1. My view of media has changed because I now recognize the broader sense that media encompasses.
2. I basically defined media as tv, radio, newspapers, and the internet.
3. I pretty much now define media as anything that is getting a message across.
4. The strong points of the class was the class discussion and the content of those discussions. I enjoy classes that involve communication throughout the whole class. You can learn just as much from the students in a class as you can from the teachers.
5. Yes, I would suggest this class for others, in fact I have.
6. The weak point was probably just the organization factor. Sometimes the class felt a little unfocused, this is not that bad though because it was still entertaining.
7. Yeah I think that I am more likely to question what I see, hear and read. I did before the class, but I think that I would question things more extensively now.
8. I can't really think of anything that I would have liked to cover more. Maybe a little more political focus... I don't know.
9. I never thought of myself and my teachers as the media before this class. Now I recognize the capacity of media in everybody.
Sunday, December 9, 2007
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Hilderbrand lecture blog
I do not agree with Dr. Hilderbrand's definition of cowardice. While I do believe that a person needs to stand up for what he/she believes in I do not think that you are a coward if you bend a little to conform. Sometimes it is necessary to do things you don't want to. Does that make one a coward? In his time, and what he was up against, it was in his best interest to join the military when he was called upon. It probably had a significant impact on who he is today. It either changed or enhanced his perceptions. Let's face it, if he were a conscious observer in Cambodia during that time he would have had his head skewered on a stake. Sometimes bending is necessary.
I do believe that the media's main focus should be the truth. I don't believe that they achieve that objective for the most part. I don't believe that they are close to being objective, again, for the most part.
I can see Dr. Hilderbrand's point that they actually believe that they are reporting the truth, but I also believe that they know better. When I as a lay person can see that the media is not being objective, the ones closest to the source should also realize that. I think that the media wants to report objectively but they don't have access to all the information. Because that information is not readily available, they don't take the time to properly research the subject. Deadlines and political hurdles don't allow for objective reporting. I would like to see the major "news" programs try to make a concerted effort to be objective and leave the rhetoric to "Inside Edition".
I do believe that the media's main focus should be the truth. I don't believe that they achieve that objective for the most part. I don't believe that they are close to being objective, again, for the most part.
I can see Dr. Hilderbrand's point that they actually believe that they are reporting the truth, but I also believe that they know better. When I as a lay person can see that the media is not being objective, the ones closest to the source should also realize that. I think that the media wants to report objectively but they don't have access to all the information. Because that information is not readily available, they don't take the time to properly research the subject. Deadlines and political hurdles don't allow for objective reporting. I would like to see the major "news" programs try to make a concerted effort to be objective and leave the rhetoric to "Inside Edition".
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Week 12 Blog
For the newsoftheweird.com site I clicked on the "news" tab and read the initial page that came up. I will write about an article posted under "Compelling Explanations". The first quip is about a guy who had documents on his computer that pertained to a business matter involved in a lawsuit. He deleted the files on accident. He claimed that he had only intended to delete the massive pornography files that existed on his hard drive.
I chose this article because I thought that it was hilarious. A lot of the articles I thought were funny, but this one made me laugh out loud, what an incriminating statement, "I thought I was deleting porn." It just makes me laugh.
I really don't know why this made the news. Maybe it was a high-profile white-collar crime case. Possibly it made the news because of the idiocy of this guy. I really don't know.
For darwinawards.com I will report on this article. This shit is hilarious (punny). The article is about a zoo keeper who, while trying to relieve one of the zoo's elephants of constipation, died of suffocation under 200 lbs of "poop". Apparently he was giving the elephant an enema of olive oil when the tragedy occurred.
I chose this article because I kept clicking the "random" tab until I found an article that gave me great pleasure. Not that I don't feel bad for the man and his family, it's just that I find that method of death rather amusing. However, a part of me believes that that is a very honorable way to go.
Once again I am not sure why this made the news. I could see it showing up in the obituaries, yet I think that whoever wrote it would be a little more tactful.
You assigned this because you want us to question the quality of the news we read, to recognize and challenge the source of our information, and so you could read anything humorous that you may have missed during your own search of weird news.
America is obsessed with this type of media because it is an escape. People are able to relate their position in society through others (that may be good or bad). When someone has a bad day they can read this stuff and recognize that it could be worse. Another reason why it may be considered news is because of demented individuals like myself who really get a kick out other peoples idiocy. That would be strictly for entertainment.
I don't honestly feel that these articles are objectively reported. Some of them are completely cynical, and there maybe a better way of reporting that "news". However, some of the stories themselves lead to biased articles. When people put themselves in really odd predicaments it would be hard to be objective while writing an article.
