My 24 hours of media deprivation began at 12pm on Thanksgiving day, and ended at 12pm the next day. I certainly had ups and downs with this experience. I knew it would be hard not to be on the computer every other minute checking something, constantly texting, or watching TV. I think however, the time and day I chose for this experiment helped me get by.It was a very family oriented day. I'm very proud as well, that I did not give in to my urge to utilize one of the forbidden devices. It was almost heartbreaking to see my cell phone sitting there, vibrating with a new text that I couldn't view, but I resisted. My sister asked me if she could read it to me, my family was not very helpful in this experiment.
It began when I woke up at 12 on the 27Th. I woke up, ate, and then went on a walk with my family. After I returned I helped my mom cook dinner until we all ate, that put me at about 5:30. I hadn't planned anything, so even though it was getting dark I talked my dad into a bike ride, that's another hour down. When I returned I figured I would be alright with the current book I was reading and all the homework I had to do. I finished my book around 9:30pm, this is where the trouble began. I soon realized that almost all of my homework was to be done on a computer. I couldn't even do the communications reading, I had forgotten what chapters we had to read and the syllabus is online. So it was about 10 at this point and I had nothing to do. My family was watching TV., trying to get me to join, and I was just sitting around. A little while later everyone went to sleep. Naturally, having woken up at 12, I wasn't very tired. Usually I watch TV. until I fall asleep, I even put the timer on, but tonight I couldn't, and didn't fall asleep until 2am. That was the worst part of the assignment, I even ended up taking my remote downstairs and left it there for the night. Once I fell asleep however, it was smooth sailing, I didn't wake up until 12pm again, so the assignment was over.
I have mixed feelings for this experience. For one thing, I felt I did a lot more than I normally would have. I may have spent the entire day on the computer or watching TV. if I weren't restricted from them. Like some of Danna Walkers students said, I had to be more creative to find entertainment, and I did things I wouldn't normally do.I don't feel like I was freed though, I don't really think that media and technology hinders us either. Dependence on technology really depends on the person.
It is not a new thing though, to depend on technology. Throughout history we have depended on tools to entertain us and help us interact. The tools of today of just much more complex than before. They also seem to yield different results in society, because of this, the issue of media and technological dependency in society garners more attention. It is normal for us to become dependant on things, I think the consequences of this are blown out of proportion.
Walker, Danna L. "The Longest Day." washingtonpost.com. 5 Aug. 2007. 27 Nov.
2008 AR2007080101720.html>.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Two Cultures: Blog# 4
With this reading, "Two Cultures-Television versus Print", we are presented with a different format, a dialogue between two scholars. This is the perfect way to present two opposing points of view on television and written culture. Paglia takes a more positive view of television, while Postman takes a more negative view. The two discuss the effects of these mediums on today's culture.
I found I agreed more with Paglia's view on television. While I did agree with some of Postman's points, he seemed to have incredibly pessimistic opinions of it. One thing I found I really agreed with on Postman's side however, was the thing about the Hebrew National hot dogs. It makes sense that using a figure like god in a commercial for something like hot dogs could really suck the meaning out of that figure. However, I would have reacted to it more like Paglia, who didn't seem to take it that seriously. As said in the reading, a contributing factor in this difference of opinions could be the age difference in the two. Postman was born before TV. really became popular, so his generation adjusted to it as it came about. Baby boomers and on were born with television.
This also brings me back to Paglia's point about watching TV. and multitasking. She says that "Baby boomers have a multilayered, multitrack ability to deal with the the world."(287) This goes along with her comparison of the madness of TV. and life alike. Postman looks at television as more of a flash of images that distracts from life. This view of television, that it makes you stupid, or that it's meaningless, and reading in comparison, that it will make you smarter, seems popular today. However I find that some books can be just as meaningless as a trashy show, and that some television shows can be rather fulfilling to watch.
