Media Ownership
Before taking this class I didn’t know anything about how television is controlled and ran. It was weird to learn that 90% of our media content is owned by 6 TNCs. Companies such as AOL Time Warner brought in more than $4 billion in 2000 (Media Society, pg 35.) It wasn’t always like this however. There used to be more people in charge of what we see, and now that number has decreased to six. Will this trend of “vertical integration” (Media Society, pg 40) continue as the number of owners shrinks?
Information Access
We gain information so quickly due to our different forms of media. Media evolved from newspapers to television to the internet. If there is anything I want to look up, I can do a quick Wikipedia search and have pages of information. What’s next? The book “Feed” by M.T. Anderson suggests computer chips in our brains. A part of what Feed is saying is that this technology in our brains will advertise products to us (Feed, 299.)
Media Ethics
Media ethics refers to the moral standards we see in the media. The way the media goes about their business can be thought of as unethical at times. Breaking every ten minutes for three minutes of advertisements is an example of a questionable ethical topic in media. The media also affects our opinions. Ideologies are created through the media. Eminem’s album. The Marshall Mathers LP was nominated for Album of the Year in 2001 (Media Society, 162.) There was some dispute due to “angry” lyrics. Is it ethical to discredit an artist even when the album is popular?
Facebook/Twitter
Facebook and Twitter are two media tools whose outcome is based on how it’s used. They can be both great tools for group organization, micro-blogging, and mass communication. Facebook has over 6 million users and is expanding rapidly every day (Twitter Nation Has Arrived: How Scared Should We Be? By Alexander Zaitchik, AlterNet.) Something so popular has to be discussed. There is a lot people don’t like about these sites. Personally, I could care less if you like bonfires and cupcakes. Who doesn’t?
Not to mention it’s a huge time sapper.
The Peek-a-Boo World
Neil Postman writes about “The Peek-a-Boo World” that we live in. It is full of advertisements, flashy montages and bad guys getting blown up. Postman’s “Amusing Ourselves to Death” was written in 1985 but his words of wisdom are applied more than ever today. I found a video of Someone walking through Time Square in New York. All you see is ads.
News Objectivity
News and objective are usually two words that aren’t next to each other. We learned that there isn’t just one side, or even two sides to the news. There are many sides to every story.
Conspiracy Theories Debunked
We discussed media’s coverage of 9/11. Television showed the clips of planes flying into the World Trade Center. We were told it was done by terrorists hijacking the planes. Many people don’t believe this. Because the news only showed this one side, many conspiracy theories developed. This is a video that proves many of them wrong.
News as Entertainment
Most people will agree that news should be news and entertainment should be entertainment. With so much going on in the world, you would think major news channels would focus on what’s important. Just look at the Censored books. There are so many stories that are important on an international level; but we hardly hear of them. And just as Postman wrote in 1985, news has become a form of entertainment.
Consumerism
A common theme in the world of media today is the idea of consumerism. Clever marketing and abundance in advertisement creates a desire to buy things we don’t always need. This is a theme that appears in the book Feed. A constant feed and flow of advertisements resulted in them going out and buying items from the newest sale. Everything must go!
Monday, April 27, 2009
“The Obama Deception”
I think the film’s thesis is that Barack Obama is not the hope and change that our country thought they were voting for. It has a lot of points that try to support this. For example, the idea that Barack Obama and our government are actually controlled by groups that aren’t a part of our government such as the Federal Reserve Bank.
Alex Jones attempts to tap into our Triune Brain by various editing techniques and clever narration. Right in the beginning of the film, it shows the inauguration speech of Obama. The clip is originally supported with the sound of cheers and excitement. In this film, there is ominous music ultimately leading up to a shot of Obama. This affects the limbic part of our brain because it creates emotion by the use of music. It’s not something we have real control over naturally. Just from hearing the shady music, it creates a different perspective of Obama. There was also the scene when Alex Jones and his crew were leaving the Marriot and there was a car following them. I thought this was a good example of how our neocortex works. Alex Jones interpreted the car behind them as someone following them for whatever reason. Someone else could also interpret it as someone who just wanted to go to Moe’s to get a taco and they happened to be on the same route as them. But Alex Jones and his editor cut and narrated the film to make it look the other way. It’s hard to know which one is true. How do we know what we know?
