What news is really about!

Hail Tim Robbins!

I recently read the transcript of Tim Robbins' speech to the National Press Club and I have to say HALLELUJAH! He talks a lot about politics and the war but I think there are some key notes in his speech that should be pointed out. 

Media today is a major power house and most people don't realize the impact and manipulation it has. Robbins notes, "Every day, the air waves are filled with warnings, veiled and unveiled threats, spewed invective and hatred directed at any voice of dissent." He was speaking about how he and Susan Sarandon were scrutinized and black listed for speaking out against the war in Iraq. Anyone that opposes the actions of the government were attacked. After the tragedy of 9/11, the nation should have united! Instead the only thing that the media encouraged was hatred and division of people. 

Another interesting note he made was, "We need leaders, not pragmatists that cower before the spin zones of former entertainment journalists." I've never thought about it before, but looking at it closer, the government is greatly influenced by the media. They know that media holds the power over the people! It's corny, but it kind of reminds me of the days back in high school. The school nerd kisses butt to the popular athlete. Even though he knows he has the brains, it's the popular kid that controls the school and what everyone thinks. You can see the influence of the media in the recent election campaigns. The media pushed for Sen. Hillary Clinton to back out of the race in June. (read about it here) Our government may have some control over the media, but untimely it is the media that will lead their political demise.

I believe that Tim Robbins' speech was a good wake up call for anyone that listened. Hopefully, the media will take note and use their power for the greater good! 

Battle Prejudice With Humor

I recently watched some episodes of the popular Canadian show Little House On The Prairie and was asked if the show would be successful in the US. That is a tough question to predict. The show tackles racism against Muslims and makes humor of it. The show is written from the insiders view. It follows Muslims that are located in a small prairie town in Canada (the equivalent to a small "hick" town out of the US) and makes fun of people's preconceived notions that all Muslims are terrorists. Although many people are sensitive to the subject, I do believe the show will draw a large audience in the US. 

Why? Racism, prejudice, and stereotypes are already a humorous topic in the US. Every stand up comic in the US (and other countries for that matter) has already poked at racism in their routine and earned a lot of success for it. Many movies are known for their satirizing of prejudice and stereotypes like Borat, Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle, Not Another Teen Movie, and Blazing Saddles, just to name a few. Television shows have already earned a big audience by pushing the envelope with racism, like Family Guy, South Park, The Simpsons, and Mad TV. Little Mosque On The Prairie doesn't use comedy in the same context as the other examples. Instead, it makes fun of peoples stupidity in believing stereotypes in a light hearted way. Sure there will be people who speak out against it, there is always someone or some organization that will protest the content of a particular movie, tv show, book, etc. I believe their overreaction to these things creates a mountain out of a molehill. Sure, people need to have sensitivity to certain people and situations, but even more so, they need to have a sense of humor!

Water for Elephants

Our history and many other countries are guilty of placing value on individuals based on their looks, skills, intelligence, or even the family from which they are born. For instance, in India their culture is based on a caste system, which is still evident today regardless of efforts to modernize them. Although it is unspoken of, social classes still exist today in many different environments. No matter how advanced a country, community, or even business may be, there is inevitably a quite social class system. Author Sara Gruen examines social classes in her novel Water for Elephants. The story is about the social classes of a traveling circus in the 1930's, as well as in the present day. The book highlights the cruel treatment of lower classes and the importance of one's worth based on their social class status.

The main character and narrator, ninety-three year old Jacob Jankowski, reminisces about his old days of traveling with The Bencini Brothers Most Spectacular Show On Earth. As a young man Jacob experiences a tragic loss. He decides to run away from it all and he jumps on a train passing by. Unaware its a traveling circus train, Jacob was on a train that will forever change his life. From the moment that Jacob jumps the train the social classes are evident. He begins as a stowaway on the verge of being thrown off the train. He is nothing more than a bum, or "rube", to everyone, the lowest of social classes, not fit to be part of them, but he eventually befriends the right people and reveals his background, which in return moves him up to higher social classes. As he spends more time with the traveling circus, he realizes the many different social classes there are.