Another point that was brought up in the conversation that really resonated with me was when Postman bought up tragedy on television. He seemed so concerned that a tragedy could be reported on the news and in an instant it could flash to some meaningless commercial. It is something I have often thought about. If it weren't for television, most people wouldn't have human tragedy in their daily lives. How often does one encounter or participate in a car accident? How often does one see one on the news with moving images rather than read about it in a newspaper in tiny black and white print? If we let things reported on the news get to us emotionally we would be a much different society, in ways I can't really imagine. Furthermore, because the television contains moving images and images of real people with expressions, more homage is paid to a tragedy on TV. than in a newspaper or magazine that can also have a huge advertisement for slacks next to it.
All of these arguments go back to trying to figure out what the more perfect medium is, the written word or pictures symbolizing the written word. In the end I really don't even think it comes down to that. I think it all depends on how each one is used and how well it is created. Like it is said in the reading, during a certain time in Europe the arts flourished in the south and intellectualism grew in the north. Who's to say the arts weren't as valuable as the developments that came about in the north? The written word is certainly more useful for certain things, however I don't it is the "perfect medium" as Postman puts it. Some thing can be conveyed better through writing, some through moving images. It seems to me that the two shouldn't be pit against each other but in categories of their own.
I found I agreed more with Paglia's view on television. While I did agree with some of Postman's points, he seemed to have incredibly pessimistic opinions of it. One thing I found I really agreed with on Postman's side however, was the thing about the Hebrew National hot dogs. It makes sense that using a figure like god in a commercial for something like hot dogs could really suck the meaning out of that figure. However, I would have reacted to it more like Paglia, who didn't seem to take it that seriously. As said in the reading, a contributing factor in this difference of opinions could be the age difference in the two. Postman was born before TV. really became popular, so his generation adjusted to it as it came about. Baby boomers and on were born with television.
This also brings me back to Paglia's point about watching TV. and multitasking. She says that "Baby boomers have a multilayered, multitrack ability to deal with the the world."(287) This goes along with her comparison of the madness of TV. and life alike. Postman looks at television as more of a flash of images that distracts from life. This view of television, that it makes you stupid, or that it's meaningless, and reading in comparison, that it will make you smarter, seems popular today. However I find that some books can be just as meaningless as a trashy show, and that some television shows can be rather fulfilling to watch.
Another point that was brought up in the conversation that really resonated with me was when Postman bought up tragedy on television. He seemed so concerned that a tragedy could be reported on the news and in an instant it could flash to some meaningless commercial. It is something I have often thought about. If it weren't for television, most people wouldn't have human tragedy in their daily lives. How often does one encounter or participate in a car accident? How often does one see one on the news with moving images rather than read about it in a newspaper in tiny black and white print? If we let things reported on the news get to us emotionally we would be a much different society, in ways I can't really imagine. Furthermore, because the television contains moving images and images of real people with expressions, more homage is paid to a tragedy on TV. than in a newspaper or magazine that can also have a huge advertisement for slacks next to it.
All of these arguments go back to trying to figure out what the more perfect medium is, the written word or pictures symbolizing the written word. In the end I really don't even think it comes down to that. I think it all depends on how each one is used and how well it is created. Like it is said in the reading, during a certain time in Europe the arts flourished in the south and intellectualism grew in the north. Who's to say the arts weren't as valuable as the developments that came about in the north? The written word is certainly more useful for certain things, however I don't it is the "perfect medium" as Postman puts it. Some thing can be conveyed better through writing, some through moving images. It seems to me that the two shouldn't be pit against each other but in categories of their own.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Politcal blog #3
The extent of the media coverage I encountered during election day were the election results on CNN's website and the speeches after Obama was announced the victor. I was on CNN's website periodically throughout the day checking on who had won what states. It was very easy to check, they presented the information very well.It was interesting that one could check on the exact percentages of each state. It was also easy to see who had won which state and which ones were still undecided. They updated the information so often I was able to see each candidates electoral vote amounts growing. I can't really say they had a bias in either direction because it's information you can't sway.
