Archive

Posts Tagged ‘kaitlynnebirkett’

Body Image Vlog

November 30, 2011 25 comments
Advertisements

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

February 22, 2011 1 comment

               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. 

Read more…

Blog 12 Colbert Report

February 17, 2011 1 comment

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.

Categories: #12 Tags: ,

Blog 11 Colbert Report

February 17, 2011 Leave a comment

                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.

Categories: #11 Tags: ,

US Patron, With Few Frills, Lifts a Lowly English Soccer Club

February 10, 2011 Leave a comment

                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.

Categories: #9 Tags: ,

Blog 7- Time Warner Cable

February 1, 2011 1 comment

                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.

Categories: #7 Tags: