Monday, February 25, 2013
Harry Potter
I took the tour of the new Harry Potter "land" at Universal Studios. I'm not a huge Harry Potter fan, but this was pretty cool. I loved the dragon challenge where you could ride a "dragon" and go through scenes from the movie. The town of Hogsmeade was really quaint and set up like the book described. It had the shops and everything. It even included owls in the rafters just like Hedwig. You had the ability to stop by and taste butterbeer(in the books and movies) and some of the "delicacies" mentioned in the books. You can buy a wand that's a replica of those in the movie. I personally think the wand would be the coolest thing to buy. You can go into Hogwarts and explore where wizards get their education. Flight of the Hippogriff you can interact with Hagrid as he teaches you how to approach one of these mythical creatures. You then board a "training flight" (roller coaster) and swoop past Hagrid's hut. Even not being much of a Harry Potter fan, I have to admit, I'm very intrigued and curious about this new attraction and would love to go and see it.
Saturday, February 23, 2013
The Screening Room
I had never heard of YouTube's Screening Room. So when I got on, it was a little different for me. I watched "Fast Film". A film done with entirely pieces of paper and a little animation. In the film, there are several plots to the story. It starts with the typical 50's film mantra of a man coming in and passionately and maybe a little over zealously kissing an attractive actress. The film then moves from this to a horse. The horse, in true classic western fashion, runs along side a train. By the time you come to the climax of that scene, there are four trains. All have some sort of bad guy aboard and there is only one "good guy" train featuring Cary Grant as the good guy. Grant goes into a car on the train to rescue a girl, which, of course, he completes with ease. He rescues her as the four trains are plummeting toward the ground because they've run off a cliff. The girl and Grant drive a car out of the train James Bond style. Then you see Grant and a host of other 50's actors walking through a darkened cave. The hero comes to a torture wheel where the body is stationary, but the head is not, the film rolls through several different heads on the wheel. It switches heads on the wheel like those boards at carnivals where you put your face inside the circle and become the old farmer and his wife, or a cow and host of other barnyard animals. The film ends with a dog fight in the air with good guys like John Wayne shooting down Frankenstein and other traditional villains.
I really enjoyed the Fast Film for many reasons. One is I'd never seen a film like that before. Every time you watch it it could become something different. The horse, death wheels, planes, trains, and automobiles, etc. were all shapes in it of themselves. Inside these objects were moving film snippets from a variety of different 50's, 60's, and 70's movies. It gave you a great walk through history if you're a old movie watcher like myself. Different films I recognized gave me a sort of nostalgia and made me want to go back and watch them again. You could either keep up with the films themselves, or follow the story of the moving object independently. Moreover, if you watch the subsequent film 'Making of Fast Films' the directors, producers, and makers of this film walk you through this complicated art. It's a great change of pace from your traditional animations and special effects of today. It was somewhat hard to follow, but that's because you're trying to follow two different story lines at once. Overall though, a really nice change of pace and a great work of art to appreciate.
I really enjoyed the Fast Film for many reasons. One is I'd never seen a film like that before. Every time you watch it it could become something different. The horse, death wheels, planes, trains, and automobiles, etc. were all shapes in it of themselves. Inside these objects were moving film snippets from a variety of different 50's, 60's, and 70's movies. It gave you a great walk through history if you're a old movie watcher like myself. Different films I recognized gave me a sort of nostalgia and made me want to go back and watch them again. You could either keep up with the films themselves, or follow the story of the moving object independently. Moreover, if you watch the subsequent film 'Making of Fast Films' the directors, producers, and makers of this film walk you through this complicated art. It's a great change of pace from your traditional animations and special effects of today. It was somewhat hard to follow, but that's because you're trying to follow two different story lines at once. Overall though, a really nice change of pace and a great work of art to appreciate.
Monday, February 18, 2013
Warner Brothers Tour
Warner Brother is such a big company. It was so awesome to watch as the tour "buses" drove by the many stages of the shows most everyone is familiar with. Like F.R.I.E.N.D.S, Ellen Degeneres Show, Supernatural, and the Pushing Daisies "set". They have a lot to offer with their tours. If you go with the Deluxe Tour, you get to see, in-depth, how they make movies/shows and you even get a lunch to go with it. Warner Brothers offers you the chance to come in and see how they've stayed in business all these years and been such a success. They do have some goofs running around(Ellen) who hijack tour "buses". But, who would complain about a star hijacking your "bus"? Getting to see how they made movies back as far as 1955 to present would be captivating. For a business to make it this long they must have many secrets and brilliant outlook. I would love to tour the Warner Brothers Studio someday and see how TV is really produced. Maybe even meet a few stars.
Blue Store v. Redbox
There are so many ways to get movies and shows nowadays. Including Netflix, On Demand, Redbox, Hulu, Amazon, Torch.net, etc. I'm not really sure how to feel about all of them. On one hand, it's nice to have affordable access to entertainment. Better still, in the comfort of your own home. You can have a never-ending bowl of popcorn and as many drinks as as you want because your DVD player makes it possible to push pause anytime.
On the other hand however, isn't this contributing to obesity and detachment from socializing? We have an awful trend in America right now with obesity. More than one third(35.7%) of US adults are obese. And 40% of college students state that the internet is more important than dating or going out with friends. These "outreach" companies with movies making it easier to stay in, eat more for less, and interact with a TV screen isn't helping. Was it really that big of a deal to rent a movie at the store? Picking out a movie as a family without 5 people staring at your selection and sighing impatiently while you return your movie from last night and rent another is something that is fleeting quickly. Who are we to tell America they can't have convenience? No one really. Just my opinion. I'd be lying if I said I didn't use these services. But it's a two-sided coin. You have to find that fine balance between convenience and laziness. I myself never minded going to the store and choosing out a movie with my mom and sisters. The only thing that was a pain sometimes was remembering to take it back. Short of that, it was fun. We'd go out, pick a movie, maybe we'd grab some candy, then head home for a movie night at home.
I guess I'm half and half. I like the convenience of being able to rent a movie. But I guess I don't think the extinction of video stores was necessary either.
http://www.eaglenews.org/study-shows-internet-is-replacing-real-social-interaction-1.2645627
http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html
On the other hand however, isn't this contributing to obesity and detachment from socializing? We have an awful trend in America right now with obesity. More than one third(35.7%) of US adults are obese. And 40% of college students state that the internet is more important than dating or going out with friends. These "outreach" companies with movies making it easier to stay in, eat more for less, and interact with a TV screen isn't helping. Was it really that big of a deal to rent a movie at the store? Picking out a movie as a family without 5 people staring at your selection and sighing impatiently while you return your movie from last night and rent another is something that is fleeting quickly. Who are we to tell America they can't have convenience? No one really. Just my opinion. I'd be lying if I said I didn't use these services. But it's a two-sided coin. You have to find that fine balance between convenience and laziness. I myself never minded going to the store and choosing out a movie with my mom and sisters. The only thing that was a pain sometimes was remembering to take it back. Short of that, it was fun. We'd go out, pick a movie, maybe we'd grab some candy, then head home for a movie night at home.
I guess I'm half and half. I like the convenience of being able to rent a movie. But I guess I don't think the extinction of video stores was necessary either.
http://www.eaglenews.org/study-shows-internet-is-replacing-real-social-interaction-1.2645627
http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html
The Weather Channel Tour
This "studio of the future" was awe-inspiring. It had a lot of upgrades for the futuristic purposes of conserving energy. The studio used local materials from no further than 500 miles away. They used things like cork and bamboo wherever possible. These materials are quickly renewable materials, unlike lumber and steel. Low emitting adhesives, sealants, capreting, and paints were ued to minimize or eliminate contributions to ozone depletion and global warming. 170 sq ft was devoted to recycling glass, aluminum, paper, and cardboard. Light colored roofing materials were put in place of traditional shingles to keep studio cool naturally, all year long and reduce energy usage. A smart feature the studio used was a green screen that can swivel from one side of the studio to the other to accomodate different weather stories. This is accentuated by the amount of lights present in the studio. Each has it's own backup so it never goes dark and consumers can stay updated on weather at all times. A cozy half-circle couch is a tidy addition for meterologists to talk about the weather and help the viewer to feel as if they're there. This specific effect is made easier by the fact that the weather channel moved to all HD. They have robotically controlled cameras eliminating the use of human cameramen. Images and graphics seen on the screen are added by the production team to make your weather experience all the more exciting. This is added to the area where the weather is reported from. The reporting desk. The desk actually swivels 360 degrees. This give the set the ability to be in a stifiling 11 different configurations. The set itself also has a "scenic view" of 3 small LCD display televisions. But, on the off chance they would need a bigger view, there are at least 10 more LCD display TV's throught the studio.