This film also uses several persuasive techniques that have been discussed in our class. One of the most common tools used was Plain Folks. Alex Jones often referred to the viewers as “the people” to connect us to his beliefs. It’s a good way to indirectly connect us to the film. The film also uses Testimonials. Many “experts” such as Webster Tarpley and Gerald Celente are given titles that show their past work which is translated to reliability. Just because Webster Tarpley has written two books doesn’t mean that he is 100% credible. A third technique of persuasion is Timing. Going back to the example I provided before of the car following them around after leaving the hotel. That may have just been clever editing to make it look like the car was directly following them. This next persuasive technique is similar to the Plain Folks technique. Group Dynamics were used in this film. When Alex Jones is outside with all the protestors both at the hotel and the Federal Reserve Bank, he is with a group of followers and supporters of his ideas. It creates a group dynamic which increases his support. Alex Jones’ film also Card Stacks. Information is taken out of context in this film. At one point, Alex Jones says “everything” that Obama has said he would do, he hasn’t done. I am sure there are many things he has done that he has promised so far, but we don’t get the whole story on it by both the news and Alex Jones’ documentary. He also Name Calls a lot. He goes on a rant at one point where he calls Obama a Judas goat.
The “reality” construction of this film has a few trade offs that are worth mentioning. I really enjoy watching documentaries and there’s a lot to learn from them. However, some documentaries such as this one leave me skeptical of the information provided. It is almost always bias and the editing alone can sometimes leave me totally convinced of something I previously knew nothing about. Editing is a production technique this film highly relied on. Since most of the footage was previously recorded, editing those clips together to create a story or perspective is challenging but I think they did it well for this documentary. There was one shot that they did create that I thought was very effective. It was a 3D animation that was made for each of the people in power. It was a serious, darkly lighted pan shot that created a very menacing atmosphere. There were great amounts of emotional transfers in this documentary. For example, many times through the use of music, they would build one idea up, and then knock it down creating the emotion of despair. Then at the end of the movie they build back up a sense of hope to create a will to fight back. It didn’t work too well on me; but I can see how it could inspire certain people. This creates individual meanings for the documentary. Some people are open to the “facts” in this documentary and others are closed. I fall somewhere in between. I think there are some great points about our government and the way things work; but I also think there is some farfetched ideas as well.
This documentary represents some new technological shifts. The video is available online on YouTube. I was also able to download it shortly after it came out from an exclusive downloading site. Having the video to scan through at all times in decent quality made deconstructing it easier. This documentary also represented an epistemological shift. The film threw out a lot of information to the viewer. Because its video, all that information is being showed quickly. The downside to this is that once the information is presented, it’s gone. It was hard to retain a lot of the information the first time around. Unlike text, with video you can’t go back and read…unless you rewind, but that’s too much effort.
Towards the beginning of the film, Alex Jones says that over one million Iraqis have died since the war and that 5000 US soldiers have died. I wasn’t aware of how many Iraqis have died since the war. Until I chose to present the story from Censored 2009 titled, “Over One Million Iraqi Deaths Caused by US Occupation,” I didn’t really know much about the number of Iraqi deaths from the war. Reading that article and doing some research hasn’t completely changed my opinion about the war but it does deeply impact it. That’s a lot of deaths.
The Bilderberg Group was a group I knew nothing about. We talked about it in class and I also read up on them a little. Because the only information I had about it originally came from this documentary, I was subjected to that perspective only. From what I read, the meetings held by the Bilderberg Group are meetings between successful people in power. Alex Jones proposes that since they don’t allow media coverage or reporting about the meetings, that they are evil and plotting to dominate the world. Just because the meetings are not open to the media, doesn’t mean they’re bad. There are plenty of private meetings in politics. The public has the right to know certain information, and other information I believe should be left to the government.
