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.
Saturday, April 28, 2007
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)