This "studio of the future" was a very intimate look at how stations are changing to meet viewer concern and expectation. This new studio was very concientious of the environment. Something many builders and other corporates looking to expand are not. I enjoyed this tour very much. Did I enjoy it more than the New York Times Building? They were about even. The NYT presentation was better, but The Weather Channel had more gadgets and such to look at. Both were very informative.
This "studio of the future" was a very intimate look at how stations are changing to meet viewer concern and expectation. This new studio was very concientious of the environment. Something many builders and other corporates looking to expand are not. I enjoyed this tour very much. Did I enjoy it more than the New York Times Building? They were about even. The NYT presentation was better, but The Weather Channel had more gadgets and such to look at. Both were very informative.
Times Tour(NYC)
I found the ceramic rods on the outside of the building to be very remarkable. I didn't know architects could design a building with rods that actually helped control the lighting inside of it. I liked the fact that Mr.Piano tried to make it more private. Nobody likes to feel like their shoulder is being looked over. I'm sure the writers, editors, producers, etc. found this environment welcoming to write their stories in. The lobby had a beautiful design. Particularly the atrium where you could look down at the tall birch trees with the overlay of moss. It gave the lobby a somewhat normal and relaxing appearance and feel. Mr. Piano's goal was to breakdown the boundary between the lobby feel and the busy street. Bring a little of the New York life that happens all day, into the hum drum of a 9-5 job. The glass that surrounded and encased the lobby made it possible for anyone in the auditorium to see into the lobby where it became a "stage" of sorts. And from the lobby you could see the auditorium. Both views caused you to look right through the atrium, bringing in that relaxed and "real" feeling. This building was designed to speak to a more progressive, open, and democratic culture. It wasn't necessarily beautiful from the outside; but, it more than made up for it in design and intrigue on the inside. The newsroom for example was very flowing with the staircases instead of elevators to keep people working together. There was double the head space to give the rooms an airy feeling. The same effect was created for the cafeteria so people could enjoy their little break in the day. All in all a very beautiful building to work in.
Recording Studio Tours
Wow. I'm really out of touch with how recording music to get yourself out there works. I didn't know they had such accomodations for the budding musician. Blue Jay had the coolest site I thought. I loved the "fuel guage" navigator in the bottom left-hand corner. The site was well laid out and you could even change the music to your liking. They had a very comprehensive list of places to stay while recording and what they were close to. The SoHo Studio didn't have as much of an interactive website. They had a good client list and seemed like a decent location, however, the presentation wasn't as good as the other three. Radio Ready had a good introductory video, especially the clientele list. They highlighted most of their aspects well. The classiest studio by far was the studio in MN called Pachyderm Studio. Their website was the most elegant layout of the four. They offered the most amnenities and had the best accomodations. If I were an artist, I'd definately pick Pachyderm for my needs. However, my second pick would be Blue Jay. And it's because of their website. It has so many cool features and it's a very fun website to navigate and play with. The recording industry is far more in depth than I'd anticipated. I didn't know studios provided places for the artists to stay. Nor did I know they provided staff for them to work with. This was more eye-opening than I had anticipated earlier. I enjoyed touring the studios and looking at their websites.
Media Now
This was an eye-opening and interesting look into the media. There were many statistics and studies done on the media I didn't even know they conducted. One of the interesting points I found was the growth in online news. I knew, of course, that newspapers were a dying breed and that many people used their tablets/iPhones/SmartPhones/etc. for surfing the web. However, I had no idea how much of that was attributed to online news websites like Fox, MSNBC, CNN, and the like. The online news industry grew 17.2% in 2011, outdoing the 4.5% of Network TV, and the 1% of Local TV, Audio, and Cable TV. Along the same lines, Facebook and Twitter are beginning to surface as sources of news also. At this point social networking only accounts for 9% of people's news sources. Twitter users were nearly split between the sense that they would get this news elsewhere (43%) and that they would not (39%).A majority, 56%, of those who get news recommendations from Facebook say they think they would have gotten that news from somewhere else. Only a third, 34%, said they would not have seen it otherwise.
The decline of newspapers was no secret. The numbers and rate at which print has dropped was quite astounding. Newspapers seem to have no hope in sight. They aren't able to come up with a viable game plan against network news. Network news channels such as ABC, CBS, and NBC are growing rather rapidly. All three saw an increase in revenue and viewership. This is pretty much the same song for magazines who've not seen an increase since 2009. I'm not surprised by these statistics necessarily, just how drastic they are. The digital age is rapidly taking over all aspects of American life with no hope for those who would like to keep things simple and old timey.
I thought this site was very interesting and informative. I learned quite a bit about the contrasts of the different medias of today and how "digitized" we are really becoming. There is so much on this site and the charts and graphs lay out the statistics and numbers so you can understand and learn about the media of today. Overall, I enjoyed writing this particular blog and getting to work with this website.
The decline of newspapers was no secret. The numbers and rate at which print has dropped was quite astounding. Newspapers seem to have no hope in sight. They aren't able to come up with a viable game plan against network news. Network news channels such as ABC, CBS, and NBC are growing rather rapidly. All three saw an increase in revenue and viewership. This is pretty much the same song for magazines who've not seen an increase since 2009. I'm not surprised by these statistics necessarily, just how drastic they are. The digital age is rapidly taking over all aspects of American life with no hope for those who would like to keep things simple and old timey.
I thought this site was very interesting and informative. I learned quite a bit about the contrasts of the different medias of today and how "digitized" we are really becoming. There is so much on this site and the charts and graphs lay out the statistics and numbers so you can understand and learn about the media of today. Overall, I enjoyed writing this particular blog and getting to work with this website.
Saturday, February 16, 2013
Ethical Decision Making
Ethics is a multi-dimensional concept, muddied by each person's morals and way of thinking. Ethics are based on a multitude of things like upbringing, past experiences, learned concepts, and perception of issues. A person's ethics is not something one paper/blog could cover because everyone looks at them through slightly different glasses. Some rose, some a variation of the color. Many have the same color, if however different shades.
In the case of Accuracy and Fairness I read four of the case studies. I read the one about the little girl who received bone marrow from a man with a sullied past, the car that sank in the canal, abortion trucks, and a story on a little girl who visits her dad on death row. Each of these stories prove a vast difference of opinions as far as the world of ethics goes.In the case of the story about the little girl who received the bone marrow the ethical question was whether the man who donated past, was relevant to the story. The news station chose to air his past. The mother of the little girl and two letters to the editor shamed them from doing so. My personal ethics say, Why in the world would it matter where this guy came from or what he'd done in the past? He's obviously atoned for it and we as other civilians are not his judge. A second ethics question would be how to report accurately without exposing the public to graphic images or sounds. Such was the case in both the story about a woman who called a dispatcher in a panic because she'd veered of the road and her car had gone into a canal and was sinking; and a pro-life group called The Center For Bio-Ethical Reform. In the woman in the car's case the family requested the tape not be played. This was ignored by two TV stations and a snippet was played anyway. I agree with the sentiment from the family that the call shouldn't be played. The newscasters gave a good rendition of what happened. The family asked the call not be released. The least you can do for a grieving family is respect their wishes. The pro-life group's story was much the same. Viewers don't want to see graphic images. Therefore, the newscaster/journalist can give a good overview of the story without shocking the viewer with the images. People can research on their own and go to The Center For Bio-Ethical Reform's website and they have all the images, and even videos, there. Finally, ethics can take a turn for what you see as sound moral ground. The final story covered a four-year-old little girl whose mother takes her to visit her dad on death row. The questions was posed whether or not it was ethical. There was controversy presented in the story by a phsycologist and a family liason for the prison with opposing viewpoints. One said it was ethical and the other said it wasn't. In a case such as this, it was presented in the best possible form for the viewer to make up their own mind.
