "high-tech school for training kids how to produce media."
"They're very aware that Christian media for decades was just awful and cheese, and it's just pure kitsch. And I think now they recognize that if we can produce really quality media but that nonetheless has this fundamentalist message, then we're going to win kids over. If they can, you know, get to Hollywood and make movies that are actually pretty good, like The Chronicles of Narnia, those become the media equivalent of gateway drugs to bring you in to drink the full Kool-Aid of fundamentalism." (Sharlet, OnTheMedia, Apr. 6, 07)
So is this "Teenage Holy War" just a sly ploy by Luce to gather followers and promote the evangelical gospel? Or is this an extreme fanatic truly wishing and planning on taking down the mainstream media? The scary thing, is that Sharlet also mentions that the "real enemies" of Luce's Christ are not only the mass media but "queers and communists, feminists and Muslims." So thousands of teens are hearing this extreme message of hate and mixing it with religion pushed with a militaristic mindset. Sound familiar? This guy (Luce) is using what he hates (the media) to do exactly what he hates (the corruption of the youth). I do agree that the mass media does have a large strangle hold over the citizens of this country, over their mindsets, but he is using the same tactics he is fighting against to commit the same act as "the evil do-ers."
Sharlet goes on to explain the hatred that Luce and his followers (or confused teens) have for mainstream media and secularism. In the Rolling Stone article, Sharlet describes the BattleCry rhetoric as "militaristic" and as a huge "youth crusade." Ron Luce is quoted from a rally in San Francisco last March as saying, "When you enlist in the military, there's a code of honor, same as being a follower of Christ." Luce believes that mainstream media is corrupting our society and that him and his followers need to destroy it. This evangelical leader hates the media so much that his Honor Academy is a "high-tech school for training kids how to produce media."
"They're very aware that Christian media for decades was just awful and cheese, and it's just pure kitsch. And I think now they recognize that if we can produce really quality media but that nonetheless has this fundamentalist message, then we're going to win kids over. If they can, you know, get to Hollywood and make movies that are actually pretty good, like The Chronicles of Narnia, those become the media equivalent of gateway drugs to bring you in to drink the full Kool-Aid of fundamentalism." (Sharlet, OnTheMedia, Apr. 6, 07)
So is this "Teenage Holy War" just a sly ploy by Luce to gather followers and promote the evangelical gospel? Or is this an extreme fanatic truly wishing and planning on taking down the mainstream media? The scary thing, is that Sharlet also mentions that the "real enemies" of Luce's Christ are not only the mass media but "queers and communists, feminists and Muslims." So thousands of teens are hearing this extreme message of hate and mixing it with religion pushed with a militaristic mindset. Sound familiar? This guy (Luce) is using what he hates (the media) to do exactly what he hates (the corruption of the youth). I do agree that the mass media does have a large strangle hold over the citizens of this country, over their mindsets, but he is using the same tactics he is fighting against to commit the same act as "the evil do-ers."
Teachers Feeling Hurt by YouTube
For a while now, popular websites such as YouTube, My Space and various other Internet sites, have been a place for any normal person to put videos and their personal opinions out there for the world to see. Everyone knows that these videos aren't always the most polite, they seem to tend more towards being funny, shocking or just entertaining. Nevertheless, these types of sites can be considered an important media outlet. When do videos go too far though?
Yahoo! News is reporting this week that "Malicious Online Videos are Hurting Teachers". On YouTube and other websites that support student videos, there can be found videos taken by students on their cell phones and other devices showing malicious and embarrassing things being done to teachers. An example is of a video on YouTube showing a teacher stumbling around the front of the classroom after a student has run up and pulled his pants down around his ankles. Others show a teacher walking into cellophane covering a classroom door, and a student trying to fake a head injury with ketchup. British education secretary Allan Johnson is claiming that "such videos hurt teachers, and many have left or are considering leaving the profession because of the defamation and humiliation they are forced to suffer." Johnson also goes on to state that these online companies have a "social responsibility and moral obligation to act" against these types of videos. The spokeswoman for YouTube Julie Supan says that there are guidelines for which videos can be uploaded and that if complaints are made about a video, the video is revised and often removed. If you do a quick search on YouTube today though, that first video of the teacher with his underwear around his ankles is still there, as are many others.