It was interesting then to see the speeches afterward. I thought Obama's was really uplifting. The was a real hopeful air about the whole speech, all the talk of change in America for the good was brought to a head in this, now we just need to see if it will happen. That's one thing that was in the media a lot. Obama's whole image was shaped to be that of and outsider (to a certain degree) who wants to come in and clean up the stale, stalled regime that was under Bush. He was very charismatic in the way he used the media. More than often, if I was hearing bad things about a candidate it was about McCain.
Which brings me to McCain. I don't think he used the media, or was able to use the media nearly as well as Obama did. McCain's imaged to me, throughout the entire election process was that of an old man who wasn't going to change anything. After eight years of Bush that's exactly what most people did not want. It doesn't matter if McCain would have lived up to this image or not, he could not compete with Obama's slogan of change. Another rather unattractive aspect of McCain's campaign that I observed a bit later in the election process were his ads against Obama. They seemed a bit dirtier than the anti-McCain ads. Some try to make him look like a terrorist, like this one, which I'm not sure if was aired or not. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppQszYT3djE . McCain seemed a little desperate towards the end of the election, which makes it a little funny that he seemed to do such an about-face when his losing speech time came around. Of course he would have to seem like a gracious loser who has a lot of faith in the new president, it is just interesting to observe the quick change.
All in all, Obama was obviously able to use the media to his advantage much more than McCain was able to. With that, I'm not really surprised Obama won, nobody wanted four more years of Bush.
It was interesting then to see the speeches afterward. I thought Obama's was really uplifting. The was a real hopeful air about the whole speech, all the talk of change in America for the good was brought to a head in this, now we just need to see if it will happen. That's one thing that was in the media a lot. Obama's whole image was shaped to be that of and outsider (to a certain degree) who wants to come in and clean up the stale, stalled regime that was under Bush. He was very charismatic in the way he used the media. More than often, if I was hearing bad things about a candidate it was about McCain.
Which brings me to McCain. I don't think he used the media, or was able to use the media nearly as well as Obama did. McCain's imaged to me, throughout the entire election process was that of an old man who wasn't going to change anything. After eight years of Bush that's exactly what most people did not want. It doesn't matter if McCain would have lived up to this image or not, he could not compete with Obama's slogan of change. Another rather unattractive aspect of McCain's campaign that I observed a bit later in the election process were his ads against Obama. They seemed a bit dirtier than the anti-McCain ads. Some try to make him look like a terrorist, like this one, which I'm not sure if was aired or not. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppQszYT3djE . McCain seemed a little desperate towards the end of the election, which makes it a little funny that he seemed to do such an about-face when his losing speech time came around. Of course he would have to seem like a gracious loser who has a lot of faith in the new president, it is just interesting to observe the quick change.
All in all, Obama was obviously able to use the media to his advantage much more than McCain was able to. With that, I'm not really surprised Obama won, nobody wanted four more years of Bush.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
BLOG#3
The mass media plays an incredibly important in our lives as consumers today. So much of what we think is formed around what the media has to say, it is only natural that what we buy would be affected as well. Advertising can affect us anywhere now, on tv, computers, magazines even on the road. I for one couldnt imagine a world without advertisements, things would certainly be very different without them. It's not just someone telling you to buy something either anymore. Now people are hard at work trying to figure out what type of advertisements will really connect with us. These days so much more is put into advertisement than the object itself.
This type of marketing really began at the turn of the century with the World's fair."The exposition of 1900 provides a scale model of the consumer revolution." With all new technologies and products being showcased came a new merchandising ploy. Salespitches weren't so straightforward. They appealed to people's dreams and imaginations through different representations of the product, ones they may not present the product in a way one may think. Technologies like radio and cinematography helped aid this new way of mrketing. They helped advertisements at the World's fair become spectacles that would force people to want to look at them. At this point it became less about the product and more about the mystique of the product. What would make one look at it or wonder about it.
