Archive
Body Image Vlog
Blog 14
There are many parallels between today’s proposals for government run Internet services and the proposals from the 19th century for a nationwide unground telegraph service. Currently, the various providers are considering handing off the Internet services to the government, ending up in a loss of net neutrality. This would most likely result in a multi-tiered Internet service- those willing to pay more would get faster and better quality service, while those not willing to pay as much would not have as many sites to visit, or as high speed of Internet.
By keeping the Internet company run, people would be provided with the same Internet service, just as the telegraph service might have been and the postal service is today. If the government had supported the telegraph services from the past, it probably would be better for net neutrality. Now, if the government chooses to take the control of Internet services from private companies, the possibility of a monopoly arises. Monopolies are when a single company has control over an entire area of technology. This is not a good idea, because not as many advances will be made and the prices for the product will skyrocket; both of these occur due to lack of competition. The government would also have supreme control over what was available over the Internet, by choosing which sites are can be reached by consumers and which cannot. Yet there are also benefits for government run Internet services. Internet would be paid for through taxes, which would mean that all people get the same Internet (while large companies pay for the better tier of Internet service).
In my personal opinion, the Internet should continue to be privately owned, and offered through a variety of companies, providing the consumers with a choice, inciting technological advances, and keeping the price at a reasonable rate.
Blog 13- ProPublica.org
In my final project, I will be researching ProPublica.org. There are two main different types of research that can be used. Quantitative research is “research that focuses on numbers, measures, and experimentation to describe phenomena”, whereas qualitative research is “research that describes phenomena in words instead of numbers.” When I research ProPublica, I am going to watch their coverage of stories and compare the site to other major news sources, instead of looking up statistics that pertain to ProPublica.
Blog 12 Colbert Report
Colbert Report Blog
The Colbert Report is a very interesting and different form of journalism, one that could be classified as sensationalism. Sensationalism is “news that exaggerates or features lurid details and depictions of events to reach a target audience”. I recently watched the February 15th episode, and watched many interesting takes on various aspects of news.
Colbert discusses the Middle Eastern conflicts in this episode, and takes a very light approach to them- one that could be considered offensive or thought-provoking. The offensiveness is apparent by just watching the show, through jokes about Heidi Mubarak taking Egypt’s government head (it was a picture of Mubarak with blonde braids. Thought-provoking things are also brought up in the show. For example, at one point, Colbert shows reports of Muslims “celebrating their democracy in the streets” and later shows the same clips, only saying that it is “Muslims rioting in the streets.” It plays on a common American perception, because the words that correlate with the video often give the viewers opinions on what is actually occurring. Also, Colbert plays with the American misperceptions of actual politics in the Middle East. He shows clips over and over again with Americans talking about how the Muslim Brotherhood will inevitably take over and constantly questions whether or not the Middle East is ready for democracy. Colbert then proceeded to do research proving that only 1% of the population even voted for the Muslim Brotherhood for a presidential election. In addition, Colbert questions many people’s reasons that Egypt “isn’t ready for democracy” and asks if the Middle East has genetically different codes that make people believe that democracy is not a good choice. It was a funny and interesting look on the perceptions many people have. Fox News on the other hand, is one of the news sources that questions whether or not Egypt is ready for democracy. In an episode of late, Fox had an author about Middle Eastern affairs come in and talk about the effect. Rosenberg, the author, brings up the Muslim Brotherhood and their vow to dominate, but the lack of information that connects with Colbert makes me question who actually knows? Which of the two is known to be a more reliable news source? Obviously, Fox is more reliable because it is actually dedicated to news, whereas the Colbert Report is more about fun and jokes. I feel that the Colbert report definitely is not a legitimate news source compared to others.
Also, Colbert relates to the four theories of international mass communication. The authoritarian theory is the idea that the government censors everything in the media to promote the things they want the public to know. The Colbert Report is essentially the exact opposite of that, because Colbert openly makes fun of the government (something the government probably doesn’t want out there). Next, there is the libertarian theory. This theory is otherwise known as the free press theory, and is the idea that an individual should be able to publish whatever they like. Colbert definitely represents this theory through the constant insults to the governments around the world, who do not stop him. He chooses to publish whatever he feels like that day. The social responsibility theory is another theory brought up by the textbook. This highlights the concept that the media has a definite role in informing citizens about the goings-on around the world and throughout the country. The Colbert Report does provide citizens with information about the world, but one can seriously ask about its validity. It is essentially a joke show, and the main point of a comedic show is not to make sure the listeners are aware of the news but to guarantee that they are laughing. Lastly, there is the soviet theory, which is the concept that the media should serve the working class and be publically owned. This was the idea around during the communist era, so it is all about sharing everything. Obviously, the Colbert Report is privately owned, though it probably could be considered a working class show, because it is all for fun news, something I feel like the people higher up the line probably done care about.
Blog 11 Colbert Report
The Colbert Report is a very interesting and different form of journalism, one that could be classified as sensationalism. Sensationalism is “news that exaggerates or features lurid details and depictions of events to reach a target audience”. I recently watched the February 15th episode, and watched many interesting takes on various aspects of news.