I remember when I was younger, students would often make fun of teachers to each other, but nobody I ever knew actually went up and did anything to them. I also agree that seeing these types of videos can be funny. There definitely is a line though that can be crossed between funny and hurtful and humiliating. If this situation is getting so bad that teachers are considering quiting their jobs because of it, then yes to me it is a problem. Just because something is funny doesn't mean its ok. There is a time and a place for everything and I think that this notion needs to be reinforced in a lot of kids. It is also the responsibility of these online organizations that are allowing for the uploading of these videos to better regulate and stop this from happening. School teachers are very important and if they continue to leave and there are also still kids who think these sorts of things are ok, we might be in for a problem.
Yahoo! News is reporting this week that "Malicious Online Videos are Hurting Teachers". On YouTube and other websites that support student videos, there can be found videos taken by students on their cell phones and other devices showing malicious and embarrassing things being done to teachers. An example is of a video on YouTube showing a teacher stumbling around the front of the classroom after a student has run up and pulled his pants down around his ankles. Others show a teacher walking into cellophane covering a classroom door, and a student trying to fake a head injury with ketchup. British education secretary Allan Johnson is claiming that "such videos hurt teachers, and many have left or are considering leaving the profession because of the defamation and humiliation they are forced to suffer." Johnson also goes on to state that these online companies have a "social responsibility and moral obligation to act" against these types of videos. The spokeswoman for YouTube Julie Supan says that there are guidelines for which videos can be uploaded and that if complaints are made about a video, the video is revised and often removed. If you do a quick search on YouTube today though, that first video of the teacher with his underwear around his ankles is still there, as are many others.
I remember when I was younger, students would often make fun of teachers to each other, but nobody I ever knew actually went up and did anything to them. I also agree that seeing these types of videos can be funny. There definitely is a line though that can be crossed between funny and hurtful and humiliating. If this situation is getting so bad that teachers are considering quiting their jobs because of it, then yes to me it is a problem. Just because something is funny doesn't mean its ok. There is a time and a place for everything and I think that this notion needs to be reinforced in a lot of kids. It is also the responsibility of these online organizations that are allowing for the uploading of these videos to better regulate and stop this from happening. School teachers are very important and if they continue to leave and there are also still kids who think these sorts of things are ok, we might be in for a problem.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Working On A Personnel Agenda:
Nancy Pelosi spent last week traveling the Middle East against the wishes of the Bush administration. (The Middle East Trip Helped Bush administration) supposedly, Pelosi claims, "The funny thing is, I think we may have even had a more powerful impact with our message because of the attention that was called to our trip”. Regardless of her traveling with several republicans, she received the most attention, her decision to go was based on her ideology of being able to negotiate peace between that of Israel and Syria. Pelosi seemed to think that it showed the US being united against terrorism despite President Bush, expressing that Pelosi’s visit to Syria "counterproductive" after meeting with Syrian leader Assad, Cheney added, "He's been isolated and cut off because of his bad behavior. The unfortunate thing about the Speaker's visit is it sort of breaks down that barrier." (Pelosi's rocky road to the Middle East) was filled with lack of support even the National Security Council noted the trip as sending the wrong message. As it shows that there is “no consequences” for supporting terrorists.
Pelosi has managed to create quite a stir with her trip, on several fronts just one of them being that the (White House criticizes trip to Syria). In talking with people on this, it can be concluded that by being elected to office it is the job of an official to get the facts and make policy, but this trip was more than that. Not to say that Pelosi should not have gone it is her right, meeting with Mr. Assad though does seem to undermine the position that the US government is trying portray. Pelosi did go with an intention and by talking to Mr. Assad she gave him just what he wanted, Mrs. Pelosi has the right to go but she should be reminded she can’t just work on her own agenda. The media and the White House have had bad things to say about this trip and for good reason, is she working with the government or under it?
Pelosi has managed to create quite a stir with her trip, on several fronts just one of them being that the (White House criticizes trip to Syria). In talking with people on this, it can be concluded that by being elected to office it is the job of an official to get the facts and make policy, but this trip was more than that. Not to say that Pelosi should not have gone it is her right, meeting with Mr. Assad though does seem to undermine the position that the US government is trying portray. Pelosi did go with an intention and by talking to Mr. Assad she gave him just what he wanted, Mrs. Pelosi has the right to go but she should be reminded she can’t just work on her own agenda. The media and the White House have had bad things to say about this trip and for good reason, is she working with the government or under it?