This kind of advertising is very apparent in a magazine ad i chose to look at. The ad depicts Paris Hilton holding her dressed up dog sitting in a chair putting something that looks like a pencil into her mouth. First off, the ad is for the clothing line Guess, yet you can only see her clothing from the shoulders up, you can see more of the dogs clothing than hers. Secondly, she appears to be putting something in her mouth. This is obviously meant to have some sort of sexual connotation.
This ad can be analyzed through Barthe's approach. To begin, the signifier would probably be nothing more than the word girl. Next, the signified portion would probably be illustrated by a couple words like girl, celebrity, party and finally, the only word on the ad, Guess. When these two are tied together the sign is the conclusion. It would seem that this girl, when she wears guess, can have fun, be sexy and be like a celebrity. It is interesting that it can communicate that message about the product without really even showing the product. Images obviously don't have to connect with the products, as long as they make one think and remember then, the particulars are saved for later when one may actually buy the product.
Lears, Jackson. "Advertising and the Idea of Mass Society." 2003.
Communication in History. Ed. David Crowley and Jackson Lears. 5th ed.
Boston: Pearson Education, 2007. 197-202.
Williams, Rosalynd. "Dream Worlds of Consumption." 2003. Communication in
History. Ed. David Crowley and Paul Heyer. 5th ed. Boston: Pearson
Education, 2007. 169-175
This type of marketing really began at the turn of the century with the World's fair."The exposition of 1900 provides a scale model of the consumer revolution." With all new technologies and products being showcased came a new merchandising ploy. Salespitches weren't so straightforward. They appealed to people's dreams and imaginations through different representations of the product, ones they may not present the product in a way one may think. Technologies like radio and cinematography helped aid this new way of mrketing. They helped advertisements at the World's fair become spectacles that would force people to want to look at them. At this point it became less about the product and more about the mystique of the product. What would make one look at it or wonder about it.
This kind of advertising is very apparent in a magazine ad i chose to look at. The ad depicts Paris Hilton holding her dressed up dog sitting in a chair putting something that looks like a pencil into her mouth. First off, the ad is for the clothing line Guess, yet you can only see her clothing from the shoulders up, you can see more of the dogs clothing than hers. Secondly, she appears to be putting something in her mouth. This is obviously meant to have some sort of sexual connotation.
This ad can be analyzed through Barthe's approach. To begin, the signifier would probably be nothing more than the word girl. Next, the signified portion would probably be illustrated by a couple words like girl, celebrity, party and finally, the only word on the ad, Guess. When these two are tied together the sign is the conclusion. It would seem that this girl, when she wears guess, can have fun, be sexy and be like a celebrity. It is interesting that it can communicate that message about the product without really even showing the product. Images obviously don't have to connect with the products, as long as they make one think and remember then, the particulars are saved for later when one may actually buy the product.
Lears, Jackson. "Advertising and the Idea of Mass Society." 2003.
Communication in History. Ed. David Crowley and Jackson Lears. 5th ed.
Boston: Pearson Education, 2007. 197-202.
Williams, Rosalynd. "Dream Worlds of Consumption." 2003. Communication in
History. Ed. David Crowley and Paul Heyer. 5th ed. Boston: Pearson
Education, 2007. 169-175
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Political blog #2: The "Great" Debate
To sum up Friday’s debate I may use words like, “predictable” or, “boring”. Now that’s not to say I did not find the debate entertaining, it just really didn’t move me. It was exactly as I had expected, with each candidate talking themselves up, a lot of, “remember when I voted for this great thing?” ensued. Interesting points were brought up, for me in particular, the fiscal crisis, however the answers were all ones that I expected, cut extraneous spending etc. I think a portion of answers given just “placated” the lead questions. So when I was asked who I thought won the debate I didn’t even think that could be a question. It may seem stupid but I didn’t think one could “win” this type of debate simply because there are so many different viewpoints and people to discredit any given opinion.