The train that Jacob jumped aboard was the Flying Squadron of the Benzini Brothers. This train housed the lowest people of the social classes. Code names were given to the worker of each class to distinguish who they are. Jacob was regarded as a "first of may," meaning he was new and had to earn everyone's respect. His job in the beginning distinguishes his place on the social ladder. He is shoveling animal droppings and filling any small job that has to be done. After he encounters the big boss Uncle Al and August and reveals to them that he is a veterinarian, he becomes part of the working class, also known as "roustabouts." His housing quarters characterized his status among the social classes. Jacob quotes, "There's a clear hierarchy: the closer to the back, the more impressive the quarters. Uncle Al himself climbs from a car right in front of the caboose. I can't help but notice that Kinko and I are the human occupants closest to the engine." The performers, also referred to as "kinkers," and bosses are the top of the social class and are treated as such. Kinko is a unique victim of the social structre. He is classified as a performer and doesn't want anything to do with the lower classes. However, he is a dwarf and is treated as the bottom class of the performers. That is why he is located in the front of the train with Jacob. Eating areas are also designated to people due to their social class. Tables draped with cloth and flowers are assigned to the performer and bosses. Bare tables stacked end to end on the opposite side of the train are set up for the lower class. 

As Jacob slowly moved up the social ladder he was treated with more respect and earned more privileges. He was first forced to sleep in the corner on a moldy old blanket. After he proved himself with the animals the blanket was replaced with a bed roll and blankets. He eventually is befriended by August and is invited to eat with them at the upper class table. This becomes Jacob's assigned seat. One morning he decides to eat with Walter because he wants to avoid Marlena and August. Walter stops him and says, "You can't. Everyone has assigned spots. Besides, you'd be coming down in the world." Walter's reaction to Jacob's decision proves that once someone has established their class, that is where they belong. If they don't accept it or don't act accordingly, they risk being out casted by the group. Some of the other privileges Jacob receives includes going into town to clubs and restaurants, nicer clothes, and liquor.

When Jacob grows old in the present day he is still subject to the mistreatment and stereotypes of social classes. His social status is lowered once again. He is forced to live in a nursing home because his children consider him a burden. The nursing home also treats Jacob poorly, like he is a burden to them as well. His requests are ignored and when does not act accordingly, he is given pills by the doctors so he will behave. Even his food is decided for him. He has no rights or privileges in this class structure of doctors, nurses, and patients.  

It seems that no matter what, people are doomed to be classified in social structures. Every age, gender, nationality, or occupation, in every environment or community, are subject to some sort of class that either grants them benefits or mistreats them. Classifying people is a form of discrimination. Society will never change unless people become more empathetic and welcoming of different people. Knowledge of different cultures, societies, beliefs, and personalities will open doors to a peaceful and fair world. 

So it's ok for media to cry wolf?

We all know too well the story of Timmy crying wolf. Making up stories for attention, seeing what havoc he can stir up. There's supposed to be a moral to the story right? Well, not everyone has picked up on that. The news media seems to think that it's still alright today. William Randolph Hearst was scrutinized many years ago for coining "yellow journalism." We are supposed to be beyond that now days. We have a moral and ethic code to follow for all journalist, right? One thing that keep reappearing in the media is that association of scarves with terrorism. This is driving me crazy! Since when has Rachel Ray been a terrorist? A Dunkin Donuts campaign showed her wearing a silk scarf around her neck and it has now lead to a media frenzy questioning and suspecting her of supporting terrorism. Now apparently it's not OK to wear scarves for fashion or religious beliefs because YOU SUPPORT TERRORISM. I read an article recently about how two muslim women that were Obama supporters were asked to not sit directly behind him in front of the cameras because of their headscarves. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi also falls victim because she work a floral scarf on her head while visiting Syria. I think many people agree that this has gotten out of hand. It is ridiculous to stereotype and the media is having a field day with it. They are falsely associating people with terrorism for what, rating and profit! It's almost amazing how they are able to pull stuff out of thin air. We all know what happens in the end to Timmy that cried wolf. Hopefully the news media and journalist that report this crap will succumb to the same fate. 

Battle of Gender Mags

The Mail On Sunday - Battle
by tvspot

I found this commercial about gender magazines and finding a compromise. I thought it was funny! 