Something else I didn’t know about before was that the Federal Reserve Bank is an independent company that isn’t an actual part of the government. It is as federal as federal express. The day we talked about this in class, in my next class our teacher brought it up and I was one of the only people who also knew about it. Ironic how that works. But I found that strange that this organization would name themselves with the word “federal” in the front. I found that really strange and after doing some later research I learned that many previous US presidents were against it. I don’t really know much about banking and how it fits into politics and all that; but anytime you give one organization too much power, there is a risk of their responsibility being jeopardized.
I liked watching this documentary. Like I said, there were some things I liked and some things I didn’t like. Even if I don’t agree with everything, there’s usually something I can take from these sort of films.
Alex Jones attempts to tap into our Triune Brain by various editing techniques and clever narration. Right in the beginning of the film, it shows the inauguration speech of Obama. The clip is originally supported with the sound of cheers and excitement. In this film, there is ominous music ultimately leading up to a shot of Obama. This affects the limbic part of our brain because it creates emotion by the use of music. It’s not something we have real control over naturally. Just from hearing the shady music, it creates a different perspective of Obama. There was also the scene when Alex Jones and his crew were leaving the Marriot and there was a car following them. I thought this was a good example of how our neocortex works. Alex Jones interpreted the car behind them as someone following them for whatever reason. Someone else could also interpret it as someone who just wanted to go to Moe’s to get a taco and they happened to be on the same route as them. But Alex Jones and his editor cut and narrated the film to make it look the other way. It’s hard to know which one is true. How do we know what we know?
This film also uses several persuasive techniques that have been discussed in our class. One of the most common tools used was Plain Folks. Alex Jones often referred to the viewers as “the people” to connect us to his beliefs. It’s a good way to indirectly connect us to the film. The film also uses Testimonials. Many “experts” such as Webster Tarpley and Gerald Celente are given titles that show their past work which is translated to reliability. Just because Webster Tarpley has written two books doesn’t mean that he is 100% credible. A third technique of persuasion is Timing. Going back to the example I provided before of the car following them around after leaving the hotel. That may have just been clever editing to make it look like the car was directly following them. This next persuasive technique is similar to the Plain Folks technique. Group Dynamics were used in this film. When Alex Jones is outside with all the protestors both at the hotel and the Federal Reserve Bank, he is with a group of followers and supporters of his ideas. It creates a group dynamic which increases his support. Alex Jones’ film also Card Stacks. Information is taken out of context in this film. At one point, Alex Jones says “everything” that Obama has said he would do, he hasn’t done. I am sure there are many things he has done that he has promised so far, but we don’t get the whole story on it by both the news and Alex Jones’ documentary. He also Name Calls a lot. He goes on a rant at one point where he calls Obama a Judas goat.
The “reality” construction of this film has a few trade offs that are worth mentioning. I really enjoy watching documentaries and there’s a lot to learn from them. However, some documentaries such as this one leave me skeptical of the information provided. It is almost always bias and the editing alone can sometimes leave me totally convinced of something I previously knew nothing about. Editing is a production technique this film highly relied on. Since most of the footage was previously recorded, editing those clips together to create a story or perspective is challenging but I think they did it well for this documentary. There was one shot that they did create that I thought was very effective. It was a 3D animation that was made for each of the people in power. It was a serious, darkly lighted pan shot that created a very menacing atmosphere. There were great amounts of emotional transfers in this documentary. For example, many times through the use of music, they would build one idea up, and then knock it down creating the emotion of despair. Then at the end of the movie they build back up a sense of hope to create a will to fight back. It didn’t work too well on me; but I can see how it could inspire certain people. This creates individual meanings for the documentary. Some people are open to the “facts” in this documentary and others are closed. I fall somewhere in between. I think there are some great points about our government and the way things work; but I also think there is some farfetched ideas as well.
This documentary represents some new technological shifts. The video is available online on YouTube. I was also able to download it shortly after it came out from an exclusive downloading site. Having the video to scan through at all times in decent quality made deconstructing it easier. This documentary also represented an epistemological shift. The film threw out a lot of information to the viewer. Because its video, all that information is being showed quickly. The downside to this is that once the information is presented, it’s gone. It was hard to retain a lot of the information the first time around. Unlike text, with video you can’t go back and read…unless you rewind, but that’s too much effort.
