I haven't got the time to wipe my fucking ass when I shit, do you think that I have 4 hours to sit down, watch a movie, and write a review? Please give me a break on this one, sir.
P.S. Look at the assignment sheet for these blogs. It says "...can be done at any time and in any order," but then says, "Both must be completed by....DEADLINE." and "Any late blog will not be accepted." This is clearly a contradictory statement, or a double bind, as it is known in psychology. "Any time" includes late blogs, and arguably, all times occur simultaneously (and we perceive chronological order) anyway. Plus, time is but space, am I right? Therefore, I need an extension. Between finally getting Nationwide to cover another dude's damage to my car (Yay) and hawking for an internship in the fall (I only have 5 more days), trying to get something done on your paper and another paper I have due Monday, and a ton of other shit I am obligated to do, I have no time to finish these blogs within the deadline set, and I'm sure that you understand as well as anybody that sticking to the pedantic rules of your own assessment-based grading system cannot be beneficial to students, particularly in a semester such as this, which seems to have gone awry in many ways as a result of the hectic schedule. I am paying to take this class, which I must get an A in (it's a core class) and I've been a good student thus far, even though I am not actually a big fan of the collegiate system and my academic record shows it. Please be understanding and allow me the time I need to finish the blogs, as a zero for this assignment will eliminate my chances of getting an 'A' in your class, an arbitrary mark on a paper which is essential for me to get the hell out of Kutztown and try to make a real difference in the world.
P.P.S. I really hate when teachers create word limits for assignments. I think it sends the message that quantity, not quality, is of most value in academia. Considering the fact that my grandfather taught at Johns Hopkins, UPenn (where he founded the Clinical Epidemiology Unit), and UMaryland (and did research at Oxford...and advised the FDA...and wrote textbooks...yeah, I have a lot to live up to in my family; sorry if I ever come off as pompous, I really try to avoid pretense, but it's necessary for understanding sometimes) and my mother is a public school teacher, perhaps my opinion is relevant. Perhaps not. We should all learn from each other, though, as every person can be an educator and every person should act as a student of life. Learn something from every experience you have and every person you meet.
Thanks for reading my diatribes and being understanding in the matter of chronology.
Friday, April 18, 2014
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart Polemic
I love the Daily Show. I actually watch it almost every night, along with the Colbert Report. Recently, I haven't had the time.
This format of news is absolutely beneficial for society. There is no logical argument for why it degrades or trivializes news.
There was a recent campaign/Twitter trend I'm sure you heard about, "#CancelColbert". First of all, we covered the first amendment in class, and everybody should know it by this point in their academic career. People who get offended by comedic interpretation of serious issues are morons. Laughing about horrible things going on in the world can't be detrimental to the audience, at least they are getting exposed to issues that aren't generally covered on the mainstream "news" institutions; Colbert and Stewart regularly discuss topics pertaining to less-covered issues, and actually show a self-awareness of the effects of their "news" coverage that few on TV do. Case in point, the clip that you showed in class regarding Bieber coverage over a congresswoman; that constituted a serious criticism of the media's scope.
Stephen Colbert became more of a public figure after his speech at a White House Correspondents dinner roasting George Bush's administration. He and Stewart are actually, arguably, two of the most respected names in news.
Anybody who thinks that these shows trivialize the news should consider the coverage of other prominent "news" organizations, such as Fox. I don't even watch news anymore (not that I was ever a huge consumer of television) because American television is completely biased in one form or another. It doesn't matter what station you tune into, unless you're watching BBC, Al-Jazeera, or some other reputable, global news source, you aren't getting a very healthy serving of what's important or relevant to the world at large.
The fact that serious issues are satirically commentated on does not trivialize them; laughter seems to be a natural reaction for many to what they find to be distasteful, painful, or hard to consider. I've watched people laugh when told about deadly car accidents. The fact that viewers watch and laugh is irrelevant. What's relevant is the exposure to new ideas and provocation of thought that goes on when satirical content is disseminated. Because of the brilliant format, which is fast-paced enough to appeal to today's audiences, and talent of the hosts, the viewers of these shows must think about issues that others may never consider on a day-to-day basis, such as the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, the actual effects of Reagan's tax policies on this country, the human-based environmental degradation which takes place every day, impact of corporate money on our government, and the United States' aggressive foreign policy.