The next dimension of this ethical sphere is conflict of interest. Two case studies jump to the forefront for being good examples of problems faced each day by journalists. Cokie's Conflict of Interest and To Love and Work In Denver. Cokie's Conflict is about a journalist who took a position on a volunteer force for President Bush's cabinet. She remained an employee of ABC News while doing so. The problem presented was could Cokie remain a true journalist, and loyal to the president while she served on this force. The same issue arose when a journalist married a man who ran for governor. I think each of these problems center around the same basic issue. Trust. ABC was willing to give Cokie a chance to prove she could be a faithful journalist, and a supporter to our 43rd president. However, in the case of Lesley Dahlkemper and Mike Freeley, the Colorado Radio Station KCFR did not give her the same chance. The station was concerned how it would look to the public if Lesley were to cover anything regarding Freeley. Rightfully so. In the analysis it states Dahlkemper would have had no way of proving she could be balanced. I disagree. They never gave her a chance. Understandably appearances must be kept up so as not to lose the trust of the public. However, if she was seen to have any leniency, they could have removed her.
Deception is the third issues presented. Is it ethical for journalists to use deceptions(hidden cameras, undercover work, "test" theories, etc.) to obtain a true and important story? A case in which a undercover journalist, faked being a mortician, snuck onto Dover AFB to get actual death totals from Desert Storm, was examined. He wanted to get real numbers on the death toll and had exhausted every other avenue. This journalist did right by the public because he wanted the real death tolls and would do whatever it took to get them. Undercover work does expose some very lengthy conspiracies and potentially harmful subjects. But the way that it is done and to what extent has a fine balance. As stated in one of the articles covering hidden cameras, this should only be done by experienced and reliable journalists. Despite this, how would you determine that? And what's to say a newer journalist has compromised morals just because they're new?
Diversity follows in contrast to deception. Diversity is a widespread issue. One of the articles presented is the inclusion of gay marriage in the news as being very diverse. Gay marriage is very controversial. However, it adds to the diversity of a paper and news corporation to add controversial issues to the public's reading and perception. But how diverse can you be without offending and losing readers?
Online ethics have become an ever present problem. How do you use the information you come across ethically, accurately, and without plagerising? Moreover, how do you link that information to the source and ensure that it is an accurate source of information and not shady or containing misleading facts? Linking is the most widely discussed issue ethicswise. Linking different sources to your journalistic reports that is accurate and gives the ability to the reader to research further if desired. Including linking, two other problems that were stated by journalists who took part in a conference of web journalists were anonymous feedback and interactivity. Feedback or facts often are stated quickly and at a rate so fast the journalist can't verify it. Interactivity is also a concern because it can discredit things so quickly by use of opinion instead of reserached facts from viewrs/public.
Photojournalism is a tool used to really connect with the reader/viewer and get them interested. Photojournalism serves a good purpose overall of getting out there for the reader and bringing the story to life. However, if care is not taken, the photos/video can mislead the reader. As was the case with ice boat sailing in MN. The photographer used digital editing and sped the videos and photos up to convey the speed to the viewer who wasn't there. This was a question of ethics because the photos were false and lead the viewer astray. The polar opposite would be the photo run by The Daily Press depicting a 15-year-old boy who'd be shot and robbed in the parking lot of a convenience store. The photo was controversial because the boy was dead and the paper was worried about upsetting readers. The photo and story was run anyway and the intent to help stop these crimes was strengthened by this very real photo.
Without giving ample spotlight to the source, you are considered a plagerizer. An article written by Chip Scanlan shows an interesting point of view to plagerizing I'd not thought of. What actually constitutes plagerism? We know the broad definition, don't use other people's stuff. But what about the details? Such as: Can disk jockeys read the paper on the news since they didn't contribute to it? Can you plagerize yourself if you've written a paper and then use a quote or sentence from it and don't cite it? What if you rewrite a passage from another source, and even though you phrase it in your own words, you don’t acknowledge that the ideas are someone else’s? Would this blog be considered plagerizing since I'm rephrasing and summarizing others work? These are all aspects of the plagerizing rule I'd never looked at; and certainly warrant further investigation. I'm not sure how to respond to plagerizing now. But it would be nice if some further guidelines were published on the matter.
Privacy is one of the biggest concerns of those asked to talk to newscasters and journalists. Whether it be for safety reasons(crime case) or for embarrasment(sex offenders) or you just don't want your dirty laundry being connected to a face. The news industry is a little shaky on this point. Tying back to the story about the little girl who received bone marrow from a convicted man. His privacy was invaded by having his crimes posted in an article with no effect on whether he was in jail or not. In the video provided under this section, on children in a crack house, the cameraman made sure to exclude the children's faces. However, the other two case examples of teen depression and a rape victim were much more invasive. The teens willingly opened up their stories in hopes of helping others. The rape victim had her pictures and name flashed on a screen for an Amber Alert. In both of these cases, I don't believe privacy was violated.
To round out the issue of ethics in journalism, we move to the source/reporter relationships. Several of the articles detailed how the reporters gained their stories. Most were very respectful in obtaining of information and did as was asked by the sources to build trust. However, one ethical issue I had problems with was in the case of a reporter who did a 5 month case study on children with parents who have addictions. She was able to detach from the story so far as to let a 3-year-old starve for 24 hours. I realize the importance of doing stories and getting the research out there. But I just can't go along with watching a baby go hungry. There is a line where the job doesn't come first.
As detailed in the paragraphs above, ethical issues in journalism run rampant and most are subject to personal prefernce. There will probably never be a uniform code under which you could write ethics to uphold in life or journalism. These 9 issues just scratch the surface. They by no means explore every avenue. There really is nothing to fix or say on the matter other than to tell people to follow the rules of your newspaper/news station/radio station/magazine/etc. and go along until you feel it is morally compromising.
In the case of Accuracy and Fairness I read four of the case studies. I read the one about the little girl who received bone marrow from a man with a sullied past, the car that sank in the canal, abortion trucks, and a story on a little girl who visits her dad on death row. Each of these stories prove a vast difference of opinions as far as the world of ethics goes.In the case of the story about the little girl who received the bone marrow the ethical question was whether the man who donated past, was relevant to the story. The news station chose to air his past. The mother of the little girl and two letters to the editor shamed them from doing so. My personal ethics say, Why in the world would it matter where this guy came from or what he'd done in the past? He's obviously atoned for it and we as other civilians are not his judge. A second ethics question would be how to report accurately without exposing the public to graphic images or sounds. Such was the case in both the story about a woman who called a dispatcher in a panic because she'd veered of the road and her car had gone into a canal and was sinking; and a pro-life group called The Center For Bio-Ethical Reform. In the woman in the car's case the family requested the tape not be played. This was ignored by two TV stations and a snippet was played anyway. I agree with the sentiment from the family that the call shouldn't be played. The newscasters gave a good rendition of what happened. The family asked the call not be released. The least you can do for a grieving family is respect their wishes. The pro-life group's story was much the same. Viewers don't want to see graphic images. Therefore, the newscaster/journalist can give a good overview of the story without shocking the viewer with the images. People can research on their own and go to The Center For Bio-Ethical Reform's website and they have all the images, and even videos, there. Finally, ethics can take a turn for what you see as sound moral ground. The final story covered a four-year-old little girl whose mother takes her to visit her dad on death row. The questions was posed whether or not it was ethical. There was controversy presented in the story by a phsycologist and a family liason for the prison with opposing viewpoints. One said it was ethical and the other said it wasn't. In a case such as this, it was presented in the best possible form for the viewer to make up their own mind.
The next dimension of this ethical sphere is conflict of interest. Two case studies jump to the forefront for being good examples of problems faced each day by journalists. Cokie's Conflict of Interest and To Love and Work In Denver. Cokie's Conflict is about a journalist who took a position on a volunteer force for President Bush's cabinet. She remained an employee of ABC News while doing so. The problem presented was could Cokie remain a true journalist, and loyal to the president while she served on this force. The same issue arose when a journalist married a man who ran for governor. I think each of these problems center around the same basic issue. Trust. ABC was willing to give Cokie a chance to prove she could be a faithful journalist, and a supporter to our 43rd president. However, in the case of Lesley Dahlkemper and Mike Freeley, the Colorado Radio Station KCFR did not give her the same chance. The station was concerned how it would look to the public if Lesley were to cover anything regarding Freeley. Rightfully so. In the analysis it states Dahlkemper would have had no way of proving she could be balanced. I disagree. They never gave her a chance. Understandably appearances must be kept up so as not to lose the trust of the public. However, if she was seen to have any leniency, they could have removed her.