Towards the beginning of the film, Alex Jones says that over one million Iraqis have died since the war and that 5000 US soldiers have died. I wasn’t aware of how many Iraqis have died since the war. Until I chose to present the story from Censored 2009 titled, “Over One Million Iraqi Deaths Caused by US Occupation,” I didn’t really know much about the number of Iraqi deaths from the war. Reading that article and doing some research hasn’t completely changed my opinion about the war but it does deeply impact it. That’s a lot of deaths.
The Bilderberg Group was a group I knew nothing about. We talked about it in class and I also read up on them a little. Because the only information I had about it originally came from this documentary, I was subjected to that perspective only. From what I read, the meetings held by the Bilderberg Group are meetings between successful people in power. Alex Jones proposes that since they don’t allow media coverage or reporting about the meetings, that they are evil and plotting to dominate the world. Just because the meetings are not open to the media, doesn’t mean they’re bad. There are plenty of private meetings in politics. The public has the right to know certain information, and other information I believe should be left to the government.
Something else I didn’t know about before was that the Federal Reserve Bank is an independent company that isn’t an actual part of the government. It is as federal as federal express. The day we talked about this in class, in my next class our teacher brought it up and I was one of the only people who also knew about it. Ironic how that works. But I found that strange that this organization would name themselves with the word “federal” in the front. I found that really strange and after doing some later research I learned that many previous US presidents were against it. I don’t really know much about banking and how it fits into politics and all that; but anytime you give one organization too much power, there is a risk of their responsibility being jeopardized.
I liked watching this documentary. Like I said, there were some things I liked and some things I didn’t like. Even if I don’t agree with everything, there’s usually something I can take from these sort of films.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
With Friends Like These…
1.
Tom Hodgkinson makes the argument that Facebook users want as many friends as possible and that it gives them a sense of being “popular.” I don’t think this is a valid criticism. I have 289 friends on Facebook. Most of them being people that I went to high school with and that I’m not really friends with. So why click “Add Friend” on their profile? Just so I can stay somewhat connected to the people I grew up with and to see how they’ve changed. I don’t feel any more popular because they’re my Facebook friends. And I’ve never heard anyone else brag about how many friends they have to make them feel better about themselves.
For a large amount of the article, Hodgkinson criticizes Peter Thiel, one of the board members of Facebook. He labels him as a futurist philosopher and claims that he is trying to destroy the world with his investments in technologies such as artificial intelligence, direct-brain user interfaces, and genetic engineering. At the end of the paragraph he says, “Not someone I want to help get any richer.” I think this is irrelevant to Facebook and to his whole argument. Just because he’s interested in futuristic technologies doesn’t mean he doesn’t deserve the money he’s making or that he is evil.
Hodgkinson later makes the point that Facebook with benefitting and making money off of relationships that already exist. I think that this is one of his valid arguments. It is true; however I don’t that makes Facebook evil or corrupt.
I think his statement about how Facebook advertises is important. If you list one of your favorite movies, similar movies will be targeted to your Facebook specifically to target you. This is true, so I consider it valid. Once again however, I don’t consider it a bad thing. If anything, I’d want to be targeted by products that interest me. It doesn’t mean I’m going to go buy that product or see that movie; but at least I’m aware that it exists.
2. The Facebook in Real Life video has been done countless times on youtube. They all make the same point which that most of the things Facebook users do is really irrelevant. “Ritchie created group, Tree Bark is the Bomb.” True, this is irrelevant, as most entertaining things on the internet are. But it’s funny, so why not join. It doesn’t mean anything in “real life” so why not? Heck, I’d join a group that loves tree bark because it’s true, tree bark is the bomb. The tag at the end saying “Doesn’t make much sense in real life does it?” is true; but that’s why we do it on the internet. It’s fun.
3. I’m looking at the most recently updated statuses on Facebook as I type this. The most recent says, “Yay zombie jesus day! thanks for the chocolate rabbits ZJC.” I consider this a pretty funny Facebook experience.