Most people in today's society have little connection to the world around them, as I believe I said in my first blog post. It is much more beneficial for somebody to watch one of these shows and be forced to consider issues that affect everybody on a day to day basis than to jerk off on their stupid fucking smartphone.
The April 9th, 2014 edition of the Daily Show began with a segment regarding Russia's involvement in Crimea and the United States' response to their aggression. This segment was hilarious, as Bee's satirical take that "it could happen here," (a Russian invasion) helps to illustrate the ludicrous nature of the average American's take on global politics, which is based in ignorance; we are rarely exposed to differing viewpoints and we rarely take the time to consider the political motivations of other countries.
The next bit regards a report that Sean Hannity did on his TV show called 'Spring Break Investigation'. This was hilarious and helped illustrate the sexist and chauvinistic coverage as well as the hypocrisy of the panelists in being so judgmental when they undertook similar, or even worse, actions in college. The piece also helps to illustrate that these so-called "news programs" typically cover trivialities and offer judgments instead of providing unbiased news of value to their viewers.
The guest on this night's show was actor Colin Firth. He was in a movie called 'The Railway Man'. I don't typically watch the interviews on these shows, but on this particular evening, Colbert interviewed Jane Goodall, which I think is particularly telling about the value of these shows to society. There is a reason that Colbert and Stewart consistently pull quality guests like Jane Goodall, Barack Obama, Malala Yousafzai, etc...
They are both incredibly good at illustrating and contextualizing pressing issues and institutions which the typical person can scarcely conceive of without some sort of tactile experience. Jon Stewart is a brilliant interviewer, and Colbert's satirical character somehow always manages to (ignorantly, it might seem) bring out the finer points of his interviewees' messages.
It could certainly be argued that this form of media discourse helps to create neural connections and spur critical analysis which might otherwise be neglected among this fast-paced generation. Other, less self-conscious news shows which present as 'unbiased' and portray only their chosen issues and factual analysis fail to recognize their own fallibility and therefore, arguably, do not sponsor such growth within their audiences. You have to think to decode the messages, which makes you mentally delve more deeply into the issues covered.
At least in my opinion.
This format of news is absolutely beneficial for society. There is no logical argument for why it degrades or trivializes news.
There was a recent campaign/Twitter trend I'm sure you heard about, "#CancelColbert". First of all, we covered the first amendment in class, and everybody should know it by this point in their academic career. People who get offended by comedic interpretation of serious issues are morons. Laughing about horrible things going on in the world can't be detrimental to the audience, at least they are getting exposed to issues that aren't generally covered on the mainstream "news" institutions; Colbert and Stewart regularly discuss topics pertaining to less-covered issues, and actually show a self-awareness of the effects of their "news" coverage that few on TV do. Case in point, the clip that you showed in class regarding Bieber coverage over a congresswoman; that constituted a serious criticism of the media's scope.
Stephen Colbert became more of a public figure after his speech at a White House Correspondents dinner roasting George Bush's administration. He and Stewart are actually, arguably, two of the most respected names in news.
Anybody who thinks that these shows trivialize the news should consider the coverage of other prominent "news" organizations, such as Fox. I don't even watch news anymore (not that I was ever a huge consumer of television) because American television is completely biased in one form or another. It doesn't matter what station you tune into, unless you're watching BBC, Al-Jazeera, or some other reputable, global news source, you aren't getting a very healthy serving of what's important or relevant to the world at large.
The fact that serious issues are satirically commentated on does not trivialize them; laughter seems to be a natural reaction for many to what they find to be distasteful, painful, or hard to consider. I've watched people laugh when told about deadly car accidents. The fact that viewers watch and laugh is irrelevant. What's relevant is the exposure to new ideas and provocation of thought that goes on when satirical content is disseminated. Because of the brilliant format, which is fast-paced enough to appeal to today's audiences, and talent of the hosts, the viewers of these shows must think about issues that others may never consider on a day-to-day basis, such as the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, the actual effects of Reagan's tax policies on this country, the human-based environmental degradation which takes place every day, impact of corporate money on our government, and the United States' aggressive foreign policy.