Should any book be banned?

 We were asked to write about if we think a book should be banned under any circumstance. I say NO!! Several reasons come to mind as why they shouldn't be banned. First, of course, is Freedom of Speech. We have built this country on a foundation that allows us to say whatever we want, good or bad. We have fought many battles over the first amendment to protect our RIGHT! Banning a particular book would be going against what we have fought so hard for, whether we like the book or not. Besides, we can not escape the hardships and cruelty of the world by banning a single book in a classroom. 

The American Library Association describes why books are banned, in order "to protect others, frequently children, from difficult ideas and information." Banning a book because it has a swear word doesn't stop their children from learning it from television, movies, music, or even down the street by someone who just stubbed their toe! Racism is something we have to acknowledge in order to prevent it. A book that depicts racism doesn't stop a child from, again, learning it from somewhere else. I would much rather a child learn about racism from a book in a controlled environment, and see how it's wrong with a teacher or parent explaining why, then out on the streets and seeing that sometimes it's OK. Today's media isn't concerned with censorship or setting a good example for young children. It is ultimately up to the parent to teach their child right from wrong. They need to take an active roll in their children's lives and explain to them how the world works and to take things "with a grain of salt." As much as they fight it, they cannot protect their children from everyday issues. 

No matter what you may do, this world is going to be filled with crude language, racism, pornography, and inappropriate behavior. Banning a book will not stop the rest of the world from contaminating a child. It is better to read about it in a book and see the error in their ways. The best defense is knowledge, this is why we need literate children.

Which is better Print or Web media?

Besides television, there are two other ways of getting information today, through print or the Internet. Which is better? Many will argue that web is better. Why? Because we can get it faster. Sure, it's a time saver to turn on the computer and have anything you need just a click away. We demand faster Internet providers and user friendly services to make it easier for our use. I've even caught myself rolling my eyes and exhaling a big puff of air because the computer was taking 2 seconds longer than I wanted to wait. Then I realized that the web has created an impatient audience. It's such a fast pace world, people simply do not have time to sit and wait for information to catch up to them. Many articles on the web are shorter than in print media. With shorter articles, the reader is less likely to get all the information behind the story and form a reasonable understanding of it. A guilty pleasure of mine is People magazine. I have a link to their website on my iGoogle page. It is always filled with short stories, about 200 words long, but doesn't give great details. I also read the magazine. A week later, when the new edition is released, I read the same news but with a more detail to paint a better picture. 

Print and web media offer two very different experiences. I do believe print media is better for numerous reasons. I find it a lot easier to read a paper or book than stare at a screen for a long period of time and strain my eyes. I have walked away from a computer many times with awful headaches. I don't understand how people that work on computers all day decide to go home and immediately turn one on there as well. What happened to the "good ol' days" of curling up with a good book or siting down and reading the news paper. Print media is geared towards people who have time to stop and smell the roses, so to speak. I see reading print as enjoyable. I believe print media offers so much more than web media. Because everything on the web is at a fast pace, it lacks the real connection with the audience. Holding a paper in the hands is much more engaging than clicking and scrolling back and forth. Wouldn't you rather hold a flower than click a picture of it? or hold a loved one instead of read about them in an email? Having something physical in your hands is more gratifying. So I say, put away the computers and pick up a paper, magazine, tabloid, pamphlet, book, ANYTHING and have a rewarding experience. 

HISTORY... HISTORY... HISTORY

History does always seem to repeat itself, doesn't it?

I mention this because I recently saw the movie Good Night and Good Luck and I was asked why was this movie made recently. The movie depicts the story of Ed Murrow and his controversial report on the doings of the Air force and Sen. Joseph McCarthy. McCarthy is known for his Communist witch hunt during the 1950's. The air force is involved because they were dismissing a private because his father was supposedly a communist supporter. Murrow was credited in the movie for bringing down the Senator by exposing his corruption of power. In actuality, the Senator was already in a downward spiral when Murrow did his report, as reported by Jack Shafer. The movie does leave out and exaggerate some details for dramatic effect and to better capture the directors point of view, but all the same, it proves a point that can be related to today.

