Post #10: Youtube Video Post

Post #9: "Good Night and Good Luck"

In class we watched the film "Good Night and Good Luck" which took an inside look at broadcast journalism. The movie is set in the 1950s during a time when the threat of communism was everywhere. Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin was going around and exploiting the fear of communism. CBS news decided to take a stand against Senator McCarthy by showing the people the other side of the issue.

One interesting fact about the movie was that even though it was made in 2005, the entire film is in black and white. I felt that this really added to the setting because that is how movies were shot in the 1950s. I was really able to gain a sense of time based on that one seemingly small detail.

The movie brought up a topic that we have been debating with in class, should journalist just report the news or should they sometimes take the news into their own hands. This movie shows the advantages of investigative journalism. The news anchor, Edward Murrow, and the rest of his team at CBS were able to provide the public with the idea that Senator McCarthy was not always being truthful.

I agree that investigative journalism can be beneficial to society. In this case, the news media was able to be open minded and show a side of an issue which was not being discussed. That is what is needed in the news. When I am looking at current events, I want to know what is going on from every angle, not just one point of view. I want the media to provide me with just enough information so that I can make my very own informed decision.

Post # 8: My Own Choice

We are always talking in class about how websites like Twitter are a great way to get information out to the public. But here is an article that claims that these types of websites are detrimental. The article claims that humans cannot comprehend moral implications when absorbing information at such a fast rate. Basically, because there is a limited number of characters that one can fill up when writing a Twitter post, people will not be able to gain the full knowledge of what the actual message is. This will detract them from making moral judgments on what they read on Twitter about what is going on in the world.

I have to disagree with this article because although people do go on Twitter to catch bits and pieces of the news, I would like to believe that people take it for that and nothing more. If I am on Twitter and something catches my eye, the first thing I do is either wikipedia it or go on CNN and see what those sites have to say on the topic. I know that I need to look elsewhere to learn the full story and I think that is obvious to anyone else.

I think that Twitter has been more than beneficial at spreading the word about upcoming events and news stories. When Day of Silence took place earlier this month, people all over were putting up Twitter messages to represent. It really helped to get the word out there to people who may have never heard of the event before. Another thing I remember reading about was that the first news about the plane that landed in the Hudson was actually someone who got out their phone and Twittered the message. In less than a minute news was reported.

Lately, I have heard that the newest concern with Twitter is the spread of wrong information about the Swine Flu. Again, I think people should think about where this information is coming from. If you want to find out more about the Swine Flu, one should probably go on a medical website, not a social network. Twitter can be used as a beneficial tool if it is utilized properly. Maybe some doctors should create a Twitter profile so they can "tweet" about the flu and what people should do if they have symptoms.

Twitter was made to be a social networking site but it can be so much more if we use it in the right way.

Post #7: Environmental Blog Response

I was looking at The Environmental Blog, when I came across this article. Right away it caught my attention because I have been trying to eat healthier and exercise more to get in shape for the summer. But after the article I am left feeling a little skeptical. I can certainly grasp the idea that increased food production can cause more pollution. But I do not agree that by becoming fit you will help the environment.

Personally, I know quite a few people who are overweight who do not eat a lot of food. The reason that they are heavy is due to the fact that they are not eating the right foods. Instead of eating a healthy salad, they go for a plate of pasta. But regardless, they are not overeating. So therefore, there would be no increase in food production due to their weight.

Maybe this article should consider the increase of people living on the planet. The human race has been dramatically increasing the population which would lead to a need for an increase in the amount of food that is being produced. There is over 6 billion people currently on this planet and we are nearing 7 billion.

As much as I would like to tell myself that by eating a fatty hamburger is horrible for the environment, I just cannot. To me the idea is way too far fetched. I think that it is a great idea for everyone to eat healthy and exercise right but I do not think that will have a significant impact on the environment at large. The fact that the world's average BMI is rising is a frightening and just shows that people need to be more health conscious but I still cannot see the connection that would have on the environment.

Post #6: Comparing Internet and Print News

It is pretty evident that the big news on every one's minds is the swine flu. In fact, the story even made it to the front page of the New York Times today with this story. But what I am interested in here is not the article itself, but the differences between these two sources of news, one the Internet or written in print.

For Internet users, obtaining this article is free by simply logging on to the New York Times website. If you own a computer, you don't even have to leave the comfort of your own home to have obtained the article. If you do not own your own computer or laptop, a simple trip to your local library will offer you free access to the Internet where you can view this paper along with numerous other papers in mere seconds.

On the other hand, if one wanted to get a paper newspaper it takes a little more effort. For a daily subscription to be delivered everyday to one's doorstep over $60.00 which is with a 50% discount off the first 12 weeks on Offers.com. To go out to the newsstand and buy the paper it now costs $1.50 according to a recent article by The Associated Press.

In the printed newspaper, there is a limited amount of space. The are lucky if one picture or poll gets included within the paper. But when on the Internet, the space is limitless. In this article alone, there are 20 hyperlinks where you can click and learn additional information that is not accessible through the printed paper. Not only can you find more resources at a click of a button, the online article also contains two images and an interactive graph that tracks the flu around the world. Lastly, the website provides visitors with a list of related articles.