Monday, April 9, 2007
One Joke Too Many
Exactly how far can one's jokes go before being funny becomes insulting? Don Imus, most commonly known as Imus in the Morning, found just that out earlier this week. On a radio broadcast that aired last week Imus was discussing the Rutger's women's basketball team and referred to them as“nappy-headed hos.” As you can imagine this was not taken lightly. MSNBC and CBS radio have suspended the popular radio host as of Monday for two weeks, with his return depending on how his apologies are accepted. CBSNews
Imus himself admits that he shouldn't have said what he did, but on his radio talk show " our agenda is to be funny and sometimes we go too far. And this time we went way too far.”
Over the weekend civil-rights leaders such as Al Sharpton and Reverend DeForest Soaries called for Imus to be fired for his racist remarks, and aren't pleased with just a suspension. ImusTalkshow Imus has since apologized profusely on the air and to the women's basketball team. Imus also stated that he will change the discourse and direction that his show has been taking if allowed back.
Protesters have been voicing their disgust for Imus and his show all week. Angela Burt-Murray, editor in chief of Essence magazine stated,“I don’t care about an apology, You’re not a child on the playground. You’re an adult who needs to take responsibility for his actions. And there need to be consequences.”
Imus appeared on the Al Sharpton show this morning to apologize after Sharpton refused Imus' invitation to come speak with him on his morning radio show.AlSharptonInterview On air Imus again apologized and talked about how he isn't a journalist or a politician with an agenda. His agenda is to entertain people while they listen, and to be funny. Imus also talked about how he knows that his joke about the Rutger's women's basketball team wasn't funny, and that there is no excuse for what he said saying,"I just wasn't thinking, I'm a good person who said a bad thing."
Meanwhile the Women's basketball team is considering their options, and a meeting is in the works so that Imus can apologize to the girls and their families. Imus hopes that the public makes an educated decision on who he is as a person and take a look at what he has done. (Opened ranch for children battling cancer, half of whom are of a different race.)
In closing, here are segments from the transcript of Imus's apology and what he had to say for himself.
"So I’m going to go talk to these women, if they will let me, and tell them what I have just told you. And what have I learned from this? Because Reverend DeForest Soaries said, I want you to tell me what you have learned. Here’s what I have learned: that you can’t make fun of everybody, because some people don’t deserve it. And because the climate on this program has been what it has been for 30 years doesn’t mean that it has to be that way for the next five years or whatever, because that has to change. So—and I understand that.Why would I think then, it’s okay to go on the radio last Wednesday and make fun of these kid, who just played for national championship? Well, I can’t answer that. I’m sorry I did that. I’m embarrassed that I did that. I did a bad thing. But I’m a good person. And that will change."Apology
Imus himself admits that he shouldn't have said what he did, but on his radio talk show " our agenda is to be funny and sometimes we go too far. And this time we went way too far.”
Over the weekend civil-rights leaders such as Al Sharpton and Reverend DeForest Soaries called for Imus to be fired for his racist remarks, and aren't pleased with just a suspension. ImusTalkshow Imus has since apologized profusely on the air and to the women's basketball team. Imus also stated that he will change the discourse and direction that his show has been taking if allowed back.
Protesters have been voicing their disgust for Imus and his show all week. Angela Burt-Murray, editor in chief of Essence magazine stated,“I don’t care about an apology, You’re not a child on the playground. You’re an adult who needs to take responsibility for his actions. And there need to be consequences.”
Imus appeared on the Al Sharpton show this morning to apologize after Sharpton refused Imus' invitation to come speak with him on his morning radio show.AlSharptonInterview On air Imus again apologized and talked about how he isn't a journalist or a politician with an agenda. His agenda is to entertain people while they listen, and to be funny. Imus also talked about how he knows that his joke about the Rutger's women's basketball team wasn't funny, and that there is no excuse for what he said saying,"I just wasn't thinking, I'm a good person who said a bad thing."
Meanwhile the Women's basketball team is considering their options, and a meeting is in the works so that Imus can apologize to the girls and their families. Imus hopes that the public makes an educated decision on who he is as a person and take a look at what he has done. (Opened ranch for children battling cancer, half of whom are of a different race.)