I chose this article because I thought that it was hilarious. A lot of the articles I thought were funny, but this one made me laugh out loud, what an incriminating statement, "I thought I was deleting porn." It just makes me laugh.
I really don't know why this made the news. Maybe it was a high-profile white-collar crime case. Possibly it made the news because of the idiocy of this guy. I really don't know.
For darwinawards.com I will report on this article. This shit is hilarious (punny). The article is about a zoo keeper who, while trying to relieve one of the zoo's elephants of constipation, died of suffocation under 200 lbs of "poop". Apparently he was giving the elephant an enema of olive oil when the tragedy occurred.
I chose this article because I kept clicking the "random" tab until I found an article that gave me great pleasure. Not that I don't feel bad for the man and his family, it's just that I find that method of death rather amusing. However, a part of me believes that that is a very honorable way to go.
Once again I am not sure why this made the news. I could see it showing up in the obituaries, yet I think that whoever wrote it would be a little more tactful.
You assigned this because you want us to question the quality of the news we read, to recognize and challenge the source of our information, and so you could read anything humorous that you may have missed during your own search of weird news.
America is obsessed with this type of media because it is an escape. People are able to relate their position in society through others (that may be good or bad). When someone has a bad day they can read this stuff and recognize that it could be worse. Another reason why it may be considered news is because of demented individuals like myself who really get a kick out other peoples idiocy. That would be strictly for entertainment.
I don't honestly feel that these articles are objectively reported. Some of them are completely cynical, and there maybe a better way of reporting that "news". However, some of the stories themselves lead to biased articles. When people put themselves in really odd predicaments it would be hard to be objective while writing an article.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Week 11 Blog Assignment
1. What is the game? The game is "Call to Duty 3".
2. Why did you pick it? I thought it fit the topic of peace and conflict better than "Tiger Woods 2007", or "Madden 2006".
3. How is it media? It is media because it portrays the Germans v. the Americans in a combat situation. The Americans are the good guys and the Germans are bad.
4. What messages does it send to the player? That Americans are good and Germans are bad.
5. Are these messages positive or negative? Mostly negative on the German side, however I don't think there is much of a positive message about about war in general. Are there both types of messages or just one or the other? Mostly it is based on the American side of WWII, however I did feel bad when I killed a German in hand-to-hand combat.
6. Why did you assign this? Once again, I believe the reason for this assignment is to think outside the box. The purpose of this assignment is to get us to realize that media is an influence throughout our everyday lives. Mo matter what we do and how we go about our business, we are influenced by the media.
2. Why did you pick it? I thought it fit the topic of peace and conflict better than "Tiger Woods 2007", or "Madden 2006".
3. How is it media? It is media because it portrays the Germans v. the Americans in a combat situation. The Americans are the good guys and the Germans are bad.
4. What messages does it send to the player? That Americans are good and Germans are bad.
5. Are these messages positive or negative? Mostly negative on the German side, however I don't think there is much of a positive message about about war in general. Are there both types of messages or just one or the other? Mostly it is based on the American side of WWII, however I did feel bad when I killed a German in hand-to-hand combat.
6. Why did you assign this? Once again, I believe the reason for this assignment is to think outside the box. The purpose of this assignment is to get us to realize that media is an influence throughout our everyday lives. Mo matter what we do and how we go about our business, we are influenced by the media.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Blog Assignment Week 10: I am the Piano Man
The song that I chose for this blog is the song "Dear God" by XTC (take the name as you will). The link to the lyrics are here
How does this song seek to influence the listener? Their main objective is for the listener to see the contradictions in religion, especially monotheistic religions. A second objective of the song is to question the existence of God. There are so many negative aspects about the world we live in now, and they point out these aspects, and they ask why? The main argument they make in the song is contradiction. The music also does the song justice, at points; very intense and convincing.
Is the song positive or not? Hell no, this song is not positive. It is very bleak and there is a feeling of abandonment. The suggestion that we made up God is not well received, yet may very well be true (I don't have a clue).
Does the band have a lot of songs like this? I don't know a lot of other tunes by the band. From the 1 album I have they are pretty political, however they don't focus on religion throughout the album.
Is this song being serious? Absolutely they are being serious. They really portray that throughout the song, through the intensity and the lyrics themselves.
Which bands do I think put thought into the messages of their songs? Pretty much any band that writes their own songs. I may not agree with what all the different bands stand behind, but I do believe that they have the right to express their opinions.