So there’s no set winner right? There can’t be, in my opinion. Maybe not until one of them wins the actual position of president. However if forced to choose who I believe won, I would go with Obama. The blog I am following, Wonkette, like me, does not outright say they believe Obama won, however it’s obvious they think so if you read their live blogging of the debate. First off, issues aside, Barack’s demeanor was much calmer and confident than McCain’s. Obama came across as someone who is intelligent and sensible, as well as earnest to try and solve this country’s problems. McCain kind of came off as an old fart, and was certainly more aggressive, which is pretty off-putting. He seemed to speak more freely without thinking and brought up a lot really cliché things like, “I love the veterans so much” and the thing about the soldier’s bracelet, I bet he didn’t expect Barrack to have one too though. Oh and he couldn’t forget to talk about his experiences in Vietnam a thousand times. I just wondered if any of that was necessary, Obama got by without any of that sort of thing. He also picked on Obama a lot, there was quite a bit of talking over each other. Wonkette brings up the part of the debate when McCain accused Obama of being wrong about the surge. Barrack publicly admitted that the surge had succeeded beyond his “wildest dreams”, as Fox news reports. So there McCain.
Admittedly throughout this presidential race I haven’t really been into either candidate. I have been leaning to the side of Obama however, ever since the running mate selection. I know his slogan about change is kind of cliché too, and I don’t expect much from it if he becomes president but one thing during the debate made me more eager to see him run the war rather than McCain. Obama talked about Afghanistan , and how we need to refocus there. I believe this to be a valid move that should have been done already, after all, that is kind of where all this started. McCain didn’t really have anything of interest to say on the topic though. I foresee McCain running the war the same as Bush has been.
So what has the press been saying? There are a lot of mixed reviews, which isn’t surprising in the least. However there does seem to be a bit of an Obama lead in the headlines. A lot of online polls are saying Obama won. Of course liberal bias news outlets say it went to Obama, conservative bias news outlets say it went to McCain. Again, predictable, however it is funny to note though, that the somewhat conservative Washington Post Political blog “The Fix”, that doesn’t say that McCain won but alludes to the fact, admits that McCain seemed somewhat, “frantic”. I would agree. I would also once again, if forced, have to give this one to Obama. He at least more composed than McCain and had a couple more valid points as well. What do you think?
Newell. "Live Blogging part IV." Wonkette. 29 Sept. 2008 http://wonkette.com/
America's Election HQ. "Obama: Surge Succeeded Beyond 'Wildest Dreams.'" Fox
News. 1 Oct. 2008 http://foxnews.com/.
So there’s no set winner right? There can’t be, in my opinion. Maybe not until one of them wins the actual position of president. However if forced to choose who I believe won, I would go with Obama. The blog I am following, Wonkette, like me, does not outright say they believe Obama won, however it’s obvious they think so if you read their live blogging of the debate. First off, issues aside, Barack’s demeanor was much calmer and confident than McCain’s. Obama came across as someone who is intelligent and sensible, as well as earnest to try and solve this country’s problems. McCain kind of came off as an old fart, and was certainly more aggressive, which is pretty off-putting. He seemed to speak more freely without thinking and brought up a lot really cliché things like, “I love the veterans so much” and the thing about the soldier’s bracelet, I bet he didn’t expect Barrack to have one too though. Oh and he couldn’t forget to talk about his experiences in Vietnam a thousand times. I just wondered if any of that was necessary, Obama got by without any of that sort of thing. He also picked on Obama a lot, there was quite a bit of talking over each other. Wonkette brings up the part of the debate when McCain accused Obama of being wrong about the surge. Barrack publicly admitted that the surge had succeeded beyond his “wildest dreams”, as Fox news reports. So there McCain.
Admittedly throughout this presidential race I haven’t really been into either candidate. I have been leaning to the side of Obama however, ever since the running mate selection. I know his slogan about change is kind of cliché too, and I don’t expect much from it if he becomes president but one thing during the debate made me more eager to see him run the war rather than McCain. Obama talked about Afghanistan , and how we need to refocus there. I believe this to be a valid move that should have been done already, after all, that is kind of where all this started. McCain didn’t really have anything of interest to say on the topic though. I foresee McCain running the war the same as Bush has been.