In closing, here are segments from the transcript of Imus's apology and what he had to say for himself.
"So I’m going to go talk to these women, if they will let me, and tell them what I have just told you. And what have I learned from this? Because Reverend DeForest Soaries said, I want you to tell me what you have learned. Here’s what I have learned: that you can’t make fun of everybody, because some people don’t deserve it. And because the climate on this program has been what it has been for 30 years doesn’t mean that it has to be that way for the next five years or whatever, because that has to change. So—and I understand that.Why would I think then, it’s okay to go on the radio last Wednesday and make fun of these kid, who just played for national championship? Well, I can’t answer that. I’m sorry I did that. I’m embarrassed that I did that. I did a bad thing. But I’m a good person. And that will change."Apology
Saturday, April 7, 2007
Is there a bigger brother?
In today's world, the trappings of the traditional media have fallen from the mainstream, and we are surrounded by an entirely new form of news media. Rather than three major networks from which to receive our news, there are dozens of sources for us to consider. With the internet as a primary news source for many people, there has grown an entire industry for supplying news to those who don't watch the television news. Following this, there has also spawned another industry: that which is responsible for providing news about the news. Examples of such industry abound on the internet today. One great example is the internet and radio broadcast group "On the Media". The main purpose of this group is to analyze the trends in all types of media, and to report them to the general public. However, who is watching those who are watching the media?
It may seem redundant to require a monitor of the monitors, but it may be necessary. In their latest update, "On the Media" had a number of posts that focused on the Easter holiday. However, Easter wasn't the only holiday to occur this week. According to "religionfacts.com", there are over 14 million people who practice Judaism. Instead of celebrating Easter this week, these 14 million people were celebrating another holiday, Passover. However, there was no mention of this holiday at all in "On the Media".
This may have occurred because there was more interesting news about Easter, or because there wasn't anything to analyze about the news that did exist. Whether this was the case or not is actually irrelevant. The real matter at hand is who should catch this gap in the coverage of the media? While there are no solutions at hand right now, it is the responsibility of everyone who uses these monitors of the media to think about what they are hearing, and more importantly about what they aren't hearing.
It may seem redundant to require a monitor of the monitors, but it may be necessary. In their latest update, "On the Media" had a number of posts that focused on the Easter holiday. However, Easter wasn't the only holiday to occur this week. According to "religionfacts.com", there are over 14 million people who practice Judaism. Instead of celebrating Easter this week, these 14 million people were celebrating another holiday, Passover. However, there was no mention of this holiday at all in "On the Media".
This may have occurred because there was more interesting news about Easter, or because there wasn't anything to analyze about the news that did exist. Whether this was the case or not is actually irrelevant. The real matter at hand is who should catch this gap in the coverage of the media? While there are no solutions at hand right now, it is the responsibility of everyone who uses these monitors of the media to think about what they are hearing, and more importantly about what they aren't hearing.
Friday, April 6, 2007
Real News Disguised as "No News"
As I logged on to the internet today, an article caught my attention on my homepage, Google News. It was titled "Pelosi scarves a diplomatic accessory", and at first I thought, "Wow, US Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi wears scarves, and that becomes one of the top two news stories on Google?" But as I read the article, I realized that even though there was a lot of somewhat trivial talk about her "silky white scarf with yellow flowers" and "black abaya robe, decorated with a gold-colored band across the front, over her lime-green pantsuit," this article really did contain some real, useful information.
Intertwined with what color scarves she had around her neck and what sort of pants suit she was wearing, the article gave the readers some interesting and important information about Islamic culture and how women are expected to dress. Nancy Pelosi had to have a scarf ready in case she went into a specific place, such as a mosque. Also, I found it interesting that she had to dress differently according to which Middle Eastern country she was visiting. I think many Americans, when they think of the Middle East, tend to imagine all of the countries there as being the same, but this article showed one cultural way in which they are different. It also gave its readers a taste of the general atmosphere in some of the countries, such as Syria, which is "far more secular" than some of the other countries she visited, and where she had to wear a skirt instead of her usual pants suit. I thought this article was interesting also because it illustrated how different it is for a woman dignitary to visit the Middle East than it is for a man. As the article states, "Female dignitaries visiting Mideast countries have to keep dress in mind in a way men don't. When out in public, particularly at religious sites, women politicians take care not to offend while trying to avoid cumbersome outfits."
