Arianne’s Question:
The question I pose to this part of his article is if the Internet has helped in being more open to new avenues of news, or if it has added more distractions to what we are trying to find out?
My Response:
As far as accessibility, I believe that the internet has proven to be a positive experience as far as reaching a greater number of people, which is certainly a positive thing. I also believe in the use of blogs and social networking sites such as Facebook to serve as forums for news, and current event circulation and discussion. In these instances, people are literally free to speak their mind. Of course this opens up the opportunity for misrepresentation of facts and inherent bias. The important thing is for people to find ways to seek viable news sources which do not simply publish opinion. Certainly people must be weary of the bias inherent in blogs, as well as the dangers of misconstrued information or propaganda. Media literacy is a key factor in sifting through citizen journalism, but its usefulness as far as the spread of information goes is undeniable.
Newspapers are available online, and make more options available through the internet then they do in print. For example, The New York Times publishes both online and on their website. Some of the stories are repeats of their print edition which serves the people who do not read the print edition at all. In addition, the web by nature offers potential for instantaneous updates so that each story is updated as more news becomes available. Since the news revolves around current events, this is most beneficial. Print articles do not have the option for the readers to respond immediately and directly to the article. The New York Times, among many newspapers’ online sites offer a way for readers to comment on opinion articles directly on the site. Links can be posted to related articles or articles published by a particular columnist. Online periodicals also offer the benefit of an archive database by which one can search through articles of previous issues. It is also very easy to share articles with others with the click of a mouse. Information gathering and sharing becomes simpler and less time-consuming, which is a definite benefit of the availability of news online.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Larsen Response Questions for Week 10
1. “In a way we are all getting the same news. There is nothing wrong with that, as long as the news is accurate and as long as the key items get printed or broadcast. This is the problem. The key items don’t always get on the front page” (Larsen 308).
Due to the concentration of power among companies that provide news through broadcast, periodicals, and radio stations, our news is often filtered through the funnel of a small pool of individuals. A given company might own a broadcast company and a radio station, for example. Sometimes the two are easily recognized as the same company, and sometimes it takes a bit of detective work to discover which hand is in ultimate control of both. This is somewhat deceiving for a member of the public seeking different varieties of news through different mediums who are receiving limited information as a result. Most people are exposed to or seek out their news through a variety of media, which likely fall under the umbrella of conglomeration. Ultimately, most news stories are deemed “newsworthy” by a small group of people. Since media, especially news broadcasts, have only limited time to present the local and national news to the audience, only certain stories make the cut. With the presence of conglomeration, these certainly tie into agenda setting and gate keeping principles addressed in the reading. As members of the audience, how should we react to the notion of gate keeping and agenda setting from this perspective? Are we really to accept the stories presented to us as the most “newsworthy”? Is the news always a reflection of what we demand as an audience?
2. Larsen presents the interactive electronic word as one of our culture’s media innovations. This is a relatively new medium which brings with it tremendous future potential. The interactive electronic word offers undeniable comparison to novels such as Huxley’s Brave New World which speculates about the future of our society through the development and adaptation of technology. Larsen relates Huxley’s “Feelies” (movies which can be truly experienced by the audience) to the potential inventions that evolve from the interactive electronic word. These inventions are innovative to say the least, yet there is something unsettling about the idea that so much can be experienced from going to see a movie, for example. Is there a point in which these innovations become detrimental the experiences of “real life”? Could these developments be potentially beneficial to our society?
3. Clearly we all rely on media innovations to different degrees and with different proficiencies. A general question about media innovations: are all of them equally important? In terms of usefulness, do they all succeed in serving our needs as senders and receivers? Do we need to continue developing each of them in order for them to serve us in the future?
Due to the concentration of power among companies that provide news through broadcast, periodicals, and radio stations, our news is often filtered through the funnel of a small pool of individuals. A given company might own a broadcast company and a radio station, for example. Sometimes the two are easily recognized as the same company, and sometimes it takes a bit of detective work to discover which hand is in ultimate control of both. This is somewhat deceiving for a member of the public seeking different varieties of news through different mediums who are receiving limited information as a result. Most people are exposed to or seek out their news through a variety of media, which likely fall under the umbrella of conglomeration. Ultimately, most news stories are deemed “newsworthy” by a small group of people. Since media, especially news broadcasts, have only limited time to present the local and national news to the audience, only certain stories make the cut. With the presence of conglomeration, these certainly tie into agenda setting and gate keeping principles addressed in the reading. As members of the audience, how should we react to the notion of gate keeping and agenda setting from this perspective? Are we really to accept the stories presented to us as the most “newsworthy”? Is the news always a reflection of what we demand as an audience?