So what has the press been saying? There are a lot of mixed reviews, which isn’t surprising in the least. However there does seem to be a bit of an Obama lead in the headlines. A lot of online polls are saying Obama won. Of course liberal bias news outlets say it went to Obama, conservative bias news outlets say it went to McCain. Again, predictable, however it is funny to note though, that the somewhat conservative Washington Post Political blog “The Fix”, that doesn’t say that McCain won but alludes to the fact, admits that McCain seemed somewhat, “frantic”. I would agree. I would also once again, if forced, have to give this one to Obama. He at least more composed than McCain and had a couple more valid points as well. What do you think?
Newell. "Live Blogging part IV." Wonkette. 29 Sept. 2008 http://wonkette.com/
America's Election HQ. "Obama: Surge Succeeded Beyond 'Wildest Dreams.'" Fox
News. 1 Oct. 2008 http://foxnews.com/.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Blog #2
Technology has been an ever changing aspect of human society. It is developed to make life easier, and as time goes on things are improved upon and made obsolete. One such invention is paper. Paper made stone writing obsolete. It is the perfect example of one technology replacing another as to conform to the needs of Egyptian society and subsequently every society that followed.
To illustrate just how obsolete paper has made its precursor, stone, all one has to do is think of how often they see anything written in stone. It is perfectly natural too. Why would one carve out words in such a hard medium when one could simply write with ink on light weight paper? To add, why would one carry around stone slabs when one could simply pick up a book? The fear however, with a new technology, is that some things will be lost in the transition from old to new. In this case the artistry of writing may have been sacrificed, and there may have been some apprehensions about that. The pros of writing on paper far outweigh the cons however. Since its invention it has changed societies dramatically. It has allowed messages to be transported and read straight from the writer, whereas stone would be too cumbersome to transport and take too long to write on. In fact, the aspect of transportation is one of the biggest benefits of writing on paper. We certainly would not have books or newspapers if they had to be written in stone. Information would be a lot more difficult to spread if it weren’t for paper. My argument is basically that paper is one of the most useful inventions of all time because of its information sharing qualities, it has made stone completely obsolete.
As widely used as paper is today, will it ever become obsolete like stone did? In Howard Gardner’s essay, “The End of Literacy? Don’t Stop Reading”, He discusses how some people predict that because of modern technologies we may stop reading altogether. As far as never reading again as a society, I think not, however, the medium could very well change. He also mentions that people’s vast libraries could disappear because of new devices like the kindle, over time this could certainly happen. Having a vast library, like artistic writing in stone, could be gone in time due to new technologies. Now, also, with the new green fad, it’s not cool anymore to use paper, you have to save trees and prevent waste. In addition, the biggest advantage to paper, its easy transportability, is now being made obsolete with computers and Internet. A perfect example is email versus regular mail, deemed snail mail. Nobody sits down to write letters to people anymore, you can even pay your bills online.
With all this new technology will paper actually become obsolete like its heavy predecessor? Probably not. People need the ability to write whenever and wherever. Technology may be able to afford us that type of thing; however, can we afford it? A good deal of society is also obsessed with keeping written records because they just don’t trust new technology to keep it safe, a computer can crash, a post-it note can’t. So in the end, paper stands up to the test of time. It just has too many uses to be going anywhere, soon anyway.
Gardner, Howard. "The End of Literacy? Don't Stop Reading." Washington Post 17
Feb. 2008: B01. 17 Sept. 2008
content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021502898.html>.
Innis, Howard "Media in the Ancient Empires" Communication in History. Ed. David Crowley and Paul Heyer. 5th ed.
Boston: Pearson Education, 2007. 23-29.
