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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)