Deception is the third issues presented. Is it ethical for journalists to use deceptions(hidden cameras, undercover work, "test" theories, etc.) to obtain a true and important story? A case in which a undercover journalist, faked being a mortician, snuck onto Dover AFB to get actual death totals from Desert Storm, was examined. He wanted to get real numbers on the death toll and had exhausted every other avenue. This journalist did right by the public because he wanted the real death tolls and would do whatever it took to get them. Undercover work does expose some very lengthy conspiracies and potentially harmful subjects. But the way that it is done and to what extent has a fine balance. As stated in one of the articles covering hidden cameras, this should only be done by experienced and reliable journalists. Despite this, how would you determine that? And what's to say a newer journalist has compromised morals just because they're new?
Diversity follows in contrast to deception. Diversity is a widespread issue. One of the articles presented is the inclusion of gay marriage in the news as being very diverse. Gay marriage is very controversial. However, it adds to the diversity of a paper and news corporation to add controversial issues to the public's reading and perception. But how diverse can you be without offending and losing readers?
Online ethics have become an ever present problem. How do you use the information you come across ethically, accurately, and without plagerising? Moreover, how do you link that information to the source and ensure that it is an accurate source of information and not shady or containing misleading facts? Linking is the most widely discussed issue ethicswise. Linking different sources to your journalistic reports that is accurate and gives the ability to the reader to research further if desired. Including linking, two other problems that were stated by journalists who took part in a conference of web journalists were anonymous feedback and interactivity. Feedback or facts often are stated quickly and at a rate so fast the journalist can't verify it. Interactivity is also a concern because it can discredit things so quickly by use of opinion instead of reserached facts from viewrs/public.
Photojournalism is a tool used to really connect with the reader/viewer and get them interested. Photojournalism serves a good purpose overall of getting out there for the reader and bringing the story to life. However, if care is not taken, the photos/video can mislead the reader. As was the case with ice boat sailing in MN. The photographer used digital editing and sped the videos and photos up to convey the speed to the viewer who wasn't there. This was a question of ethics because the photos were false and lead the viewer astray. The polar opposite would be the photo run by The Daily Press depicting a 15-year-old boy who'd be shot and robbed in the parking lot of a convenience store. The photo was controversial because the boy was dead and the paper was worried about upsetting readers. The photo and story was run anyway and the intent to help stop these crimes was strengthened by this very real photo.
Without giving ample spotlight to the source, you are considered a plagerizer. An article written by Chip Scanlan shows an interesting point of view to plagerizing I'd not thought of. What actually constitutes plagerism? We know the broad definition, don't use other people's stuff. But what about the details? Such as: Can disk jockeys read the paper on the news since they didn't contribute to it? Can you plagerize yourself if you've written a paper and then use a quote or sentence from it and don't cite it? What if you rewrite a passage from another source, and even though you phrase it in your own words, you don’t acknowledge that the ideas are someone else’s? Would this blog be considered plagerizing since I'm rephrasing and summarizing others work? These are all aspects of the plagerizing rule I'd never looked at; and certainly warrant further investigation. I'm not sure how to respond to plagerizing now. But it would be nice if some further guidelines were published on the matter.
Privacy is one of the biggest concerns of those asked to talk to newscasters and journalists. Whether it be for safety reasons(crime case) or for embarrasment(sex offenders) or you just don't want your dirty laundry being connected to a face. The news industry is a little shaky on this point. Tying back to the story about the little girl who received bone marrow from a convicted man. His privacy was invaded by having his crimes posted in an article with no effect on whether he was in jail or not. In the video provided under this section, on children in a crack house, the cameraman made sure to exclude the children's faces. However, the other two case examples of teen depression and a rape victim were much more invasive. The teens willingly opened up their stories in hopes of helping others. The rape victim had her pictures and name flashed on a screen for an Amber Alert. In both of these cases, I don't believe privacy was violated.
To round out the issue of ethics in journalism, we move to the source/reporter relationships. Several of the articles detailed how the reporters gained their stories. Most were very respectful in obtaining of information and did as was asked by the sources to build trust. However, one ethical issue I had problems with was in the case of a reporter who did a 5 month case study on children with parents who have addictions. She was able to detach from the story so far as to let a 3-year-old starve for 24 hours. I realize the importance of doing stories and getting the research out there. But I just can't go along with watching a baby go hungry. There is a line where the job doesn't come first.
As detailed in the paragraphs above, ethical issues in journalism run rampant and most are subject to personal prefernce. There will probably never be a uniform code under which you could write ethics to uphold in life or journalism. These 9 issues just scratch the surface. They by no means explore every avenue. There really is nothing to fix or say on the matter other than to tell people to follow the rules of your newspaper/news station/radio station/magazine/etc. and go along until you feel it is morally compromising.
Internet Safety
After reading a few of the articles given in KSOL, I'm not sure what to think about Internet predators. With the outlook that there is realavent danger to kids, I can't say as to whether I think it's a big issue. 10 years ago there was an outbreak with internet predators and luring kids into being abducted, assaulted, raped, or murdered. Law enforcement did a good job getting that information out to the public and now people are very aware of the problem. However, many kids that I talk to(because I work in a daycare) don't know the first thing about being careful while on the web.
I liked the game made by Sprint. I thought it stopped and explained things very well. Looking at it as if I were a child, I really enjoyed the fact that they covered many different aspects of staying safe on the internet, and explained each choice I clicked on. When my daughter gets old enough, I will probably have her play things like that so she becomes even more aware of what can hurt her and how to stay safe.
I didn't care for the Bad Guy one. I didn't think it had as much of a kid-type approach. It had long paragraphs to explain it's answers and nothing in the video talked much. Kids don't like to read paragraphs-if they can even read. I also thought they made it very easy to just click random buttons until you obtained the correct answer, without retaining or enforcing any of the knowledge.
Staying safe on the internet is a major issue that many parents need to take more seriously. Teach your kids why it's important not to give out personal information, or send out pictures of themselves. Monitor what they're doing. Talk to them. Know what they're involved in. Be attuned to what they use everyday for their social network sites and who they're talking to. We can make it much safer for our kids if we just pay attention and teach.
I liked the game made by Sprint. I thought it stopped and explained things very well. Looking at it as if I were a child, I really enjoyed the fact that they covered many different aspects of staying safe on the internet, and explained each choice I clicked on. When my daughter gets old enough, I will probably have her play things like that so she becomes even more aware of what can hurt her and how to stay safe.
I didn't care for the Bad Guy one. I didn't think it had as much of a kid-type approach. It had long paragraphs to explain it's answers and nothing in the video talked much. Kids don't like to read paragraphs-if they can even read. I also thought they made it very easy to just click random buttons until you obtained the correct answer, without retaining or enforcing any of the knowledge.
Staying safe on the internet is a major issue that many parents need to take more seriously. Teach your kids why it's important not to give out personal information, or send out pictures of themselves. Monitor what they're doing. Talk to them. Know what they're involved in. Be attuned to what they use everyday for their social network sites and who they're talking to. We can make it much safer for our kids if we just pay attention and teach.
Thursday, February 14, 2013
Filthy Dirty Muck
Censorship is a very murky subject. Particularly because it's difficult to provide decent content, without infringing on people's rights to choose for themselves. In the video provided on KSOL, it talks about repealing the "bleeping out" of indecent words on broadcasts and prime time shows. The commentators on the video insist that this law is outdated and should be repealed and presents the argument that parents can control what is watched and taken in by their children. This is also the number one argument in "The Internet's Free Speech Moment" and an article about the Internet being held to the "strictest jurisdiction".
I found a website with a list of several supposed breaking stories with proof that were kept from the mainstream media. http://www.wanttoknow.info/mediacorruption details the accounts of several influential newscasters who supposedly had stories that were of vital importance that were threatened or fired if they did not back down and leave the story be. Or sanitize said story to the networks' liking.