Bands that are prefabricated crap? Anyone who doesn't write their owns songs, music and lyrics. To record something that someone else wrote and claim it as your own is just wrong. Look at American Idol, that is the pure definition of crap.
Which ones are out to only boost their record sales? All that prefabricated shit.
Does it matter? I won't buy their songs, or for that matter I won't even pirate them.
Does it change whether I will listen to them or not? I have already answered that question.
Are there any other songs that are worth exploring in this regard? Pick one, most all musicians has a point behind their music (at least the ones who write their own).
Why did you assign this? Partly for entertainment, and partly for information. It is always fun to see what other people listen to. On the other hand, you may be bored with your own musical choices and looking for something different. Yet, a part of me believes that the reason for this assignment is to get people to think about what they listen to and how it influences them.
How does this song seek to influence the listener? Their main objective is for the listener to see the contradictions in religion, especially monotheistic religions. A second objective of the song is to question the existence of God. There are so many negative aspects about the world we live in now, and they point out these aspects, and they ask why? The main argument they make in the song is contradiction. The music also does the song justice, at points; very intense and convincing.
Is the song positive or not? Hell no, this song is not positive. It is very bleak and there is a feeling of abandonment. The suggestion that we made up God is not well received, yet may very well be true (I don't have a clue).
Does the band have a lot of songs like this? I don't know a lot of other tunes by the band. From the 1 album I have they are pretty political, however they don't focus on religion throughout the album.
Is this song being serious? Absolutely they are being serious. They really portray that throughout the song, through the intensity and the lyrics themselves.
Which bands do I think put thought into the messages of their songs? Pretty much any band that writes their own songs. I may not agree with what all the different bands stand behind, but I do believe that they have the right to express their opinions.
Bands that are prefabricated crap? Anyone who doesn't write their owns songs, music and lyrics. To record something that someone else wrote and claim it as your own is just wrong. Look at American Idol, that is the pure definition of crap.
Which ones are out to only boost their record sales? All that prefabricated shit.
Does it matter? I won't buy their songs, or for that matter I won't even pirate them.
Does it change whether I will listen to them or not? I have already answered that question.
Are there any other songs that are worth exploring in this regard? Pick one, most all musicians has a point behind their music (at least the ones who write their own).
Why did you assign this? Partly for entertainment, and partly for information. It is always fun to see what other people listen to. On the other hand, you may be bored with your own musical choices and looking for something different. Yet, a part of me believes that the reason for this assignment is to get people to think about what they listen to and how it influences them.
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Blog Assignment Week 8: Commercials
Ahhh....I love football game commercials, and football games.
Commercial One
1. Southwest Airlines
2. They show a young man at a dance club, and the dude is jamming out in order to impress his babe. He goes for the sure dance move that would truly impress her, the head and shoulder spin. On his first spin to the rear he kicks over the mixing table. The music stops and the girl has an unimpressed look on her face. A voice comes on and says, "Wanna get away?" Then the camera pans to a jet airliner flying serenely through the clouds.
3. The commercial wants me to purchase tickets from Southwest Airlines and fly away whenever anything doesn't go the way I plan.
4. No, the commercial does not work. While I find the fact that the idiot kicked over the mixing table entertaining, it doesn't effect whether or not I would fly Southwest. Besides, I can't afford airline tickets, if I could it would be cheap tickets through Expedia.com or another site like that.
Commercial Two
1. Pontiac automobiles
2. The commercial is in all black and white except for the Pontiac symbol on the vehicles and the tail lights. It shows the cars driving through a black and white city, with water around. At the end of the commercial it has some quotes like "Faster than a Porsche".....blah, blah, blah
3. Buy a Pontiac
4. No, I do not want to buy a Pontiac. In the first place I own a minivan, and you know what they say; once you go minivan you never go back. On top of that I about fell asleep during the commercial and that's hard to do in 30 seconds.
Commercial Three
1. The Olive Garden
2. The commercial shows extended family and friends sitting around laughing and having a wonderful time while consuming great quantities of delectable delights. They obviously enjoy their company and the food. There are such wonderful delights like; chicken tuscany, fetticine alfredo, and shrimp scampi. Then they show their recent specials, and they conclude with their infamous motto; You're family here.
3. They want me to go spend money and eat at the Olive Garden.
4. Like all the others; no the commercial didn't work for me. In the first place, I just polished off about a rack and a half of ribs. I wouldn't touch a plate of pasta right now. In the second place, I can make better pasta at home than the Olive Garden, on top of that if I were to go out for pasta I would find a better place than the Olive Garden, unless of course they could offer me the same great time all those beautiful and happy people were having.