I play dodgeball here at Champlain College every Sunday with a handful of my friends and many other students. So I decided to create a Facebook group titled, “Dodgeball at Champlain College.” Since I created it, 28 other people have joined. A few of them I have added to my friends list because we got along with them when we played. There have been some photos taken from games that that person linked to at the group. Discussions have been created for further organization of the sport. A student from Saginaw Valley in Michigan contacted me about the dodgeball league he plays in out in the Midwest. It is a growing league and they’re looking for more teams to join. He also posted information about the league on our page. I consider this a very positive, pro Facebook experience. We’ve been able to organize, keep in touch, and reach out to other schools about our similar interests.
Tom Hodgkinson makes the argument that Facebook users want as many friends as possible and that it gives them a sense of being “popular.” I don’t think this is a valid criticism. I have 289 friends on Facebook. Most of them being people that I went to high school with and that I’m not really friends with. So why click “Add Friend” on their profile? Just so I can stay somewhat connected to the people I grew up with and to see how they’ve changed. I don’t feel any more popular because they’re my Facebook friends. And I’ve never heard anyone else brag about how many friends they have to make them feel better about themselves.
For a large amount of the article, Hodgkinson criticizes Peter Thiel, one of the board members of Facebook. He labels him as a futurist philosopher and claims that he is trying to destroy the world with his investments in technologies such as artificial intelligence, direct-brain user interfaces, and genetic engineering. At the end of the paragraph he says, “Not someone I want to help get any richer.” I think this is irrelevant to Facebook and to his whole argument. Just because he’s interested in futuristic technologies doesn’t mean he doesn’t deserve the money he’s making or that he is evil.
Hodgkinson later makes the point that Facebook with benefitting and making money off of relationships that already exist. I think that this is one of his valid arguments. It is true; however I don’t that makes Facebook evil or corrupt.
I think his statement about how Facebook advertises is important. If you list one of your favorite movies, similar movies will be targeted to your Facebook specifically to target you. This is true, so I consider it valid. Once again however, I don’t consider it a bad thing. If anything, I’d want to be targeted by products that interest me. It doesn’t mean I’m going to go buy that product or see that movie; but at least I’m aware that it exists.
2. The Facebook in Real Life video has been done countless times on youtube. They all make the same point which that most of the things Facebook users do is really irrelevant. “Ritchie created group, Tree Bark is the Bomb.” True, this is irrelevant, as most entertaining things on the internet are. But it’s funny, so why not join. It doesn’t mean anything in “real life” so why not? Heck, I’d join a group that loves tree bark because it’s true, tree bark is the bomb. The tag at the end saying “Doesn’t make much sense in real life does it?” is true; but that’s why we do it on the internet. It’s fun.
3. I’m looking at the most recently updated statuses on Facebook as I type this. The most recent says, “Yay zombie jesus day! thanks for the chocolate rabbits ZJC.” I consider this a pretty funny Facebook experience.
I play dodgeball here at Champlain College every Sunday with a handful of my friends and many other students. So I decided to create a Facebook group titled, “Dodgeball at Champlain College.” Since I created it, 28 other people have joined. A few of them I have added to my friends list because we got along with them when we played. There have been some photos taken from games that that person linked to at the group. Discussions have been created for further organization of the sport. A student from Saginaw Valley in Michigan contacted me about the dodgeball league he plays in out in the Midwest. It is a growing league and they’re looking for more teams to join. He also posted information about the league on our page. I consider this a very positive, pro Facebook experience. We’ve been able to organize, keep in touch, and reach out to other schools about our similar interests.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Stupid Google
1. Reading on the Internet has changed from reading print due to its convenience.
2. James Olds, a professor of neuroscience says “The brain has the ability to reprogram itself on the fly, altering the way it functions.” As different technologies come out we adjust to them fairly easily over time and that’s what has happened with the internet. We’ve altered the way our brain functions to read from the internet.
Frederick Taylor of Midvale Steel created a formula for an efficient worker. “Midvale’s employees grumbled about the strict new regime, claiming that it turned them into little more than automatons, but the factory’s productivity soared.” Carr shares this example with us because it relates to how the internet is, specifically Google. Google might be the most efficient search engine for finding information; but Carr is making the argument that it might be too easy and dumbing us down.
Carr writes about how people he’s talked to have said they too have trouble reading and focusing on long pieces of writing. The more they use the web, the harder it gets. We read differently online and tend to skim more and pick parts to read instead of just reading the whole thing.