I'm somewhat torn as to the censorship. I believe each person has a right to determine the influx of content into their lives. However, I do not agree with extensive cursing, sexual acts, invasion of privacy, and the inclusion of graphic details or images. A major issues, as stated above, is that of children. There are substantial arguments against censorship because there are so many ways for parents to control media for their children. According to an article by kidshealth.org, the average American child will witness 200,000 violent acts on television by age 18. Kids may become desensitized to violence and more aggressive. TV violence sometimes begs for imitation because violence is often promoted as a fun and effective way to get what you want. Violent acts are portrayed by the "good guys" or "heroes". Even though kids are taught by their parents that it's not right to hit, television says it's OK to bite, hit, or kick if you're the good guy. Risky Behaviors are also promoted. TV is full of programs and commercials that depict risky behaviors (such as drinking alcohol, doing drugs, smoking cigarettes, and having premarital sex) as cool, fun, and exciting. Studies have shown that teens who watch lots of sexual content on TV are more likely to initiate intercourse or participate in other sexual activities earlier than peers who don't watch sexually explicit shows. A recent study by the Center on Alcohol Marketing and Youth (CAMY) found that youth exposure to alcohol ads on TV increased by 30% from 2001 to 2006. Kids who watch 5 or more hours of TV per day are far more likely to begin smoking cigarettes than those who watch less than the recommended 2 hours a day. Due to the "product placement" in movies and popular shows.
These are just a few things backing the massive effect media has on consumer life. Some of these programs can be controlled; but not all. These statistics also hold true for adults. An article written by New Media Warrior stated: When your watch TV, your brain enters a stage called alpha state (8 to 12 HZ to be exact), a similar state we experience when we sleep or when we enter hypnosis. If you remember this is the same state hypnotists and professional psychologists use to implant ideas such as to stop smoking, or to lose weight. Those are the same methods of suggestion used by television. This effect is also been called “mind fog.” Therefore, all of the things, even we watch as adults impact our lives heavily. The divorce rate in this country is astronomical. It's no wonder with the laze fare attitude we place on affairs, pre-marital sex, sport sex, multiple partners, etc. If you're in a sleeping/hypnotic type state, the more you watch, the less sensitized you become to these acts and are more likely to commit them to memory of a pleasant sort. The same for violence, cursing, the treatment of family and others, the list goes on and on.
Censorship is not meant to take away the rights of citizens. It is there to help protect them. An article on About.com detailed the different areas in which media censorship arose and is constructed to help. Protection of your privacy is a big one. Would you want news camera crews filming you through your windows because you refused to answer a question? By law the cannot show that shot due to censorship. It censors graphic images and details such as when someone is murdered. If your family was killed by BTK, would you want intricate verbal paintings and renditions of how your family was found and how it was done, and photos and video all over the mainstream media? Probably not. It's also in place for security. Things from the military that should not be public knowledge. These things don't just protect you, but your country and families as well. Some censorship also helps to hide political biases.
So in this lengthy and somewhat difficult argument, censorship has it's place. There are countries who participate in censorship of mainstream media already; China and Iran are two of them. The US is always so concerned about China being ahead of us in the education field. Did we ever stop to look at the reasons and statistics surrounding this? Partly it is because of China's emphasis and values. But maybe censorship of media causes kids not to want to watch, and when they do it has value. In as study written by James U. McNeal, Texas A& M University, U.S.A. Mindy F. Ji, Texas A& M University, U.S.A. The function of mass media for Chinese children will be primarily educational rather than entertainment. Chinese parents instill in their children at a very early age the belief that a good education is one of the most worthy goals (Shao and Herbig, 1994). The parents try to insure that virtually every activity their children undertake has some contribution to learning. Therefore, we expect that children will look to the media primarily for education, or useful information, and only secondarily for entertainment. During the time of this study there were approximately 114 television sets per 100 urban households (Beijing Statistical Bureau, 1996). Given that there is one television set per household, television viewing is mainly a family activity and a recent study confirms this showing that family television viewing is near the top of the list of parents’ desired weekend activities (McNeal and Ji, 1996. Thus, we would expect the parents to focus on educational programming when the children are viewing with them.
Some of this attributes to responsible parenting. I'm not advocating that children shouldn't be allowed free time and to just be kids, however, TV has a profound impact on them and us as a whole that we should not ignore. The same impacts and effects are seen from the interent, video games, social websites, and the like.
As to the question of whether or not it is the job of the government to censor these things or the individual consumer themselves, that is a little more troubling. I believe that the government should look at all of the problems we're having today. Correlate that with the TV and content of said programs, and decide for themselves whether or not the American people as a whole are remaining unaffected by what they allow networks and media to release. However, I also believe each person should be responsible for themselves and govern whether or not that's really something they want to promote to others, their children, and their families. Several cases have been presented here to negate that you can control what your mind retains while intaking different aspects of media take a hint and limit it.
http://kidshealth.org/parent/positive/family/tv_affects_child.html#
http://www.newmediawarrior.net/2012/07/how-television-affects-your-brain/
http://www.acrwebsite.org/search/view-conference-proceedings.aspx?Id=11494
I found a website with a list of several supposed breaking stories with proof that were kept from the mainstream media. http://www.wanttoknow.info/mediacorruption details the accounts of several influential newscasters who supposedly had stories that were of vital importance that were threatened or fired if they did not back down and leave the story be. Or sanitize said story to the networks' liking.
I'm somewhat torn as to the censorship. I believe each person has a right to determine the influx of content into their lives. However, I do not agree with extensive cursing, sexual acts, invasion of privacy, and the inclusion of graphic details or images. A major issues, as stated above, is that of children. There are substantial arguments against censorship because there are so many ways for parents to control media for their children. According to an article by kidshealth.org, the average American child will witness 200,000 violent acts on television by age 18. Kids may become desensitized to violence and more aggressive. TV violence sometimes begs for imitation because violence is often promoted as a fun and effective way to get what you want. Violent acts are portrayed by the "good guys" or "heroes". Even though kids are taught by their parents that it's not right to hit, television says it's OK to bite, hit, or kick if you're the good guy. Risky Behaviors are also promoted. TV is full of programs and commercials that depict risky behaviors (such as drinking alcohol, doing drugs, smoking cigarettes, and having premarital sex) as cool, fun, and exciting. Studies have shown that teens who watch lots of sexual content on TV are more likely to initiate intercourse or participate in other sexual activities earlier than peers who don't watch sexually explicit shows. A recent study by the Center on Alcohol Marketing and Youth (CAMY) found that youth exposure to alcohol ads on TV increased by 30% from 2001 to 2006. Kids who watch 5 or more hours of TV per day are far more likely to begin smoking cigarettes than those who watch less than the recommended 2 hours a day. Due to the "product placement" in movies and popular shows.
These are just a few things backing the massive effect media has on consumer life. Some of these programs can be controlled; but not all. These statistics also hold true for adults. An article written by New Media Warrior stated: When your watch TV, your brain enters a stage called alpha state (8 to 12 HZ to be exact), a similar state we experience when we sleep or when we enter hypnosis. If you remember this is the same state hypnotists and professional psychologists use to implant ideas such as to stop smoking, or to lose weight. Those are the same methods of suggestion used by television. This effect is also been called “mind fog.” Therefore, all of the things, even we watch as adults impact our lives heavily. The divorce rate in this country is astronomical. It's no wonder with the laze fare attitude we place on affairs, pre-marital sex, sport sex, multiple partners, etc. If you're in a sleeping/hypnotic type state, the more you watch, the less sensitized you become to these acts and are more likely to commit them to memory of a pleasant sort. The same for violence, cursing, the treatment of family and others, the list goes on and on.
Censorship is not meant to take away the rights of citizens. It is there to help protect them. An article on About.com detailed the different areas in which media censorship arose and is constructed to help. Protection of your privacy is a big one. Would you want news camera crews filming you through your windows because you refused to answer a question? By law the cannot show that shot due to censorship. It censors graphic images and details such as when someone is murdered. If your family was killed by BTK, would you want intricate verbal paintings and renditions of how your family was found and how it was done, and photos and video all over the mainstream media? Probably not. It's also in place for security. Things from the military that should not be public knowledge. These things don't just protect you, but your country and families as well. Some censorship also helps to hide political biases.