I felt like sharing this article here because it seemed at first to be a "no news" type of story, talking about the outfits Nancy Pelosi wore on her trip to the Middle East, rather than what she was actually doing there. And this is true, the article did focus on what she wore, but it did not leave out some really important cultural information, the sort of thing you probably wouldn't get from an article that talked strictly about what she did there. It just goes to show that sometimes, real news can be hiding in a "no news" disguise, and we shouldn't be so quick to jump on an article as simply pointless until we have read it through carefully.
Intertwined with what color scarves she had around her neck and what sort of pants suit she was wearing, the article gave the readers some interesting and important information about Islamic culture and how women are expected to dress. Nancy Pelosi had to have a scarf ready in case she went into a specific place, such as a mosque. Also, I found it interesting that she had to dress differently according to which Middle Eastern country she was visiting. I think many Americans, when they think of the Middle East, tend to imagine all of the countries there as being the same, but this article showed one cultural way in which they are different. It also gave its readers a taste of the general atmosphere in some of the countries, such as Syria, which is "far more secular" than some of the other countries she visited, and where she had to wear a skirt instead of her usual pants suit. I thought this article was interesting also because it illustrated how different it is for a woman dignitary to visit the Middle East than it is for a man. As the article states, "Female dignitaries visiting Mideast countries have to keep dress in mind in a way men don't. When out in public, particularly at religious sites, women politicians take care not to offend while trying to avoid cumbersome outfits."
I felt like sharing this article here because it seemed at first to be a "no news" type of story, talking about the outfits Nancy Pelosi wore on her trip to the Middle East, rather than what she was actually doing there. And this is true, the article did focus on what she wore, but it did not leave out some really important cultural information, the sort of thing you probably wouldn't get from an article that talked strictly about what she did there. It just goes to show that sometimes, real news can be hiding in a "no news" disguise, and we shouldn't be so quick to jump on an article as simply pointless until we have read it through carefully.
Thursday, April 5, 2007
As Simple as a Picture
A picture can say a lot. But when it comes to being in the spotlight from the media, a picture can make or break you. The paparazzi and Associated Press (AP) are not only after the rich and famous from Hollywood, but they are also interested in the political elites. The paparazzi and AP show up to political events no matter how insignificant for the off chance that they might snap a juicy photo. While I was “info-snacking” on the web, I came across a hilarious photo of Hilary Clinton. The look on her face is priceless, as it appears she is “about to bite the head off of a small child.”
I think these kinds of photographs are great, because it shows that everyone is human and can be caught at an inopportune time. I, myself, have been in many pictures where it looks like I just rolled out of bed, my eyes where completely shut, or my facial expression looked very displeasing. It happens, but it is a lot funnier, or to some shocking, when it happens to a person in the mainstream media. Many photos, just like the one with Hilary, have been posted on the internet to mock their campaigns. I can remember a picture back in 2004 when George Bush and John Kerry where in the race for the White House. This particular picture showed Kerry fumbling a football that was tossed to him, and on the other side, it showed Bush gripping the football tightly as he pointed to make a pass. This picture really does not mean anything besides the fact that Kerry happened to drop a football that was thrown to him. On the bottom of the picture there was a quote that stated “Do you really want someone who catches like a girl running the USA?” Don’t get me wrong I think the picture was hilarious and extremely clever, but it the long run I don’t think it has any lasting effect on Bush or Kerry.
These pictures are a result of the “new news” syndrome. Photographers’ years ago would not take pictures of elites and put them in the news for the sole purpose of making fun of them. This practice was not considered to be professional and somewhere during the past couple of decades that professionalism dwindled. The AP started a frenzy of photos that showed stars and politicians at their worst possible moment. The public must have loved these pictures because, that is the standard that we have today. I am used to seeing photos of unwilling elites pasted all over the news; it’s just how it is these days. These pictures are meant to entertain, not inform the public about the particular person in the photo. However, some photos may be worse than others if caught at an extremely bad time. Most of these incidents occur in Hollywood, when an actor is drunk and makes a fool out of themselves. I guess it’s really infrequent to see a politician drunk in public, so there are not a lot of cases of that.
The picture of Hilary was funny and obviously created by a Republican supporter. These photos can even be considered as attack ads because they show up everywhere. Both sides of the political spectrum are capable of creating such photos. I think that this is a good way for both parties to bash each other at minimal cost and high hilarity.