Most people in today's society have little connection to the world around them, as I believe I said in my first blog post. It is much more beneficial for somebody to watch one of these shows and be forced to consider issues that affect everybody on a day to day basis than to jerk off on their stupid fucking smartphone.
The April 9th, 2014 edition of the Daily Show began with a segment regarding Russia's involvement in Crimea and the United States' response to their aggression. This segment was hilarious, as Bee's satirical take that "it could happen here," (a Russian invasion) helps to illustrate the ludicrous nature of the average American's take on global politics, which is based in ignorance; we are rarely exposed to differing viewpoints and we rarely take the time to consider the political motivations of other countries.
The next bit regards a report that Sean Hannity did on his TV show called 'Spring Break Investigation'. This was hilarious and helped illustrate the sexist and chauvinistic coverage as well as the hypocrisy of the panelists in being so judgmental when they undertook similar, or even worse, actions in college. The piece also helps to illustrate that these so-called "news programs" typically cover trivialities and offer judgments instead of providing unbiased news of value to their viewers.
The guest on this night's show was actor Colin Firth. He was in a movie called 'The Railway Man'. I don't typically watch the interviews on these shows, but on this particular evening, Colbert interviewed Jane Goodall, which I think is particularly telling about the value of these shows to society. There is a reason that Colbert and Stewart consistently pull quality guests like Jane Goodall, Barack Obama, Malala Yousafzai, etc...
They are both incredibly good at illustrating and contextualizing pressing issues and institutions which the typical person can scarcely conceive of without some sort of tactile experience. Jon Stewart is a brilliant interviewer, and Colbert's satirical character somehow always manages to (ignorantly, it might seem) bring out the finer points of his interviewees' messages.
It could certainly be argued that this form of media discourse helps to create neural connections and spur critical analysis which might otherwise be neglected among this fast-paced generation. Other, less self-conscious news shows which present as 'unbiased' and portray only their chosen issues and factual analysis fail to recognize their own fallibility and therefore, arguably, do not sponsor such growth within their audiences. You have to think to decode the messages, which makes you mentally delve more deeply into the issues covered.
At least in my opinion.
Thursday, March 27, 2014
Newspaper Comparison Assignment 3/25
I considered three newspaper articles about the situation in Ukraine. These were, respectively, a front page article in the Washington Post, an opinion piece in the Allentown Morning Call, and a piece from the money section of the Reading Eagle.
This story, if you have been living under a rock, or do not follow international politics, has been brewing for quite a long time. The people of Ukraine had been unsatisfied with their government for quite a while. When the general attitude within a governed population is that their government does not serve them but itself, a social revolution is bound to happen. In this case, Ukrainians ousted the Yanukovych regime in power (which had been manipulating the economic system nepotistically). The protests began in November. Tension reached a head as violent clashes between the military and revolutionary forces happened, and the president stepped down. The United States was ambivalent about getting involved (I thought we loved to spread Democracy?) and as a result, Russia, who has historically owned the Crimea section of Ukraine, began clandestinely amassing troops to "liberate" (where have we heard that before?) the Russian-speaking population there. A referendum was held on March 16th, and apparently 97% of Crimeans voted in favor of joining the Russian Federation. Many have alleged that some sort of vote manipulation may have occurred, and the United States and European Union have denounced the vote as illegitimate.
I chose this story because of its cultural and geopolitical relevance and because I like the parallel between 21st century United States military aggression and the current actions of Putin's Russia. Why should we as a country divine ourselves World Police? Are we really so ethnocentric as to believe that our moral views should be imbued upon the rest of the world?
These articles were found in very different sources, so obviously the biases and content within is all very different as well. I also made sure to take each source from a different section of its containing issue. This was meant to illustrate that it is not just scope of audience within the overall population which matters, because the scope of audience relative to the sections of a newspaper is also relevant. Somebody reading a story published in the Economic/Money section of the paper is going to read something far different, with far different biases, than somebody reading a front page story, or an opinion piece, for that matter.
