Will evolving forms of journalism be an Improvement?(Roles of: )

I do think that evolving forms of journalism will work of the new forms can be somewhat interactive. The yes argument states that rewards are to be gained if there are participatory forms of journalism put into play. The no argument suggests that “high end journalism is dying”. Yet again I think the no argument is right if and only if the evolving forms of journalism can be interactive with its audience. The types of emerging media such as satirical forms of media are changing the ways in which the youth receive their news and political knowledge.

Roles of evolving forms of journalism in relation to arab springs is integral. I read in an article form that says the knowledge of the arab spring was censored online. This potentially was a damper for the arab spring.

Roles of evolving journalism in American politics is the breaking of trustworthy news sources. There are tabloids, online sources. It is hard to flesh out the fact and the fiction.

Is advertising good for society?

Through the debate topics on whether or not advertising is good for our society I was surprised to see that the majority of my group mates and peers felt the same way about advertisements in our society. Some felt that advertisements were good for things like informing about new health trends, diets, and hygiene friendly topics. They also felt that things such as nutrition facts on boxes and health facts on packages of tobacco are good for our society to know in order to make educated decisions about  their bodies. I in particular felt and still feel that advertising can make a person want more then what they need and have. I believe in the want and the necessity. You want the latest and greatest but the necessity is to use what you’ve had. For example I’ve recently entered the Ipod era and I must admit I am very fascinated by all of the tools the Ipod comes with but the only reason I upgraded from an Mp3 player to an Ipod is because the scroll on my Mp3 player cease to work after four years of use. The same thing with my phone it started to die out of the blue so I upgraded. So, all of these commercials about trades and upgrades seem so frivolous to me. I think why go get the latest and greatest when there is always going to be something to come. So, this discussion opened my eyes to the view s that were carried on advertising and technology. In the textbook the yes argument by John Calfee argue that advertising is good for the consumer. Advertising helps the consumer to make better informed decisions. The no argument by Dinyar Godrej argues that advertising doesn’t tell us anything new about products and that it creates anxiety if we do not buy the products that are advertised.

How influential is political music?

Political music moves people to have powers in which they were not aware they had. There is all sorts of word play and lingo that makes music influential in politics. In the history of the United States a lot of songs that are geared toward politics are songs that represent massive movements not just one particular topic. The topics are often a trend. Things that are being built up over time and the songs are just fuel to the progression of these movements. Songs have the power to make you remember subject matter better: cognitive content. The lyrics rhyme the tune is catchy which keeps the listeners of these subjects well informed. This cognitive content makes political music a powerful tool. I recently visited a Black Student Union lecture at the College of San Mateo in which they talked about hip hop and if it has been high-jacked. One of the points that was made was that the music is a tool to reach outsiders of educational institutions so a problem that could be had with political music is that it is the only source to some of the citizens within our community. If all of the opinions in these songs are not well formed, fact based thoughts and views then what does that say for the people who use these songs as their main sources? It means lack of well thought out opinions. 

Hate SPEECH in the MEDIA: Is it a direct affect on our culture?

           Hate speech can be interpreted in many different ways. It can be taken as slander,speaking your mind, or stating facts. The first amendment in the Constitution in the Bill of Rights guarantees freedom of speech but does not allow a context for hate speech. Defining hate speech seems to be the hardest thing for our society to do.
           Hate speech can be seen as disdain for other people. The problem with that is you can not slander someone solely because of disdain for the person. There has to be some fact for it. The other issue is that less harmful forms of hate speech are hidden throughout different entities in our society. The blatant forms of hate speech are the ones that are openly prosecuted and scrutinized.
            The authors choose to pinpoint the hidden forms of hate speech throughout this particular passage because it is an obviously an issue because this means that people are unable to identify what exactly hate speech is. It is almost as bad as trying to get a mass consensus on what the terrorism means. Some of the main forms of hate speech described in this passage are the forms of hate speech that occur when there is disdain for a particular racial, ethnic, religious, and gender groups. These forms of freedom of speech are able to be exercised.
         

Informed in an Information Society? Instant Gratification VS Library AGE

The yes argument is backed by a 16 month survey of Internet users that ranged from ages ten to eighteen in low-income homes. Their survey showed that youth who used the Internet had higher scores on the standardized tests of reading achievement and higher GPA’s. This study is able to support the positive views and energy surrounding internet use for educational balance.

            The no argument slanders the youth and generalizes the behaviors. He lumps the youth into one category. The no argument’s intent is to say that the youth is so used to instant gratification that they do not understand the value of hard work and taking your time because everything is at their fingertips. The only problem with this argument is that there are no facts to back this argument up.

Should this generation be offended by the no argument's point of view? I wouldn't go as far as to say "know nothings". What I will say is that this generation doesn't often realize how long preparation for say a research paper may have taken before the inventions of google etc. But to go as far as to say "know nothings" is derogatory. I think the author of the no argument should do some real research before throwing out such slander against this generation.

Marijuana Video (Thea and Rhea)

Can Media Create Negative Body Images?

Shari Dworkin and Fay Wachs make the argument that ads tell men and women that the ability to have a healthy body is reachable if you by products and take care of yourself. Michael Levine and Sarah Murnen make the argument that eating disorders are too restricted  but more that a variety of social, behavioral, and cultural issues that cause girls to develop negative body issues that attribute to eating disorders. The text makes the point that since media is at the forefront of our everyday lives that there should be a direct connection between the images that are developed.