In my opinion, I would much rather go online to get my news. It is easier and faster. I can get up to the minute updates on developing stories and a vastly wider range of resources available to me without a thorough investigation. I can also check out other sites to add to my understanding of issues from differing points of view. As long as it is free, this is where I will go to get my news.

Post #5: My Own Choice

Here is an example of to what extent the media can have an influence over the public. The article talks about an interview that was conducted on ABC regarding the use of torture practices. A former C.I.A. agent inaccurately claimed that after performing the technique of water boarding on one suspected terrorist, the terrorist confessed within seconds. The media went crazy with this information. Newspapers, blogs, and television and radio broadcasts spread this "fact" rapidly. however, a memo that was just released indicates that this information was in fact incorrect. The terrorist in question was tortured by means of water boarding at least 83 times according to the document.

The C.I.A. agent just did not have his facts straight and because of this, incorrect information was given to the public who blindly accepted it as truth. The media can really shape our perceptions of what is going on in the world. We take it as truth and very rarely do we question it. But with mistakes likes these perhaps it is time that we start looking more critically on what is being reported to us.

When people first heard that water boarding was affective in obtaining needed information it may seem like a reasonable practice. But to what extent? Now, with this new information out there, will people change their opinions on this hotly debated issue especially if the interview in 2007 impacted them?

Post #4: Swine Flu Op-Ed

Concerns and fears of swine flu have been spreading rapidly as more and more cases are being looked at in the United States. The New York Times posted an op-ed on how different types of influenza develop and change throughout history.

The article was well written and gave a nice overview about the flu in both a scientific and historical context. However, I found myself questioning who the author was and it was not until the end of the story that I found out he was a scholar. But that still leaves the reader to wonder just what are his credentials and where exactly did he obtain this information? It is perfectly evident that he is a writer because of the way the sentence structure flows.

As for his theory that there is a six month gap between the initial wave of the flu virus and a second and, what he claims, more deadly wave makes me feel uneasy. If we are currently looking at the first stage of this, then around October/November we will be seeing an even worse attack. In my opinion, the season itself will be more favorable for people to be catching the flu because the weather will be changing from warm to cold. Will we be seeing the swine flu in the Fall, I guess only time will tell.

As for the author's claim that in the past it has usually taken about four months to make a vaccine for a certain strain of influenza, I would like to believe that our medical technology has come a long way. It seems to me that by only looking at the past to give an estimate of how long it will take to produce a vaccine is not sufficient. Current trends in medical research and development should also play a role in determining the length of time it would take to create the vaccine.

Post #3: The Girls Next Door

Today I watched an episode of The Girls Next Door. It was the episode where the girls traveled to New Orleans to celebrate Mardi Gras. I find it kind of funny thinking about how other nations must view us by watching this show. These three beautiful girls get to go on an all expenses paid trip to Louisiana where all they have to do is party. When Hugh called up to check up on the girls, one of his questions was "did you girls throw a lot of beads?" I found that the girls acted very ignorant throughout the episode but I wonder just how much is for real and how much they are acting their role.

There was one part of the show that actually had some substance. The girls went to a part of the city that was destroyed by Hurricane Katrina. At the end of this trip the girls acknowledged how lucky their were to be living where they are. Here is what enrages me. Instead of doing something, like helping to clean up the city, the girls just return home and act exactly the same. They could have at least donated money or something. What is the point of showing the damage of Hurricane Katrina if you are not going to do anything about it? What were they trying to prove? The producers could have at least ended on a positive note by listing ways to help rebuild Louisiana. I was very disappointed about how this serious issue was dealt with. The impact could have been so much greater if it was just given the chance.

As for what I think this show says to young girls is that if you are pretty enough you will succeed. You do not need to be smart or go to school in order to have fame and fortune. If you are beautiful things will be given to you and everyone will love you. At least that is what is happening to these three lucky ladies. They live in a gorgeous mansion, get to go on free trips, have vast amounts of fans, and can't even distinguish what an otter is (as demonstrated in another episode I watched where the girls could not decide if it was a whale or a dolphin). I think that a lot of girls are smart enough to realize that this is just a show but there will always be people out there that are going to think this is how the real world works. Those are truly the ones who will gain a negative perspective from watching this type of television programming.

Post #2: Feminist Blog Response

Check this out!

Since I first sat down and watched the episode a few days ago, I have been toying with the very same idea. Susan Boyle's performance was so inspiring but at the same time the episode left me with a very bad taste in my mouth. As Palumbo suggests, if Ms. Boyle could not sing people would just feed into the idea that it is okay to judge solely based on some one's looks.

This really surprises me that people would even judge her in the first place because, when I was younger, I was the youngest member of the Contemporary Choir at my church. I have to say that some of the most outstanding singers were not always what society would consider beautiful. Yet, their powerful voices rang throughout the church and it was beautiful.

As far as I am aware, there is no correlation between beauty and how well one is able to sing so why were all three judges so shocked that she was able to sing? Singing is a talent and it comes with practice...not good looks. I am so proud that Ms. Boyle was brave enough to try out for the show and make it as far as she is but I think judging her in the first place was simply unwarranted.