Commercial One
1. Southwest Airlines
2. They show a young man at a dance club, and the dude is jamming out in order to impress his babe. He goes for the sure dance move that would truly impress her, the head and shoulder spin. On his first spin to the rear he kicks over the mixing table. The music stops and the girl has an unimpressed look on her face. A voice comes on and says, "Wanna get away?" Then the camera pans to a jet airliner flying serenely through the clouds.
3. The commercial wants me to purchase tickets from Southwest Airlines and fly away whenever anything doesn't go the way I plan.
4. No, the commercial does not work. While I find the fact that the idiot kicked over the mixing table entertaining, it doesn't effect whether or not I would fly Southwest. Besides, I can't afford airline tickets, if I could it would be cheap tickets through Expedia.com or another site like that.
Commercial Two
1. Pontiac automobiles
2. The commercial is in all black and white except for the Pontiac symbol on the vehicles and the tail lights. It shows the cars driving through a black and white city, with water around. At the end of the commercial it has some quotes like "Faster than a Porsche".....blah, blah, blah
3. Buy a Pontiac
4. No, I do not want to buy a Pontiac. In the first place I own a minivan, and you know what they say; once you go minivan you never go back. On top of that I about fell asleep during the commercial and that's hard to do in 30 seconds.
Commercial Three
1. The Olive Garden
2. The commercial shows extended family and friends sitting around laughing and having a wonderful time while consuming great quantities of delectable delights. They obviously enjoy their company and the food. There are such wonderful delights like; chicken tuscany, fetticine alfredo, and shrimp scampi. Then they show their recent specials, and they conclude with their infamous motto; You're family here.
3. They want me to go spend money and eat at the Olive Garden.
4. Like all the others; no the commercial didn't work for me. In the first place, I just polished off about a rack and a half of ribs. I wouldn't touch a plate of pasta right now. In the second place, I can make better pasta at home than the Olive Garden, on top of that if I were to go out for pasta I would find a better place than the Olive Garden, unless of course they could offer me the same great time all those beautiful and happy people were having.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Week 7 Blog Assignment
1. The debate I watched was the opening of the 1992 presidential debate among Ross Perot, George Bush and Bill Clinton. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-W4GWjN2kg
2. I picked this debate because I remember watching these three debate a couple of times back then. I also watched for a few other reasons they are; Ross Perot is hilarious, Bill Clinton was a stud at public speaking, and I wanted to see where Dubbya got his intelligence from.
3. Because it was the first part of the debate they only touched on introductory issues. "What separates you from the other candidates." Perot went first and he talked about the American people getting him on the ballot without being a member of either party. Clinton was second and he discussed how America needed change and he could provide. Bush went third and said you don't need to change just for change sake.
4. I got the impression that they discussed different things and they did have opposing views on the issues.
5. At least Clinton and Perot discussed the issues. Clinton talked about the low wages in America and the need for reform in education. Perot made a hilarious quip about experience raising the country's debt to over $4 trillion. Bush didn't really talk about any issues, just said that he had a plan.
6. Bush used a lot of rhetoric without saying anything, Clinton and Perot say a few things that are not rhetorical.
7. Clinton won the opening of the debate in my eyes, followed closely by Perot, Bush was a distant third.
8. I would have liked to see Bush tackle even a single issue.
9. Sometimes I watch the debates. It would usually depend on who was debating and what issues they were going to debate about.
2. I picked this debate because I remember watching these three debate a couple of times back then. I also watched for a few other reasons they are; Ross Perot is hilarious, Bill Clinton was a stud at public speaking, and I wanted to see where Dubbya got his intelligence from.
3. Because it was the first part of the debate they only touched on introductory issues. "What separates you from the other candidates." Perot went first and he talked about the American people getting him on the ballot without being a member of either party. Clinton was second and he discussed how America needed change and he could provide. Bush went third and said you don't need to change just for change sake.
4. I got the impression that they discussed different things and they did have opposing views on the issues.
5. At least Clinton and Perot discussed the issues. Clinton talked about the low wages in America and the need for reform in education. Perot made a hilarious quip about experience raising the country's debt to over $4 trillion. Bush didn't really talk about any issues, just said that he had a plan.
6. Bush used a lot of rhetoric without saying anything, Clinton and Perot say a few things that are not rhetorical.
7. Clinton won the opening of the debate in my eyes, followed closely by Perot, Bush was a distant third.
8. I would have liked to see Bush tackle even a single issue.
9. Sometimes I watch the debates. It would usually depend on who was debating and what issues they were going to debate about.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