To illustrate just how obsolete paper has made its precursor, stone, all one has to do is think of how often they see anything written in stone. It is perfectly natural too. Why would one carve out words in such a hard medium when one could simply write with ink on light weight paper? To add, why would one carry around stone slabs when one could simply pick up a book? The fear however, with a new technology, is that some things will be lost in the transition from old to new. In this case the artistry of writing may have been sacrificed, and there may have been some apprehensions about that. The pros of writing on paper far outweigh the cons however. Since its invention it has changed societies dramatically. It has allowed messages to be transported and read straight from the writer, whereas stone would be too cumbersome to transport and take too long to write on. In fact, the aspect of transportation is one of the biggest benefits of writing on paper. We certainly would not have books or newspapers if they had to be written in stone. Information would be a lot more difficult to spread if it weren’t for paper. My argument is basically that paper is one of the most useful inventions of all time because of its information sharing qualities, it has made stone completely obsolete.
As widely used as paper is today, will it ever become obsolete like stone did? In Howard Gardner’s essay, “The End of Literacy? Don’t Stop Reading”, He discusses how some people predict that because of modern technologies we may stop reading altogether. As far as never reading again as a society, I think not, however, the medium could very well change. He also mentions that people’s vast libraries could disappear because of new devices like the kindle, over time this could certainly happen. Having a vast library, like artistic writing in stone, could be gone in time due to new technologies. Now, also, with the new green fad, it’s not cool anymore to use paper, you have to save trees and prevent waste. In addition, the biggest advantage to paper, its easy transportability, is now being made obsolete with computers and Internet. A perfect example is email versus regular mail, deemed snail mail. Nobody sits down to write letters to people anymore, you can even pay your bills online.
With all this new technology will paper actually become obsolete like its heavy predecessor? Probably not. People need the ability to write whenever and wherever. Technology may be able to afford us that type of thing; however, can we afford it? A good deal of society is also obsessed with keeping written records because they just don’t trust new technology to keep it safe, a computer can crash, a post-it note can’t. So in the end, paper stands up to the test of time. It just has too many uses to be going anywhere, soon anyway.
Gardner, Howard. "The End of Literacy? Don't Stop Reading." Washington Post 17
Feb. 2008: B01. 17 Sept. 2008
content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021502898.html>.
Innis, Howard "Media in the Ancient Empires" Communication in History. Ed. David Crowley and Paul Heyer. 5th ed.
Boston: Pearson Education, 2007. 23-29.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Sarah Palin Scandals
For my first political blog I have chosen to write about the republican candidate for vice president, Sarah Palin. I chose to write about her because there is quite a lot of controversy that seems to follow her, "lipstick on a pig", her teenage daughter’s pregnancy and so on. It would have seemed to be a wise choice for McCain to choose a woman as his running mate, after Hilary lost for the democratic candidacy and such. McCain did choose a woman, many people however, argue that Sarah Palin is completely wrong for the job. She seems to be surrounded by controversy and scandal. In fact very shortly after she was announced to be McCain's running mate a controversy there were several reports of a scandal involving the Alaskan public safety department.
Wonkette, the blog I am currently following, sums up the affair . Basically Palin and her husband pressured the head of the public safety department to fire a state trooper named Mike Wooten, Palin’s former brother in law. Wooten has been involved in a custody battle with Palin’s sister for some time. When the head of the department refused they fired him and replaced him with someone who quit two months later. Wonkette seems to be no fan of Palin though. Just about every entry about her is cast in a not-so-flattering light. What the blog does not tell us is what Mike Wooten may have done, Palin must have had some semi valid reason for trying to get him fired right? There seems to be a bunch of odd things he is being accused of. He confesses to first to killing a moose illegally then to tasering his 11 year old. Apparently though, the taser was on the lowest setting and the child asked to be tasered, so It was more of Wooten being an idiot rather than Wooten being abusive. The moose, well, it's Alaska after all... An allegation he denies however, is that of a drinking while driving charge. So are these things enough for Palin to want to fire him so badly? Maybe so in a perfect world but in reality, if he had no connection to the Palin family there probably would have been no problem. In that case then, it becomes fairly obvious that Palin was completely abusing her power as governor.