2. Larsen presents the interactive electronic word as one of our culture’s media innovations. This is a relatively new medium which brings with it tremendous future potential. The interactive electronic word offers undeniable comparison to novels such as Huxley’s Brave New World which speculates about the future of our society through the development and adaptation of technology. Larsen relates Huxley’s “Feelies” (movies which can be truly experienced by the audience) to the potential inventions that evolve from the interactive electronic word. These inventions are innovative to say the least, yet there is something unsettling about the idea that so much can be experienced from going to see a movie, for example. Is there a point in which these innovations become detrimental the experiences of “real life”? Could these developments be potentially beneficial to our society?
3. Clearly we all rely on media innovations to different degrees and with different proficiencies. A general question about media innovations: are all of them equally important? In terms of usefulness, do they all succeed in serving our needs as senders and receivers? Do we need to continue developing each of them in order for them to serve us in the future?
Monday, February 23, 2009
Response to Hollihan and Baaske Q's by Myra Haq
2. I would say that this statement is not one hundred percent true. Although I agree with the idea that we do not readily engage ourselves in discourse with which we disagree, there are certain types of people that enjoy engaging in debate with others who do not share similar beliefs. Thus, the opportunity to share one’s specific point of view and possibly expand their argument to disallow future refutation is engendered.
It is healthy to come across a conversation in which views which are in opposition to one’s own are presented. If the only discussions that people had with one another were ones in which both parties agreed with everything the other person expressed, there would be significantly less opportunity to broaden one’s views. In addition, it is important for people to respect the opinions and positions of others even when they are drastically different. Arguments are often strengthened when they are challenged; therefore, active listening is a necessary component to argument. As the arguer, it is beneficial to present the argument in such a way that the listeners will want to listen, and perhaps be persuaded to the arguer’s position. Both arguers and listeners need to beware of hot buttons that could essentially disallow their conversation to take place because of the sensitive nature of hot buttons or certain topics.
It would be very challenging for one to avoid discourse with which one disagrees. I do not think that there is anyone who does not have a point of view on some subject that may be conflicting with someone else’s. If someone were to agree with every other argument or point of view, that person would have no jurisdiction within argument because they do not seem to have an opinion of their own at all. Personal stances are of high importance when it comes to making a valid argument. If the argument is meant to persuade an audience, how would one do so if he or she did not appear to agree or disagree with a particular side of the argument?
If one ignores discourse that one disagrees with, the opportunity to further educate oneself is lost. Presenting a biased point of view is not helpful when making an effective argument. A good arguer is one who does not completely discard the rebuttal. Acknowledging the fact that there may be another side to an argument makes the argument for one side or another all the more strong and effective. It demonstrates that the person has taken these views into account and has possibly drawn up further argument to refute them.
Partaking in discourse which presents views that are in opposition to our own not only allows us to further educate ourselves, but allows us to strengthen our own arguments when it comes time to presenting our own opinions.
It is healthy to come across a conversation in which views which are in opposition to one’s own are presented. If the only discussions that people had with one another were ones in which both parties agreed with everything the other person expressed, there would be significantly less opportunity to broaden one’s views. In addition, it is important for people to respect the opinions and positions of others even when they are drastically different. Arguments are often strengthened when they are challenged; therefore, active listening is a necessary component to argument. As the arguer, it is beneficial to present the argument in such a way that the listeners will want to listen, and perhaps be persuaded to the arguer’s position. Both arguers and listeners need to beware of hot buttons that could essentially disallow their conversation to take place because of the sensitive nature of hot buttons or certain topics.
It would be very challenging for one to avoid discourse with which one disagrees. I do not think that there is anyone who does not have a point of view on some subject that may be conflicting with someone else’s. If someone were to agree with every other argument or point of view, that person would have no jurisdiction within argument because they do not seem to have an opinion of their own at all. Personal stances are of high importance when it comes to making a valid argument. If the argument is meant to persuade an audience, how would one do so if he or she did not appear to agree or disagree with a particular side of the argument?
If one ignores discourse that one disagrees with, the opportunity to further educate oneself is lost. Presenting a biased point of view is not helpful when making an effective argument. A good arguer is one who does not completely discard the rebuttal. Acknowledging the fact that there may be another side to an argument makes the argument for one side or another all the more strong and effective. It demonstrates that the person has taken these views into account and has possibly drawn up further argument to refute them.