3. Neil Postman wrote about how television was changing us as a society. There are similar beliefs in this article. Carr writes that the internet has becoming the new medium for the media and integrates all other mediums into it. It’s similar to how Postman felt about television taking over our lives and becoming a large influence on us.
Postman writes about the Typographic mind and how our brains work differently if we watch someone talking on television or if we read the copy. Carr writes about Bruce Friedman in his article who is a frequent blogger and he says he has trouble absorbing long articles both on the web and on print. Something is changing within our brains to make us read differently just as the development of television has given us an alternate way to think of things.
Postman argued that we learn differently from television compared to reading print. The whole classroom environment has changed. Learning has changed dramatically once again because the internet lets us obtain information even faster. First we had to do research by reading books. Then we could watch informative television programs. Now we can do both of those on a computer as well as search for random information about anything.
4. I think the thesis of this video is that Google users need help to search for something even as easy as a cartoon picture of piza. Oops, I mean pizza. Spell check failed me. I think it’s a semi accurate depiction of Google users because when we search we usually do start out very basic. Google does however do a good job at narrowing your results the more specific you get.
5. I do agree with Carr that the internet, and I guess Google might be a big part of it, is changing our brains. I got up about six times in the reading of this article due to other distractions including other web sites. I’ve never enjoyed reading, especially things that don’t interest me. And I’ve found that it’s not becoming easier like it probably should be.
2. James Olds, a professor of neuroscience says “The brain has the ability to reprogram itself on the fly, altering the way it functions.” As different technologies come out we adjust to them fairly easily over time and that’s what has happened with the internet. We’ve altered the way our brain functions to read from the internet.
Frederick Taylor of Midvale Steel created a formula for an efficient worker. “Midvale’s employees grumbled about the strict new regime, claiming that it turned them into little more than automatons, but the factory’s productivity soared.” Carr shares this example with us because it relates to how the internet is, specifically Google. Google might be the most efficient search engine for finding information; but Carr is making the argument that it might be too easy and dumbing us down.
Carr writes about how people he’s talked to have said they too have trouble reading and focusing on long pieces of writing. The more they use the web, the harder it gets. We read differently online and tend to skim more and pick parts to read instead of just reading the whole thing.
3. Neil Postman wrote about how television was changing us as a society. There are similar beliefs in this article. Carr writes that the internet has becoming the new medium for the media and integrates all other mediums into it. It’s similar to how Postman felt about television taking over our lives and becoming a large influence on us.
Postman writes about the Typographic mind and how our brains work differently if we watch someone talking on television or if we read the copy. Carr writes about Bruce Friedman in his article who is a frequent blogger and he says he has trouble absorbing long articles both on the web and on print. Something is changing within our brains to make us read differently just as the development of television has given us an alternate way to think of things.
Postman argued that we learn differently from television compared to reading print. The whole classroom environment has changed. Learning has changed dramatically once again because the internet lets us obtain information even faster. First we had to do research by reading books. Then we could watch informative television programs. Now we can do both of those on a computer as well as search for random information about anything.
4. I think the thesis of this video is that Google users need help to search for something even as easy as a cartoon picture of piza. Oops, I mean pizza. Spell check failed me. I think it’s a semi accurate depiction of Google users because when we search we usually do start out very basic. Google does however do a good job at narrowing your results the more specific you get.
5. I do agree with Carr that the internet, and I guess Google might be a big part of it, is changing our brains. I got up about six times in the reading of this article due to other distractions including other web sites. I’ve never enjoyed reading, especially things that don’t interest me. And I’ve found that it’s not becoming easier like it probably should be.
Chapters 3-6
Chapter 3:
I had heard that the statistics about global warming weren’t good; but to read that it’s progressing three times faster than originally predicted. I have to admit I don’t pay much attention to the news, but the fact that I have heard about everything that happened with Paris Hilton that week and not this is sort of weird to me.
Once again, the comparison between what is important in the news and what isn’t surprises me. In December 2007, Fox, ABC, CBS, and MSNBC all covered the “Simpson jinx,” referring to her jinxing her boyfriend’s football game. While at the same time in Paris, world leaders met at a conference to raise billions of dollars to support Palestine.