Colbert discusses the Middle Eastern conflicts in this episode, and takes a very light approach to them- one that could be considered offensive or thought-provoking. The offensiveness is apparent by just watching the show, through jokes about Heidi Mubarak taking Egypt’s government head (it was a picture of Mubarak with blonde braids). Thought-provoking things are also brought up in the show. For example, at one point, Colbert shows reports of Muslims “celebrating their democracy in the streets” and later shows the same clips, only saying that it is “Muslims rioting in the streets.” It plays on a common American perception, because the words that correlate with the video often give the viewers opinions on what is actually occurring. Also, Colbert plays with the American misperceptions of actual politics in the Middle East. He shows clips over and over again with Americans talking about how the Muslim Brotherhood will inevitably take over and constantly question whether or not the Middle East is ready for democracy. Colbert then proceeded to do research proving that only 1% of the population even voted for the Muslim Brotherhood for a presidential election. In addition, Colbert questions many people’s reasons that Egypt “isn’t ready for democracy” and asks if the Middle East has genetically different codes that make people believe that democracy is not a good choice. It was a funny and interesting look on the perceptions many people have. Fox News on the other hand, is one of the news sources that questions whether or not Egypt is ready for democracy. In an episode of late, Fox had an author about Middle Eastern affairs come in and talk about the effect. Rosenberg, the author, brings up the Muslim Brotherhood and their vow to dominate, but the lack of information that connects with Colbert makes me question who actually knows? Which of the two is known to be a more reliable news source? Obviously, Fox is more reliable because it is actually dedicated to news, whereas the Colbert Report is more about fun and jokes. I feel that the Colbert report definitely is not a legitimate news source compared to others.
US Patron, With Few Frills, Lifts a Lowly English Soccer Club
In the February8, 2011 New York Times paper, an article on the front page talks about the multi-millionaire, Bob Rich, who decided to sponsor a football team in England in an area he had just become lord of. The team was called the Bedlington Terriers, the players semi-professional, their stadium in Welfare Park.
In this article, the writers attempt to frame Rich as a benevolent man, who willingly gives to a lowly football team. They choose to make the American in a place of superiority, assisting those not as high up. Even the title of the article highlights the frame the author Jere Longman wished to present. It begans with “US Patron”, lending credence to the fact that it was not just any patron assisting the team, but one from the United States. He “lifts a lowly English soccer club.” Obviously, the writer is trying to depict that this certain English sphere could not have existed without this willingly generous American. The article goes on to talk about how kind and good Rich is, using a variety of sources.
The country competition once again comes into play, but it might have even been produced subconsciously in this instance. Longman most likely wished to do a refreshing story after all the coverage of the Egypt protests, and chose to do so by making America look altruistic through its citizens. The NYT made it the article on the front page, when really it just seems like an unremarkable occurance. Though that went into this was probably that after all these problems in Egypt, the US once again shows how great they are, even though they failed to assist Egyptian protesters when they were needed. Members of the Bedlington Terriers are not even mentioned in the article. Longman goes into explicit detail on the remodeling that will become of their stadium, and included Bedlington people responding to Rich. They speak fondly of him and all the changes he will make. Such a frame as this should be easily noticed, but it appears that that is not so. The people of America are once again trying to prove their countries dominance through charity work.
Blog 7- Time Warner Cable
Time Warner Cable, previously known as Warner Cable Communications, is an American national cable television company. It was owned in the beginning by Time Warner, but has now become the property of stockholders. It is the second largest MSO in the cable industry. TWC was formed in 1989 through a Time Inc., American Television and Communications Corp., and Warner Cable merger. In 1995, they launched what is known today as Road Runner High Speed Online.
According to many forums online, such as RateItAll, many people find it to be a dismal company. Whether it is from condescending customer service to slow “high-speed” Internet to constantly fluctuating cable and defunct DVR boxes, people are not pleased with the company. Very few people have good things to say about it; I personally used to have Time Warner Cable at home and it was awful (we changed over to Verizon Fios). The forum My3Cents also has had the same reviews of TWC. People are constantly complaining about the company’s inability to provide reliable customer service. All TWC seems able to do is promptly bill its customers on time. Time Warner Cable has an astronomical amount of customers and a complete lack of care for them. Nearly all of the subscribers plan on getting out of the contract as soon as TWC lets them go without immense fees. As one of the top 10 MSO’s one would expect their service to be quality, yet it is not. It should be recommended that TWC undergo a huge company revitalization, but sadly, as the 2nd MSO (in the top 10) they obviously have enough customers to continue treating badly while still making money.
Blog 4- Media Regulation Rewrite
Blog 4 Rewrite
In light of the attacks on September 11th, I think the US government should be allowed to block publication of material. Many people would disagree with me on this, saying that allowing this would only segue into less free speech. Allowing the government to control what is published on the Internet would, undoubtedly, lessen free speech, but it would also protect national security. Which would you rather protect: free speech or American lives?