No media form is without bias. But some stories are reported on as objectively as possible, while some are published to purposefully illustrate a slant or perspective on an issue.
In the case of the Washington Post front page story, the article I read was entitled, "Russia nears full control in Crimea with fall of base." This article read almost like a fictional story with its descriptive language and in-the-moment description of current goings-on overseas. However, since it was on the front page of the Washington Post, authors Carol Morello and Will Englund should have tried to make it as objective as possible, in my opinion (paradoxical, I know). They did not. Subjective words like 'most' and 'overwhelmingly' litter this piece. The writing is excellent, and the content is relevant to the audience. A funny note to illustrate the bias/lowest common denomination appeal to readers which is typical of the Washington Post in recent years is this: The subhead for this article reads 'UKRAINIAN TROOPS ARMED WITH STICKS'. It goes to show how developed, 'first-world' countries see the countries they 'liberate' - as heathen savages with an inability to create social change themselves.
A big part of the reason for the onset of the protests and subsequent conflict in Crimea is the nepotism and oligopolistic economic model which had been in place in Ukraine previously. President Yanukovych and his family, particularly his son, had helped themselves and their minions to full control over entire economic segments, and many in Crimea hoped for free-market capitalism to be sure. As usual, though, when money is the instigating factor for action, people become commodities.
The Associated Press article I read in the Reading Eagle was entitled "Weather, political instability spur wheat prices." This article covered the story from an economic angle, and instead of focusing on the human aspect of the conflict going on, seemed to reflect on the conflict as it will affect American consumers. The language and content in it seemed pretty objective, but how objective can you be when you value a contrivance such as money over human life?
The final 'article' I read was a short opinion piece in the Morning Call. This was entitled, "Annexing Crimea evokes U.S. Manifest Destiny. I think it's pretty clear from the title and placement within the paper what the bias in this essay is, and as I said before, I agree with its author regarding the United States' "boundless hypocrisy."
I chose this story because of its cultural and geopolitical relevance and because I like the parallel between 21st century United States military aggression and the current actions of Putin's Russia. Why should we as a country divine ourselves World Police? Are we really so ethnocentric as to believe that our moral views should be imbued upon the rest of the world?
These articles were found in very different sources, so obviously the biases and content within is all very different as well. I also made sure to take each source from a different section of its containing issue. This was meant to illustrate that it is not just scope of audience within the overall population which matters, because the scope of audience relative to the sections of a newspaper is also relevant. Somebody reading a story published in the Economic/Money section of the paper is going to read something far different, with far different biases, than somebody reading a front page story, or an opinion piece, for that matter.
No media form is without bias. But some stories are reported on as objectively as possible, while some are published to purposefully illustrate a slant or perspective on an issue.
In the case of the Washington Post front page story, the article I read was entitled, "Russia nears full control in Crimea with fall of base." This article read almost like a fictional story with its descriptive language and in-the-moment description of current goings-on overseas. However, since it was on the front page of the Washington Post, authors Carol Morello and Will Englund should have tried to make it as objective as possible, in my opinion (paradoxical, I know). They did not. Subjective words like 'most' and 'overwhelmingly' litter this piece. The writing is excellent, and the content is relevant to the audience. A funny note to illustrate the bias/lowest common denomination appeal to readers which is typical of the Washington Post in recent years is this: The subhead for this article reads 'UKRAINIAN TROOPS ARMED WITH STICKS'. It goes to show how developed, 'first-world' countries see the countries they 'liberate' - as heathen savages with an inability to create social change themselves.
A big part of the reason for the onset of the protests and subsequent conflict in Crimea is the nepotism and oligopolistic economic model which had been in place in Ukraine previously. President Yanukovych and his family, particularly his son, had helped themselves and their minions to full control over entire economic segments, and many in Crimea hoped for free-market capitalism to be sure. As usual, though, when money is the instigating factor for action, people become commodities.
The Associated Press article I read in the Reading Eagle was entitled "Weather, political instability spur wheat prices." This article covered the story from an economic angle, and instead of focusing on the human aspect of the conflict going on, seemed to reflect on the conflict as it will affect American consumers. The language and content in it seemed pretty objective, but how objective can you be when you value a contrivance such as money over human life?