My question is...How can the “important” world stories be filtered out and replaced with these “junk food” stories?
Chapter 4:
The story of the small-town farmer residents in rural Pennsylvania resisting the dumping of sewage sludge from other states was something I enjoyed reading. I grew up in a small farm town in Connecticut, and I know a lot of families that make their money off of the land they work on. I was glad to hear that that town and over one hundred others resisted the corporate feedlots. It’s news like this that I would like to hear and no the overwhelming number of negative stories we hear and read in the news.
I was surprised to read about Cuba and its efforts for health care. I didn’t know that they were so pro active about creating opportunities for better health care. No offence to Cuba, but if they can do it, why can’t we?
My question is (after this statement)…Freshman year I did a research paper on the news and how the majority of the news reported is negative. If there are positive news stories there, why doesn’t the media want to share them with us?
Chapter 5:
I thought it was interesting that on the front page of newspapers, 53 percent of the quotations from stories expressed opposition to the MCA. I thought this was interesting because I figured there would most likely be more positive stories about it. And since 80 percent of the front page quotes do take a definite position, it seems like there isn’t much room for opinion about this topic. It would be nice for this topic to be a little more objective.
The report done that showed 43 percent of quoted sources of their data expressed opposition to the MCA in one way or another makes me think about how the news paper differs from television news. It seems like newspapers are more critical of topics such as the MCA compared to the way television news might report on it.
My question is…Should newspapers deliver the news to balance out the news we see in TV, or should they both be balanced independently?
I had heard that the statistics about global warming weren’t good; but to read that it’s progressing three times faster than originally predicted. I have to admit I don’t pay much attention to the news, but the fact that I have heard about everything that happened with Paris Hilton that week and not this is sort of weird to me.
Once again, the comparison between what is important in the news and what isn’t surprises me. In December 2007, Fox, ABC, CBS, and MSNBC all covered the “Simpson jinx,” referring to her jinxing her boyfriend’s football game. While at the same time in Paris, world leaders met at a conference to raise billions of dollars to support Palestine.
My question is...How can the “important” world stories be filtered out and replaced with these “junk food” stories?
Chapter 4:
The story of the small-town farmer residents in rural Pennsylvania resisting the dumping of sewage sludge from other states was something I enjoyed reading. I grew up in a small farm town in Connecticut, and I know a lot of families that make their money off of the land they work on. I was glad to hear that that town and over one hundred others resisted the corporate feedlots. It’s news like this that I would like to hear and no the overwhelming number of negative stories we hear and read in the news.
I was surprised to read about Cuba and its efforts for health care. I didn’t know that they were so pro active about creating opportunities for better health care. No offence to Cuba, but if they can do it, why can’t we?
My question is (after this statement)…Freshman year I did a research paper on the news and how the majority of the news reported is negative. If there are positive news stories there, why doesn’t the media want to share them with us?
Chapter 5:
I thought it was interesting that on the front page of newspapers, 53 percent of the quotations from stories expressed opposition to the MCA. I thought this was interesting because I figured there would most likely be more positive stories about it. And since 80 percent of the front page quotes do take a definite position, it seems like there isn’t much room for opinion about this topic. It would be nice for this topic to be a little more objective.
The report done that showed 43 percent of quoted sources of their data expressed opposition to the MCA in one way or another makes me think about how the news paper differs from television news. It seems like newspapers are more critical of topics such as the MCA compared to the way television news might report on it.
My question is…Should newspapers deliver the news to balance out the news we see in TV, or should they both be balanced independently?
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Project Censored Story #1
Over One Million Iraqi Deaths Caused by US Occupation
The point of this story is to inform people about how many Iraqi deaths there actually have been since the war began. The story focuses on the US' involvement and occupation in Iraq as the reason why so many have died. This story might be censored because our government might not want the public to know about how many Iraqis have actually died from the war. That number doesn't seem nearly as important to the public.