So in this lengthy and somewhat difficult argument, censorship has it's place. There are countries who participate in censorship of mainstream media already; China and Iran are two of them. The US is always so concerned about China being ahead of us in the education field. Did we ever stop to look at the reasons and statistics surrounding this? Partly it is because of China's emphasis and values. But maybe censorship of media causes kids not to want to watch, and when they do it has value. In as study written by James U. McNeal, Texas A& M University, U.S.A. Mindy F. Ji, Texas A& M University, U.S.A. The function of mass media for Chinese children will be primarily educational rather than entertainment. Chinese parents instill in their children at a very early age the belief that a good education is one of the most worthy goals (Shao and Herbig, 1994). The parents try to insure that virtually every activity their children undertake has some contribution to learning. Therefore, we expect that children will look to the media primarily for education, or useful information, and only secondarily for entertainment. During the time of this study there were approximately 114 television sets per 100 urban households (Beijing Statistical Bureau, 1996). Given that there is one television set per household, television viewing is mainly a family activity and a recent study confirms this showing that family television viewing is near the top of the list of parents’ desired weekend activities (McNeal and Ji, 1996. Thus, we would expect the parents to focus on educational programming when the children are viewing with them.
Some of this attributes to responsible parenting. I'm not advocating that children shouldn't be allowed free time and to just be kids, however, TV has a profound impact on them and us as a whole that we should not ignore. The same impacts and effects are seen from the interent, video games, social websites, and the like.
As to the question of whether or not it is the job of the government to censor these things or the individual consumer themselves, that is a little more troubling. I believe that the government should look at all of the problems we're having today. Correlate that with the TV and content of said programs, and decide for themselves whether or not the American people as a whole are remaining unaffected by what they allow networks and media to release. However, I also believe each person should be responsible for themselves and govern whether or not that's really something they want to promote to others, their children, and their families. Several cases have been presented here to negate that you can control what your mind retains while intaking different aspects of media take a hint and limit it.
http://kidshealth.org/parent/positive/family/tv_affects_child.html#
http://www.newmediawarrior.net/2012/07/how-television-affects-your-brain/
http://www.acrwebsite.org/search/view-conference-proceedings.aspx?Id=11494
The Green Screen
Green/blue screens are a fascinating tool used to produce our favorite films like Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Batman, etc. They make you feel as if you're really there and the actors/actresses are actually in danger. A green screen uses one of two methods. Either a static or traveling matte. Static mattes work using a double-exposure matte. The cameraman would shoot the actors in a specific landscape. When the shot is created a piece of black paper or tape is used on the lens so the area of the top of the shot is masked out and left unexposed on the film. The scene is shot normally, but the film is exposed on only one half of the frame. The the cameraman rewinds the film in the camera, and films the top half of the shot(whatever they need it to be) They could use a computer generated top half of the film Or use a technique called optical compositing where the two scenes might be short separately on two pieces of film and then brought into the special effects department to be combined onto a third piece of film.
The scene could also use traveling mattes. This technique lets you combine two or more pieces of film into one piece that looks real. You first must film the background plate. Then you film the actor/actress preforming some sort of daring feat and behind them you would have the background screen displaying the background plate. In the special effects department you can easily use special filters to form two mattes from the shot of the actor/actress.
My favorite use of the screen is the use in action films like Batman, Die Hard, Taken, Salt, Law Abiding Citizen, etc. When the hero does a something impossible against the villain and they look as if they are even more of a hero when they complete it because it looks as if they actually did the thing. Such as when the Batman tumbler collided with the police car. A green screen was used to make it look as if there was a nasty crash in a small parking garage. This was particularly captivating because you're already on the edge of your seat rooting for Batman, and then a massive crash pulls you even further into the movie.
The scene could also use traveling mattes. This technique lets you combine two or more pieces of film into one piece that looks real. You first must film the background plate. Then you film the actor/actress preforming some sort of daring feat and behind them you would have the background screen displaying the background plate. In the special effects department you can easily use special filters to form two mattes from the shot of the actor/actress.
My favorite use of the screen is the use in action films like Batman, Die Hard, Taken, Salt, Law Abiding Citizen, etc. When the hero does a something impossible against the villain and they look as if they are even more of a hero when they complete it because it looks as if they actually did the thing. Such as when the Batman tumbler collided with the police car. A green screen was used to make it look as if there was a nasty crash in a small parking garage. This was particularly captivating because you're already on the edge of your seat rooting for Batman, and then a massive crash pulls you even further into the movie.
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Old Time Radio Shows
My sisters and I were raised on the old timey shows such as those that used to be on air. I watched shows like Red Skelton, Ed Sullivan, Green Acres, Mr. Ed, The Musters, I Love Lucy, etc. In short, these radio shows weren't a stretch for me because it's what I grew up with.
I chose Red Rider, Red Skelton, and A Date With Judy. I loved all three. I miss shows with clean humor, you did have to censor for your kids. Values were taught and enforced by those listening. There was just enough suspense tied with comical and satirical humor to keep those listening interested.
The only thing different for me was I couldn't see the things happening. I had to use my imaginations and "paint" the scenes myself. However, back then it wasn't a loss because they'd never seen it on TV anyway. The just assumed it would always be that way. Whereas for myself, it was a little disconcerting to listen and not watch.
I had no trouble at all listening to these classics. I thoroughly enjoyed all of the puns, jokes, and action. I'm planning on listening to several more. These radio shows took me back to when I was little and playing with my sisters, and then going in and sitting on grandpa's lap with a bowl of popcorn and watching these same shows.
I chose Red Rider, Red Skelton, and A Date With Judy. I loved all three. I miss shows with clean humor, you did have to censor for your kids. Values were taught and enforced by those listening. There was just enough suspense tied with comical and satirical humor to keep those listening interested.
The only thing different for me was I couldn't see the things happening. I had to use my imaginations and "paint" the scenes myself. However, back then it wasn't a loss because they'd never seen it on TV anyway. The just assumed it would always be that way. Whereas for myself, it was a little disconcerting to listen and not watch.
I had no trouble at all listening to these classics. I thoroughly enjoyed all of the puns, jokes, and action. I'm planning on listening to several more. These radio shows took me back to when I was little and playing with my sisters, and then going in and sitting on grandpa's lap with a bowl of popcorn and watching these same shows.
Saturday, February 9, 2013
The Great Train Robbery
Most film critiques area bout how well the actors/actresses performed. Or the special effects and whether or not the actor was able to portray the character well. Old films give sanctuary from that. You critique the storyline, the most important part of a movie.
The Great Train Robbery film produced in 1903, was, for its time, an award winning production. 4 robbers rob a train to the tune of an intense piece of music. The robbers pull of the ultimate heist and run into the woods. However, when the townspeople learn of it, they chase them and, in a stand off, kill the robbers and apprehend the stolen goods.
For the time, this move was quite good in my opinion. There was suspense, intrigue, action, and good guy winning. The storyline was strong and had realistic basis. The suspense whether the thieves would pull off the heist or not was certainly very capturing. The action of the shooting, stand off, and chase were all pieces that made it fun to watch. Old movies have an added sort of intrigue because there is nothing said. So in a way, you can make up your own movie to watch, along a certain storyline of course.
The music did an especially good job with the crescendos and intensity with each scene. The only thing that was a little cheesy was the people when the died/were shot, with the overdramatic falling. I did find interesting to watch the dancing scene because, though the whole movies was in black and white, it showed a woman in a yellow dress and highlighted some purples, pinks and violets. All in all the movie was solid in just about all aspects; considering the time in which it was made.
The Great Train Robbery film produced in 1903, was, for its time, an award winning production. 4 robbers rob a train to the tune of an intense piece of music. The robbers pull of the ultimate heist and run into the woods. However, when the townspeople learn of it, they chase them and, in a stand off, kill the robbers and apprehend the stolen goods.
For the time, this move was quite good in my opinion. There was suspense, intrigue, action, and good guy winning. The storyline was strong and had realistic basis. The suspense whether the thieves would pull off the heist or not was certainly very capturing. The action of the shooting, stand off, and chase were all pieces that made it fun to watch. Old movies have an added sort of intrigue because there is nothing said. So in a way, you can make up your own movie to watch, along a certain storyline of course.