I think these kinds of photographs are great, because it shows that everyone is human and can be caught at an inopportune time. I, myself, have been in many pictures where it looks like I just rolled out of bed, my eyes where completely shut, or my facial expression looked very displeasing. It happens, but it is a lot funnier, or to some shocking, when it happens to a person in the mainstream media. Many photos, just like the one with Hilary, have been posted on the internet to mock their campaigns. I can remember a picture back in 2004 when George Bush and John Kerry where in the race for the White House. This particular picture showed Kerry fumbling a football that was tossed to him, and on the other side, it showed Bush gripping the football tightly as he pointed to make a pass. This picture really does not mean anything besides the fact that Kerry happened to drop a football that was thrown to him. On the bottom of the picture there was a quote that stated “Do you really want someone who catches like a girl running the USA?” Don’t get me wrong I think the picture was hilarious and extremely clever, but it the long run I don’t think it has any lasting effect on Bush or Kerry.
These pictures are a result of the “new news” syndrome. Photographers’ years ago would not take pictures of elites and put them in the news for the sole purpose of making fun of them. This practice was not considered to be professional and somewhere during the past couple of decades that professionalism dwindled. The AP started a frenzy of photos that showed stars and politicians at their worst possible moment. The public must have loved these pictures because, that is the standard that we have today. I am used to seeing photos of unwilling elites pasted all over the news; it’s just how it is these days. These pictures are meant to entertain, not inform the public about the particular person in the photo. However, some photos may be worse than others if caught at an extremely bad time. Most of these incidents occur in Hollywood, when an actor is drunk and makes a fool out of themselves. I guess it’s really infrequent to see a politician drunk in public, so there are not a lot of cases of that.
The picture of Hilary was funny and obviously created by a Republican supporter. These photos can even be considered as attack ads because they show up everywhere. Both sides of the political spectrum are capable of creating such photos. I think that this is a good way for both parties to bash each other at minimal cost and high hilarity.
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
The Claws of old news
In a story from the Economist ("War is Declared", March 17th-23rd, p. 70, 2007.) and an MSNBC article, one can see that old news still has some fight left in it. Back in March, Viacom (which owns stations such as MTV, Nickelodeon and Comedy Central) sued YouTube for copyright infringement for $1 billion. This was mainly because shows such as "The Colbert Report" and "The Daily Show" were available on YouTube. The Economist explains that under America's Digital Millenium Copyright Act, there is a "safe-harbour" which protects any copyrighter if they remove the content as soon as the "owner" requests. The problem with this is that as soon as YouTube pulls copyright material, it is put right back up by users. Viacom claims that, "160,000 of its clips have been illegally viewed 1.5 billion times on the site." ("War is Declared, March 17th-23rd, p. 70, 2007.)
Another interesting fact in the case is that in 2005, google purchased YouTube for $1.65b in shares. So moving higher up the food chain, we really see the battle between the old media giant, Viacom, and the quickly growing new media giant, google with the ever so popular YouTube under its wing. Viacom may win some battles over regulation or copyright laws but is it resilient and ingenuitive enough to move into the new news sphere? Or find some way to capture the new, technologically obsessed generations.
Another interesting fact in the case is that in 2005, google purchased YouTube for $1.65b in shares. So moving higher up the food chain, we really see the battle between the old media giant, Viacom, and the quickly growing new media giant, google with the ever so popular YouTube under its wing. Viacom may win some battles over regulation or copyright laws but is it resilient and ingenuitive enough to move into the new news sphere? Or find some way to capture the new, technologically obsessed generations.
"For one day, at least, the roadrunner was safe"
One of the top stories at CNN’s website today (an Associated Press article) was a story about a coyote going into a cooler at Chicago Quizno’s. Apparently this coyote walked through an open front door on the busy streets of
Now for the question: why is this considered worthy of being a part of a national newscast? So a coyote was hiding in a drink cooler, it happens and maybe some people would get a kick out of it but besides that it is completely useless. Apparently most of the people who went to cnn.com that day wouldn’t agree with me, since it was the eighth most popular story out of all of the stories CNN had released online that day. I guess people would rather hear a story that gives them a quick laugh than a story that would keep them up to date on the important things happening all around the globe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)