Partaking in discourse which presents views that are in opposition to our own not only allows us to further educate ourselves, but allows us to strengthen our own arguments when it comes time to presenting our own opinions.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Burke Article Questions
Respsonse Questions to Burke’s Article Week 5
Burke’s article discusses examples of how we use literature to help us describe aspects of our being-specifically through the use of proverbs. Burke identifies specific categories that these proverbs seem to be grouped into, because “proverbs are strategies for dealing with situations” (Burke 296). After making these statements, Burke spends some time arguing for his use of the word “strategies” and suggests that an alternate word for strategies could be “attitude”.
1. After this, Burke discusses the contradictions found among proverbs that I found to be rather interesting. If proverbs are meant to serve as methods for dealing with a given situation, isn’t it reasonable that such contradictions exist? For example, following a proverb that aims to provide a helpful hint to reach success will result in either a success or a failure. Let’s say that the person did indeed fail after first obeying the helpful proverb. The person might then seek a proverb of consolation that might encourage a second attempt. We, as humans, are not successful in all of our endeavors and therefore seek words of encouragement, consolation, and incentive to match any situation we find ourselves in. It is natural that proverbs are contradictory, then, because we require a number of different attitudes to complement what we humans experience. We are constantly re-working our strategies in order to achieve our goals, which thus create the necessity of a range of proverbs that we may tailor to our emotional needs. What do you think of my interpretation of Burke’s ideas?
2. Toward the end of the article, Burke proposes an alternate sociological classification system. His system would involve “a method of classification with reference to strategies” (Burke 303) and later states: “I think what we need is active categories” (Burke 303). Considering some of my conclusions in question 1, I was wondering what such categories might be like. The article never really comes to a conclusion of what exactly an “active category” might be. I the idea of active categories that encompass a more of the pertinent attitudes within a given situation so as to give a clearer indication of what is specific to each division and what overlaps. My question is: what such a system would look like? Since we are able to infer a lot of information via the existence of a category itself, why would we need to change our perspective in this way? Maybe there is something I misunderstood, but I had a hard time conceptualizing Burke’s suggestions at the end of the article.
3. I thought Burke’s example of Aesop’s Fables and how their messages are relevant to present-day situations just as much as former decades was useful. Mostly I thought that his point was a good way of understanding media as a whole. For example, people read classical literature because the situations still possess many of the things we find entertaining no matter how long ago it was published. People’s thoughts, lives, and emotions fall into similar patterns despite their particular situation. Although we look for new ways to express ourselves, certain aspects of being human nature are adapted to our specific media frame.
Burke’s article discusses examples of how we use literature to help us describe aspects of our being-specifically through the use of proverbs. Burke identifies specific categories that these proverbs seem to be grouped into, because “proverbs are strategies for dealing with situations” (Burke 296). After making these statements, Burke spends some time arguing for his use of the word “strategies” and suggests that an alternate word for strategies could be “attitude”.
1. After this, Burke discusses the contradictions found among proverbs that I found to be rather interesting. If proverbs are meant to serve as methods for dealing with a given situation, isn’t it reasonable that such contradictions exist? For example, following a proverb that aims to provide a helpful hint to reach success will result in either a success or a failure. Let’s say that the person did indeed fail after first obeying the helpful proverb. The person might then seek a proverb of consolation that might encourage a second attempt. We, as humans, are not successful in all of our endeavors and therefore seek words of encouragement, consolation, and incentive to match any situation we find ourselves in. It is natural that proverbs are contradictory, then, because we require a number of different attitudes to complement what we humans experience. We are constantly re-working our strategies in order to achieve our goals, which thus create the necessity of a range of proverbs that we may tailor to our emotional needs. What do you think of my interpretation of Burke’s ideas?
2. Toward the end of the article, Burke proposes an alternate sociological classification system. His system would involve “a method of classification with reference to strategies” (Burke 303) and later states: “I think what we need is active categories” (Burke 303). Considering some of my conclusions in question 1, I was wondering what such categories might be like. The article never really comes to a conclusion of what exactly an “active category” might be. I the idea of active categories that encompass a more of the pertinent attitudes within a given situation so as to give a clearer indication of what is specific to each division and what overlaps. My question is: what such a system would look like? Since we are able to infer a lot of information via the existence of a category itself, why would we need to change our perspective in this way? Maybe there is something I misunderstood, but I had a hard time conceptualizing Burke’s suggestions at the end of the article.
3. I thought Burke’s example of Aesop’s Fables and how their messages are relevant to present-day situations just as much as former decades was useful. Mostly I thought that his point was a good way of understanding media as a whole. For example, people read classical literature because the situations still possess many of the things we find entertaining no matter how long ago it was published. People’s thoughts, lives, and emotions fall into similar patterns despite their particular situation. Although we look for new ways to express ourselves, certain aspects of being human nature are adapted to our specific media frame.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)