This is most currently relevant in the Wikileaks debate that has been going on since the site first began in 2006. Wikileaks was started by Julian Assange, as a site that was untraceable and uncensorable, and attempted to give society the real idea of what was going on and what was being hidden by the government.
Personally, I think Wikileaks is awful and should be taken down immediately, for many different reasons. Firstly, Assange has no right to post American government documents on the Internet that he obtained through treason. Assange is Australian and has no stake in American politics, making him more willing to throw America to the dogs. He posts documents and videos from governments other than his own, because if he betrayed his own country he could be tried for treason- something he cannot be tried for by other governments he betrays. Some may argue that Assange has a right to make these documents public; it is not libel, they are actual government documents. The matter still remains that Assange is making public classified documents and videos, things that were kept from the public for a specific reason, which he overlooks. Secondly, Assange claims that he is trying to give the public the plain blatant truth about the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, for example. Yet Assange edits the videos he uploads, and titles them with her personal beliefs of what occurred. In the video about the Iraqi journalists being killed he titles it “Collateral Murder” and cuts the video down from 40 minutes. The edited and titled video is released loudly and publically, while the raw footage is quietly added to the Internet. Assange is doing exactly what he was attempting to prevent! He shows the public what he wants them to see, while leaving a small trail of truth. His hypocritical moves demonstrate his deeper motives than freedom of speech and governmental truth. He aims to destroy trust in the American government (for reasons currently unknown) and preach his off-kilter beliefs about what is happening in the war.
Blog 5- Android
Blog 5- Wikis
Each wiki presents valid reasons that their product is the best and each has done extensive research on the company, its history, the products functions and models, and gives good advice on the company’s suggested further operations.
Android was the first wiki that I read and I was impressed by the large amount of research that went into it, providing many sources. Besides all the information that the wiki was suggested to include, the writers went further and included pictures, videos, and graphs. Blackberry also did a very good job of presenting their argument, also with eye-catching graphs and pictures. Their recommendations for making the product better were quite good, though BlackBerrys already have automatic updates right to the phone- no computer needed. I have a Blackberry and I love it so I am inclined to think that this wiki wins over Android and iPhone. The iPhone wiki is also extremely informative, and is formatted in a helpful manner. The suggestions for AT&T were good; one of the problems with the iPhone from the beginning has been the inability for other phone companies to use the Apple technology. The concept of having the iPhone include a slide out keyboard is extremely interesting, and would make things easier on the consumer. The touchscreen is great for the extensive number of apps provided, but not good for typing.
The Craigslist wiki was quite interesting and used many sources to provide the vast amount of information. Having never used Craigslist before, it was interesting to hear others perspectives on the site. The ideas for improvement were interesting, though it seems that the company should not work on expanding, but rather work on perfecting the system by preventing ripoffs and danger in meetups (examples include various “Craigslist killers”). The Facebook wiki was very informative and helpful, and especially timely because of the recent DVD release of The Social Network, a movie detailing Mark Zuckerberg’s creation of the site. The suggestions for Facebook were valid critiques, though it is nearly impossible to regulate users creating accounts (you could create fake Twitter accounts as well, you just need to create a dummy email). Facebook has recently been improving its privacy settings, allowing users to show no information other than their names to outsiders, which is very good for protection. One thing that Facebook definitely needs to change is the fact that in its rules and regulations, it states that any photo uploaded to Facebook becomes copyrighted by Facebook. This is wrong- copyright belongs with the owner of the photo, the person who uploaded it, not some third party. Flickr, for example, allows its users to upload photos and the users keep copyright. The change of copyright is hidden in the rules of Facebook, so many people are not aware of this blatant flaw. Lastly, the Myspace wiki was also quite interesting. Again, having never used Myspace, reading about it was quite informative. Myspace is a social network site like Facebook, but it has many more features. Interestingly enough, these features do nothing to keep users as people keep leaving Myspace. Myspace should continue the different layouts available and many other users as people will probably be willing to return when recognizing Facebook does not offer these.
Due to the extensive amount of information provided on the Android and good suggestions, I think the Android will be an extremely interesting presentation.
Blog 4
In light of the attacks on September 11th, I think the US government should be allowed to block publication of material. Many people would disagree with me on this, saying that allowing this would only segue into less free speech. Allowing the government to control what is published on the Internet would, undoubtedly, lessen free speech, but it would also protect national security. Which would you rather protect: free speech or American lives?
Wikileaks is another good example of my point. The release of these government document was extremely dangerous for our nation’s security, and the government has every right to censor and remove them. The documents detail our nation’s response plans, opinions on other countries, and much more. These documents should not be made available to the public, because it severely threatens American lives. If a terrorist organization uses these Wikileaks to attack us, and knows our response plans, then we are not safe. Our nation’s safety should come before the release of sensitive documents. The government has a right to keep certain matters secret; they already keep many terrorist threats that they foil every day secret to prevent national terror. They should be allowed to keep these government documents secrets as well.
Media&Culture 