The music did an especially good job with the crescendos and intensity with each scene. The only thing that was a little cheesy was the people when the died/were shot, with the overdramatic falling. I did find interesting to watch the dancing scene because, though the whole movies was in black and white, it showed a woman in a yellow dress and highlighted some purples, pinks and violets. All in all the movie was solid in just about all aspects; considering the time in which it was made.
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Napster v. iTunes
I myself have always been a loyal iTunes user. The only complaint I have against iTunes is the same one I have against all Apple products, they're hard to get in a compatible form. Specifically if you have Microsoft. Napster has basically the same features. However, Napster isn't compatible with iTunes, it has fewer features, and mediocre streaming sound quality. iTunes has it's downfalls as well. Price being the biggest factor, followed by, no subscriptions and it's processor intensive. Between the two the differences are pretty minute. Forced to choose one, I'm very picky about sound quality, so I'll stick with iTunes v. Napster. I also don't download music that often, so I'm not particularly interested in subscriptions.
Newspaper's Future
Newspapers are unfortunately a dying breed. I could certainly see them making a marginal comeback in the next 5 years due to the retirement of baby boomers. However, newspapers are on their way out. Senior Americans are not as open to the use of technology as the younger(30 and down) generation. They're also not as apt to want to take the time to learn about a new piece of software, when they can sit down with their coffee, at their kitchen table, and open up the their newsPAPER. That's they way they've done it for years and they don't want that to change.
E-readers are soon going to become the mainstream way of getting your news, minus the paper part. Particularly the reader that updates itself. This way you can carry the paper with you and watch it through something small like your eyeglasses, and not have to carry something separate. In spite of all of this, I can't help but wonder if the e-reader will really be that popular due to iPads and smartphones. You can already get your news quickly updated and play a game and look at photos and play words with friends on an iPad. With your smartphone you could be taking a business call, texting your spouse, and checking the news and it's all in one, easy to use, easy to transport, gadget. Therefore, I'm not so sure that the e-reader will be a huge success. Why would you pay $800 for something that doesn't do as much as it's $250 counterpart?
E-readers are soon going to become the mainstream way of getting your news, minus the paper part. Particularly the reader that updates itself. This way you can carry the paper with you and watch it through something small like your eyeglasses, and not have to carry something separate. In spite of all of this, I can't help but wonder if the e-reader will really be that popular due to iPads and smartphones. You can already get your news quickly updated and play a game and look at photos and play words with friends on an iPad. With your smartphone you could be taking a business call, texting your spouse, and checking the news and it's all in one, easy to use, easy to transport, gadget. Therefore, I'm not so sure that the e-reader will be a huge success. Why would you pay $800 for something that doesn't do as much as it's $250 counterpart?
Book Banning
Book banning is an issue that has been debated extensively. For me the issue is two-sided. On the one hand, banning books is a good, and I would say, essential practice. Banning books like 50 Shades of Grey, Catchier In The Rye, etc. I think is completely justified. Students can and should be allowed to read what they like. However, as a school you need to consider what it is you want to foster in young minds. By allowing explicit sex scenes and rape to be described in detail, you're certainly not discouraging the acts. Mandy parents present the argument that if your child doesn't want to read, or they don't want them to read that content, then they should just not check it out. In this case, why isn't it ok for teachers to show adult films in sex education class? An extreme example, but when compared to the content in these books, not unreasonable.
On the other hand however, I don't think every little dislike should be accommodated. For example, I don't let my daughter read Harry Potter for religious reasons. That's my preference and right. However, I don't expect those with other beliefs to conform to mine. Some people like Harry Potter and that's ok. Others still, don't like To Kill A Mockingbird. My personal belief is it's a classic and excellent story of our history. Each is entitled to his/her own beliefs. Honestly there isn't a simple solution. The only one that seems to make some sense is if you plan to use these in your class, then you need would use permission forms for each child. Have alternates ready for those students to read if they, or their parents are not comfortable.
As for libraries, I think those are a little more lenient. If an adult wants to read a book, he/she should be allowed to. I think Stephen King novels are inappropriate for children up through at least sophomores in high school. However, if a library decides to have them, I don't have to check them out. I guess it all depends on what the library wants to portray. Do they want those books on the shelves? A tricky issue to say the least, and one without an easy solution.
On the other hand however, I don't think every little dislike should be accommodated. For example, I don't let my daughter read Harry Potter for religious reasons. That's my preference and right. However, I don't expect those with other beliefs to conform to mine. Some people like Harry Potter and that's ok. Others still, don't like To Kill A Mockingbird. My personal belief is it's a classic and excellent story of our history. Each is entitled to his/her own beliefs. Honestly there isn't a simple solution. The only one that seems to make some sense is if you plan to use these in your class, then you need would use permission forms for each child. Have alternates ready for those students to read if they, or their parents are not comfortable.
As for libraries, I think those are a little more lenient. If an adult wants to read a book, he/she should be allowed to. I think Stephen King novels are inappropriate for children up through at least sophomores in high school. However, if a library decides to have them, I don't have to check them out. I guess it all depends on what the library wants to portray. Do they want those books on the shelves? A tricky issue to say the least, and one without an easy solution.
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Poor Richard
Avarice and happiness never saw each other. How then should they become acquainted?
This quote is a testament to our generation. Avarice is defined as extreme greed and dissatisfaction. Happiness has many definitions. Happiness could be driving a car, playing with your kids, getting a big bonus, having the money for bills, doing a favorite hobby, or just simply being happy with being alive. However, some people never achieve what they call happiness. Happiness has a very sneaky and corrupt rival who lives around ever corner of the mind. It comes to the surface when the new 20?? car comes out and your "less deserving" neighbor drives up with one. When your kids come in ashamed because the were bullied for their Goodwill clothes or your backfiring Old Faithful. Avarice. It always rears its ugly head when you've had your new "toy" for 6 moths-1 year. Suddenly, it's not quite as fast or shiny as you remember. And Bill's 72" TV dwarfs your 70".
This statement ties so much of our culture together. Happiness always gives way to avarice. Even if you're a happy person and mostly content with your life, There's always just one more small thing that could make it just a little better. Maybe an electric can opener instead of a hand turn. A little paint in your son's room. Perhaps the money to buy just one meal away from home. Avarice and happiness are acquainted due to human nature. Always wanting more. They're forever intertwined. The more consumers want and strive for, the more closely related the two become.
This quote is a testament to our generation. Avarice is defined as extreme greed and dissatisfaction. Happiness has many definitions. Happiness could be driving a car, playing with your kids, getting a big bonus, having the money for bills, doing a favorite hobby, or just simply being happy with being alive. However, some people never achieve what they call happiness. Happiness has a very sneaky and corrupt rival who lives around ever corner of the mind. It comes to the surface when the new 20?? car comes out and your "less deserving" neighbor drives up with one. When your kids come in ashamed because the were bullied for their Goodwill clothes or your backfiring Old Faithful. Avarice. It always rears its ugly head when you've had your new "toy" for 6 moths-1 year. Suddenly, it's not quite as fast or shiny as you remember. And Bill's 72" TV dwarfs your 70".
This statement ties so much of our culture together. Happiness always gives way to avarice. Even if you're a happy person and mostly content with your life, There's always just one more small thing that could make it just a little better. Maybe an electric can opener instead of a hand turn. A little paint in your son's room. Perhaps the money to buy just one meal away from home. Avarice and happiness are acquainted due to human nature. Always wanting more. They're forever intertwined. The more consumers want and strive for, the more closely related the two become.
Saturday, January 26, 2013
Social Interaction
Social interaction has changed a dramatic amount in recent years. We've gone from going out for coffee, working out with friends, movie nights, and dinners, to Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, Pinterest, e-mails, and texting. We spend more time interacting on our own terms and however we want, than learning to deal with people. Humans crave interaction, touch, acceptance and love. We gain this by replacing it with constant connection to technology and a multitude of friends on the other end. However, it's not what we really need. We need other people to talk to, facial expressions, a hug, and a gentle pat on the shoulder for reassurance.
According to a study done by World Technology Report recently released by Cisco Systems, Inc., "Forty percent of the college-age participants stated that the Internet is more important than dating or going out with friends. Technology was used when you couldn't see someone face-to-face. Now, face-to-face is being used when we can't get to someone through technology," Roca said.
The relationship between technology and the 18-to-30 age group may be even more severe than initially suspected. One out of every three students and young professionals said that they considered the Internet to be just as necessary to survival as food, water and shelter."