This article provides a lot of statistics that are important for people to understand. The biggest statistic that is provided in the first sentence is that over one million Iraqis have died as a result of the 2003 invasion, according to a study conducted by Opinion Research Business (ORB). This seems like a straight forward fact but I think it can be a little misleading as well. It doesn't say how the Iraqis died, but it sort of implies that the deaths were caused directly from US soldiers. I'm sure a large number of those deaths were caused by terrorists.
Another statistic is of how many Iraqis have died in the year of 2006 by US forces. In 2006, an average of 10,000 Iraqis were killed by US forces per month, or 300 a day. This statistic may have been censored because it is still a big number on a small scale. It's difficult for us to imagine one million Iraqis (1,000,000) compared to 300 a day.
In February 2007, an Associated Press poll was conducted asking a sample of US residents how many Iraqis had died as a result of the war. The average respondent thought the number was under 10,000, about 2 percent of the actual amount. I don't think it's our faults we don't know the real numbers. But it does somewhat motivate me to find more information about this.
This last bit isn't a statistic. It's a quote by thirty-two-year-old Maha Numan, a refugee from Iraq. "I decided to stop dreaming of going back home and find myself a new home anywhere in the world if I could. I have been a refugee for three years now living on the dream of return, but I decided to stop dreaming. I have lost faith in all leaders of the world after the surges of Basr, Sadr City and now Mosul. This seems to be endless and one has to work harder on finding a safe haven for one's family." I find this quote pretty depressing, which I guess is the point of putting it in this book. It's hard for people who haven't been to Iraq during the war to put themselves in the shoes of the soldiers, residents, and ex-residents. Quotes like this one gives a perspective of how people their are feeling. I think it's important to put ourselves in their shoes.
Additional Information
Project Censored
Wiki
The point of this story is to inform people about how many Iraqi deaths there actually have been since the war began. The story focuses on the US' involvement and occupation in Iraq as the reason why so many have died. This story might be censored because our government might not want the public to know about how many Iraqis have actually died from the war. That number doesn't seem nearly as important to the public.
This article provides a lot of statistics that are important for people to understand. The biggest statistic that is provided in the first sentence is that over one million Iraqis have died as a result of the 2003 invasion, according to a study conducted by Opinion Research Business (ORB). This seems like a straight forward fact but I think it can be a little misleading as well. It doesn't say how the Iraqis died, but it sort of implies that the deaths were caused directly from US soldiers. I'm sure a large number of those deaths were caused by terrorists.
Another statistic is of how many Iraqis have died in the year of 2006 by US forces. In 2006, an average of 10,000 Iraqis were killed by US forces per month, or 300 a day. This statistic may have been censored because it is still a big number on a small scale. It's difficult for us to imagine one million Iraqis (1,000,000) compared to 300 a day.
In February 2007, an Associated Press poll was conducted asking a sample of US residents how many Iraqis had died as a result of the war. The average respondent thought the number was under 10,000, about 2 percent of the actual amount. I don't think it's our faults we don't know the real numbers. But it does somewhat motivate me to find more information about this.
This last bit isn't a statistic. It's a quote by thirty-two-year-old Maha Numan, a refugee from Iraq. "I decided to stop dreaming of going back home and find myself a new home anywhere in the world if I could. I have been a refugee for three years now living on the dream of return, but I decided to stop dreaming. I have lost faith in all leaders of the world after the surges of Basr, Sadr City and now Mosul. This seems to be endless and one has to work harder on finding a safe haven for one's family." I find this quote pretty depressing, which I guess is the point of putting it in this book. It's hard for people who haven't been to Iraq during the war to put themselves in the shoes of the soldiers, residents, and ex-residents. Quotes like this one gives a perspective of how people their are feeling. I think it's important to put ourselves in their shoes.
Additional Information
Project Censored
Wiki
Blogging Introduction
Hey! I'm Mike Deedy. I'm a junior here as a Digital Film Making major. My philosophy is to do what makes me happy and to just take it easy. I had a significant media experience over winter break. I saw the movie "The Wrestler." This was significant to me because it was directed by one of my favorite film makers, Darren Aronofsky (Pi, Requiem for a Dream, The Fountain.) I highly recommend it to any movie lover with a heart. It's a tear jerker. Check out the trailer!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)