This affair, put into the grand scheme of things, just adds to so many people’s apprehensions towards Palin. It’s not as though no other politician abuses their power, but Palin is very much under a microscope right now and so much else seems to be surrounding her. I have yet to read anything in real support of Palin, coincidentally I also have yet to read anything in republican support. To me Palin just seems to be a joke. Everything I read about her makes her look like a twit, not exactly the woman vice president women in America were looking for. In fact it seems a lot of women hate her. Mcain may have gained some support from lost Hilary voters, he certainly hasn't gained mine. It's dissapointing that Palin could be the first female vice president, almost embarrassing. Too bad McCain couldn't have chosen someone with some intellect.
Wonkette blog entry link - http://wonkette.com/402360/did-john-mccain-know-that-sarah-palin-is-in-the-middle-of-a-scandal#more-402360
Griffin, Drew, and Scott Bronstein. "Trooper in Palin probe tells his side." CNN Politics. 13 Sept. 2008
*for some reason I can't get the website for CNN to come up in my citation.
Wonkette, the blog I am currently following, sums up the affair . Basically Palin and her husband pressured the head of the public safety department to fire a state trooper named Mike Wooten, Palin’s former brother in law. Wooten has been involved in a custody battle with Palin’s sister for some time. When the head of the department refused they fired him and replaced him with someone who quit two months later. Wonkette seems to be no fan of Palin though. Just about every entry about her is cast in a not-so-flattering light. What the blog does not tell us is what Mike Wooten may have done, Palin must have had some semi valid reason for trying to get him fired right? There seems to be a bunch of odd things he is being accused of. He confesses to first to killing a moose illegally then to tasering his 11 year old. Apparently though, the taser was on the lowest setting and the child asked to be tasered, so It was more of Wooten being an idiot rather than Wooten being abusive. The moose, well, it's Alaska after all... An allegation he denies however, is that of a drinking while driving charge. So are these things enough for Palin to want to fire him so badly? Maybe so in a perfect world but in reality, if he had no connection to the Palin family there probably would have been no problem. In that case then, it becomes fairly obvious that Palin was completely abusing her power as governor.
This affair, put into the grand scheme of things, just adds to so many people’s apprehensions towards Palin. It’s not as though no other politician abuses their power, but Palin is very much under a microscope right now and so much else seems to be surrounding her. I have yet to read anything in real support of Palin, coincidentally I also have yet to read anything in republican support. To me Palin just seems to be a joke. Everything I read about her makes her look like a twit, not exactly the woman vice president women in America were looking for. In fact it seems a lot of women hate her. Mcain may have gained some support from lost Hilary voters, he certainly hasn't gained mine. It's dissapointing that Palin could be the first female vice president, almost embarrassing. Too bad McCain couldn't have chosen someone with some intellect.
Wonkette blog entry link - http://wonkette.com/402360/did-john-mccain-know-that-sarah-palin-is-in-the-middle-of-a-scandal#more-402360
Griffin, Drew, and Scott Bronstein. "Trooper in Palin probe tells his side." CNN Politics. 13 Sept. 2008
*for some reason I can't get the website for CNN to come up in my citation.
Sunday, September 7, 2008
First Blog Assignment
Hi, my name is Amanda Moskowitz. This is the first blog for my media and communications studies class. I am currently a sophmore and I really like cats and a band called mucc. When I think of the media I think basically of entertainment. I get informetion from the media but all of it with a grain of salt. My favorite blog is Perez Hilton's. I wish I could use that because I go there everyday,however, for this class I'll be following Wonkette. Since I am now to take information and different points of views from blogs for this class rather than trashy celebrity gossip. I think I'll like Wonkette though considering this is the first story I have seen from them, "EXCLUSIVE: North Hollywood Middle School Teacher Wonders Why McCain Campaign Is Dumb". Sounds interesting. http://wonkette.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