Moreover, too much attachment to technology can produce health concerns. Researchers at the University of Gothenburg recently studied more than 4,100 Swedish men and women between the ages of 20 and 24 for a year and found that a majority of them who constantly use a computer and mobile phones can develop stress, sleeping disorders and depression." Thomee said in the study. “It was easy to spend more time than planned at the computer (e.g., working, gaming, or chatting), and this tended to lead to time pressure, neglect of other activities and personal needs (such as social interaction, sleep, physical activity), as well as bad ergonomics, and mental overload.”
The study found a correlation between stress and always being available on the phone.
It doesn't stop there. Technology is beginning to affect our children. A website for parents called iKeepSafe has an article detailing some things observed by a school principal: Socially, they learn to instant message friends rather than develop face-to-face relationships, which can impact their way of relating to peers. As one principal explained: “The Internet is hurting their ability to work in groups. Our teachers struggle to get them to participate in any kind of team assignments; instead they would all rather stare at the computer. When I observe them talking to one another in the hallway, I see young girls who are socially aggressive or inappropriate, and I can’t help but think that the Internet is socializing them in ways that emotionally stunts them and makes it difficult for them to deal with others in the real world.”
Real social interaction is becoming a caveman type principle and is affecting physical and mental health, as well as our future generations. While technology can help you stay in touch with grandma, too much can harm you.
http://www.eaglenews.org/study-shows-internet-is-replacing-real-social-interaction-1.2645627
http://charlotte.cbslocal.com/2012/07/17/study-people-who-are-constantly-online-can-develop-mental-disorders/
http://www.ikeepsafe.org/be-a-pro/balance/too-much-time-online/
According to a study done by World Technology Report recently released by Cisco Systems, Inc., "Forty percent of the college-age participants stated that the Internet is more important than dating or going out with friends. Technology was used when you couldn't see someone face-to-face. Now, face-to-face is being used when we can't get to someone through technology," Roca said.
The relationship between technology and the 18-to-30 age group may be even more severe than initially suspected. One out of every three students and young professionals said that they considered the Internet to be just as necessary to survival as food, water and shelter."
Moreover, too much attachment to technology can produce health concerns. Researchers at the University of Gothenburg recently studied more than 4,100 Swedish men and women between the ages of 20 and 24 for a year and found that a majority of them who constantly use a computer and mobile phones can develop stress, sleeping disorders and depression." Thomee said in the study. “It was easy to spend more time than planned at the computer (e.g., working, gaming, or chatting), and this tended to lead to time pressure, neglect of other activities and personal needs (such as social interaction, sleep, physical activity), as well as bad ergonomics, and mental overload.”
The study found a correlation between stress and always being available on the phone.
It doesn't stop there. Technology is beginning to affect our children. A website for parents called iKeepSafe has an article detailing some things observed by a school principal: Socially, they learn to instant message friends rather than develop face-to-face relationships, which can impact their way of relating to peers. As one principal explained: “The Internet is hurting their ability to work in groups. Our teachers struggle to get them to participate in any kind of team assignments; instead they would all rather stare at the computer. When I observe them talking to one another in the hallway, I see young girls who are socially aggressive or inappropriate, and I can’t help but think that the Internet is socializing them in ways that emotionally stunts them and makes it difficult for them to deal with others in the real world.”
Real social interaction is becoming a caveman type principle and is affecting physical and mental health, as well as our future generations. While technology can help you stay in touch with grandma, too much can harm you.
http://www.eaglenews.org/study-shows-internet-is-replacing-real-social-interaction-1.2645627
http://charlotte.cbslocal.com/2012/07/17/study-people-who-are-constantly-online-can-develop-mental-disorders/
http://www.ikeepsafe.org/be-a-pro/balance/too-much-time-online/
CBS Thought
I believe all of these issues do matter. As an information user, you obviously are attached to the idea of knowing and learning ideas. This comes from the love of story-telling. When you're little, most kids love to hear their parents tell them stories. As we gain independence, we want to read those stories ourselves. So, it's only natural for us to continue to want to hear and read more stories. Gain more information and learn more things.
Clear and vivid language is important to keep t he reader interested; the story moving; and the information/point clear. It also bring information to live to make it easy to remember.
Respect for history is something I think is somewhat more lucrative. I agree with the thought that history is important and should be. However, it has been shown through several polls and shocking YouTube videos how far removed Americans are from knowing what happened in the past. Yet, there seems to be an ever increasing need to be "informed". According to NBC, "More than 2,500 randomly selected Americans took ISI's basic 33 question test on civic literacy and 71% of them received an average score of 49% or an "F." Josiah Bunting, III, Chairman of ISI's National Civic Literacy Board says, "There is an epidemic of economic, political, and historical ignorance in our country." It is disturbing enough that the general public failed ISI's civic literacy test, but when you consider the even more dismal scores of elected officials, you have to be concerned. How can political leaders make informed decisions if they don't understand the American experience?" There is a YouTube video covering Americans who didn't know what the 4th of July was for. And yet another where Americans didn't know what Memorial Day was for. Yet another example would be I was in my hair salon the other day and listening to a stylist talk to a customer about history. She was going on about the war in Iraq and other wars from the past. And said to the customer that she had no idea what Pearl Harbor was. So as for this idea, I would say that history is important overall, but seems to not be crucial for information users.
In conclusion, all three aspects are important to information seekers. You need the love of a good story, clear language, and general understanding of history to really love and be a part of this information generation.
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Study-Americans-Dont-Know-About-Much-About-History.html
Clear and vivid language is important to keep t he reader interested; the story moving; and the information/point clear. It also bring information to live to make it easy to remember.
Respect for history is something I think is somewhat more lucrative. I agree with the thought that history is important and should be. However, it has been shown through several polls and shocking YouTube videos how far removed Americans are from knowing what happened in the past. Yet, there seems to be an ever increasing need to be "informed". According to NBC, "More than 2,500 randomly selected Americans took ISI's basic 33 question test on civic literacy and 71% of them received an average score of 49% or an "F." Josiah Bunting, III, Chairman of ISI's National Civic Literacy Board says, "There is an epidemic of economic, political, and historical ignorance in our country." It is disturbing enough that the general public failed ISI's civic literacy test, but when you consider the even more dismal scores of elected officials, you have to be concerned. How can political leaders make informed decisions if they don't understand the American experience?" There is a YouTube video covering Americans who didn't know what the 4th of July was for. And yet another where Americans didn't know what Memorial Day was for. Yet another example would be I was in my hair salon the other day and listening to a stylist talk to a customer about history. She was going on about the war in Iraq and other wars from the past. And said to the customer that she had no idea what Pearl Harbor was. So as for this idea, I would say that history is important overall, but seems to not be crucial for information users.
In conclusion, all three aspects are important to information seekers. You need the love of a good story, clear language, and general understanding of history to really love and be a part of this information generation.
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Study-Americans-Dont-Know-About-Much-About-History.html
Sunday, January 20, 2013
Media Junkie
I spend an average of 4 hours a day with media and digital entertainment. I only scored an 11 on the internet junkie test. My husband and I watch two episodes of The Mentalist a night before bedtime. This serves as our "together" time as we have a 5 month old daughter, a dual income household, and I'm taking 15 hours of school. We use the internet primarily for education, the Army, keeping up with bills and bank accounts, and questions about our daughter on sites like babycenter.com. When I'm doing school work I listen to pandora radio for background noise. I also always have the radio playing while I'm driving. I also read the newspaper, or FOX news online to keep up with what's going on worldwide. I spend around 2 hours a day talking on my cell to my sister who is also a stay-at-home mom. Other than that we spend very very small amounts of time on social sites such as Facebook. We are occasionally on there to update pictures of the baby for his family who live in other states. The only other form of technology we use regularly is our GPS when we have to go into the heart of KC where we aren't as familiar with the streets.
I believe this is the best use of my time as I am focused on my family and the developmental milestones of my baby girl, rather than that of things that don't really matter anyway. I remain active and enjoy getting outdoors with my family and exploring the world rather than reading about it.
I believe this is the best use of my time as I am focused on my family and the developmental milestones of my baby girl, rather than that of things that don't really matter anyway. I remain active and enjoy getting outdoors with my family and exploring the world rather than reading about it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)