The final 'article' I read was a short opinion piece in the Morning Call. This was entitled, "Annexing Crimea evokes U.S. Manifest Destiny. I think it's pretty clear from the title and placement within the paper what the bias in this essay is, and as I said before, I agree with its author regarding the United States' "boundless hypocrisy."
Friday, February 21, 2014
Article Priority
The Keystone Newspaper - Volume LXXXI Issue II - Thursday, February 13, 2014
Lead Story - Snow removal serves as window into state school funding issues
The lead story from last week's issue actually seems very relevant. News Editor Nick Carson wrote this story. It's about the impact that Governor Corbett's education cuts have had on state school funding. As you might gather from the article's title, this article implies through quotes from SGB president Nick Imbesi that these cuts are at least partially responsible for the university's poor job of snow removal/management, which is an implication with veracity unknown by this writer. Makes sense (sorta) though. The point is, the cover story of this issue is pretty relevant to the audience the Keystone serves, especially when you consider how frustrated I think a lot of students are with the school's handling of the inclement conditions which have so readily been present recently.
Body Story - That said, it does seem that on page 6 there is a story which would be equally prudent to have placed on the front page of this publication. This story is entitled New bill threatens separation of church and state and was written by Kevin Gareau, a Contributing Writer for the Keystone. While this article is not as specifically relevant/endemic for Kutztown students, it is incredibly relevant for everybody who values the separation of church and state, a population I would count myself a member of. This article is biased, ending with this sentence: "We do not need belief in a god to bring us together." I agree, but I guess I can understand why this story got shelved on the sixth page. While the journalistic content of the story is incredibly relevant and probably worthy of front-page consideration, the other story is more specifically relevant to the paper's audience, and putting this article on the front page with its clear bias might have caused a backlash if anybody actually read the Keystone.
Lead Story - Snow removal serves as window into state school funding issues
The lead story from last week's issue actually seems very relevant. News Editor Nick Carson wrote this story. It's about the impact that Governor Corbett's education cuts have had on state school funding. As you might gather from the article's title, this article implies through quotes from SGB president Nick Imbesi that these cuts are at least partially responsible for the university's poor job of snow removal/management, which is an implication with veracity unknown by this writer. Makes sense (sorta) though. The point is, the cover story of this issue is pretty relevant to the audience the Keystone serves, especially when you consider how frustrated I think a lot of students are with the school's handling of the inclement conditions which have so readily been present recently.
Body Story - That said, it does seem that on page 6 there is a story which would be equally prudent to have placed on the front page of this publication. This story is entitled New bill threatens separation of church and state and was written by Kevin Gareau, a Contributing Writer for the Keystone. While this article is not as specifically relevant/endemic for Kutztown students, it is incredibly relevant for everybody who values the separation of church and state, a population I would count myself a member of. This article is biased, ending with this sentence: "We do not need belief in a god to bring us together." I agree, but I guess I can understand why this story got shelved on the sixth page. While the journalistic content of the story is incredibly relevant and probably worthy of front-page consideration, the other story is more specifically relevant to the paper's audience, and putting this article on the front page with its clear bias might have caused a backlash if anybody actually read the Keystone.
Wednesday, February 12, 2014
Newspaper Article Post
Reading Eagle - Page A1 + A3
Written By Dan Kelly and Mike Urban
"With snow coming, all are getting ready"
Hospitals, road crews, utilities, shelters on alert
Within this front page piece in today's Reading Eagle regarding the impending snowstorm, writers Dan Kelly and Mike Urban outline the scope of the upcoming storm and the measures which people in our local area have been taking to prepare for the looming precipitation. They get to the heart of the matter in the first paragraph of the article, noting that people of all backgrounds are "keeping their eyes on the skies and an ear to the ground" listening for the latest weather forecast. They continue to note that 'Experts' are predicting a snowfall of 6-18 inches for Thursday. In the article, under bold subheads, the manner in which different groups of people are preparing is detailed. These subheads read: Municipalities, Hospitals, Senior citizens, Stores, Emergency services, Shelters, Airport, and Taxis. Under the subheads, the writers use personal quotes and examples to detail how local groups plan to go about their business/accommodate for the incoming storm. The article is clearly written and serves a clear purpose: to inform the residents of Reading and surrounding areas what public services will be made available/utilized during the inclement weather, to help these residents better understand the mobilization process and challenges that many important public groups face in preparing for such natural phenomena, and to use specific examples and true-to-life quotes given by various representatives of these groups to help paint a clearer picture of the manner in which a semi-rural/semi-urban area goes about preparing for seemingly recursive heavy snowfall.
Written By Dan Kelly and Mike Urban
"With snow coming, all are getting ready"
Hospitals, road crews, utilities, shelters on alert
Within this front page piece in today's Reading Eagle regarding the impending snowstorm, writers Dan Kelly and Mike Urban outline the scope of the upcoming storm and the measures which people in our local area have been taking to prepare for the looming precipitation. They get to the heart of the matter in the first paragraph of the article, noting that people of all backgrounds are "keeping their eyes on the skies and an ear to the ground" listening for the latest weather forecast. They continue to note that 'Experts' are predicting a snowfall of 6-18 inches for Thursday. In the article, under bold subheads, the manner in which different groups of people are preparing is detailed. These subheads read: Municipalities, Hospitals, Senior citizens, Stores, Emergency services, Shelters, Airport, and Taxis. Under the subheads, the writers use personal quotes and examples to detail how local groups plan to go about their business/accommodate for the incoming storm. The article is clearly written and serves a clear purpose: to inform the residents of Reading and surrounding areas what public services will be made available/utilized during the inclement weather, to help these residents better understand the mobilization process and challenges that many important public groups face in preparing for such natural phenomena, and to use specific examples and true-to-life quotes given by various representatives of these groups to help paint a clearer picture of the manner in which a semi-rural/semi-urban area goes about preparing for seemingly recursive heavy snowfall.
Thursday, January 30, 2014
Introduction and Reflection
“I have never wished to cater to the crowd; for what I know they do not approve, and what they approve I do not know.”
― Epicurus
ipse se nihil scire id unum sciat
I am me. I am nobody. Glance at the uniform resource locator.
In today's integrated world of computer chips, laser scanners, and light-speed communication, I think that we often forget about the importance of interacting with the physical world surrounding us. Lost in the complexity of our mass-marketed technology, we float through life in a dream-like state, maintaining our social relationships as our relationship with the real fades into an obsequious, timorous, go-with-the-flow flurry of physical activity devoid of legitimate human contact. Reliant on our devices and platforms to keep us updated on what the media has deemed important and to keep us entertained, we refuse to see that technology can either empower or destroy, even on a micro-social scale. NASA sent a man to Earth's moon with less computing power than your iPhone can muster, and you sit here catapaulting birds? You use Twitter to avoid talking to the guy next to you in line in the coffee shop? Ask yourself this question: Do you use your practically unlimited access to the accrued knowledge of mankind to cheat your way through school, life, and time? Make no mistake, technology can empower. But by using it as a crutch, you can only marginalize yourself.
― Epicurus
ipse se nihil scire id unum sciat
I am me. I am nobody. Glance at the uniform resource locator.
In today's integrated world of computer chips, laser scanners, and light-speed communication, I think that we often forget about the importance of interacting with the physical world surrounding us. Lost in the complexity of our mass-marketed technology, we float through life in a dream-like state, maintaining our social relationships as our relationship with the real fades into an obsequious, timorous, go-with-the-flow flurry of physical activity devoid of legitimate human contact. Reliant on our devices and platforms to keep us updated on what the media has deemed important and to keep us entertained, we refuse to see that technology can either empower or destroy, even on a micro-social scale. NASA sent a man to Earth's moon with less computing power than your iPhone can muster, and you sit here catapaulting birds? You use Twitter to avoid talking to the guy next to you in line in the coffee shop? Ask yourself this question: Do you use your practically unlimited access to the accrued knowledge of mankind to cheat your way through school, life, and time? Make no mistake, technology can empower. But by using it as a crutch, you can only marginalize yourself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)