So, why now? I believe it's pretty obvious at the fact that they are tying to show the connection between then and now. Back then the nation was in a panic because of the "Red Scare." They were in a hunt for anyone who they suspected to be a communist. Sound familiar? Just replace the word communist with terrorist and the rest of the details fall into place. They have used the movie as a media to make the bold statement of saying, "we are repeating ourselves!" They are trying to remind us of the mistakes we made back then, with both the government and media responsibility. I believe the movie is also trying to encourage people to seek out the truth and remind the journalist of the impact they have on audiences. It is there responsibility and oath to report news without bias or propaganda. Those of us that are media literate know that that is almost impossible and we know to form our own opinions. Those who are not media literate are easily persuaded with false information. This will cause problems much like it did back then, a mass panic without factual evidence. 

Millennials

I was asked if I consider myself a Millennial. I had never heard the term before and had no idea what it meant. After researching it I discovered that I could be categorized in some examples of the generation, but not all. I have found that I have similar views, however, the way I reached these views is entirely different then the way others may have. I have found that not only are Millennials “tech savvy,” they strive to succeed. Our parents and past generations have worked so hard to achieve mediocrity, today we see that kind of life as unsatisfying. We are encouraged to make a better life for ourselves, and we should. We have watched our parents work themselves to the bone for someone else and receive no appreciation or benefits. They have their professional attitude and demeanor at work, but we hear their real feelings about their job at home. I do believe we should have a happy and better life, because of that I am a Millennial.
I don’t agree with the way people think Millennials achieved these ideals. 60 Minutes reported that we are a generation of narcissists that think we deserve the best and it should just be given to us. They credited Mr. Rogers as one of the reasons why we have these outrageous standards. He continued to tell us everyday that we were special. Our parents jumped on board and fawned over us, encouraging we are the best. I was not raised with that kind of encouragement. I didn’t play sports that awarded me a trophy for participation. I cannot say for sure how I ended up with the same expectations and goals—most likely because I saw how unhappy my parents were with their jobs, not by being encouraged to do better. For this reason, I am not a Millennial.
60 Minutes also describes Millennials as selfish brats that are all about ME, ME, ME. The work place must adjust to us and not the other way around. We were spoiled growing up so things should be our way or else I’ll find someone else that will adore me the way I deserve to be. If these are the views of Millenials, then I am not one. I’m not afraid to get “down and dirty” for a job. I realize that I may have to do things I don’t want to do and I know the consequences if I don’t.
Knowledge.Emory.edu has an article that explains Millennials in a different way. It says Millennials have a need to give back. They have high rates of volunteering by their own choice, not because they have to for school projects. The article states that we do this because we were always told we were special so in return, “[we] care about making a meaningful contribution in their workplace.” It doesn’t only apply to the workplace. We have shown concerns with the environment and politics. I may not fall under the criteria of volunteering, I have only volunteered because I had no other choice, but I do agree with the view that Millennials want to do better, not just for themselves, but for everyone. For that reason, I do declare myself a Millennial.

Reality TV

Reality TV is a genre of television that seems to be taking over the airways and peoples minds. Every season there is some new reality show that is described as “the must see of the season.” The MTV Channel seems so focus exclusively on this genre. This was the network to launch the idea of Reality TV. As far back as I can remember they were airing The Real World and Road Rules. Two shows where they placed dramatic and horny twenty-year-olds in the same house or RV and let them at it. Nowadays, their shows consist of My Super Sweet Sixteen, The Hills, Laguna Beach, Shot of Love with Tila Tequila, Rock of Love with Bret Michaels, and Flavor of Love with Flava Flav, just to name a few. They continue to push the boundaries of the genre now that other networks have followed their lead. The New York Times has an article that talks about many different types of the reality shows on television. All of these show epitomize what is wrong with Reality TV. I researched what Millennials were earlier. They are one of the largest generations with 80 million people between the ages of 28 and 13. These shows target this generation and it does have an influence on them.
Although there is no actual proof or studies of the effects of Reality TV on young viewers, reality shows are nothing but “reality”. They completely distort what the ideas and morals of real life should be. There are a lot of people our there that are not media literate. They do not realize what is seen on TV should be taken with a grain of salt. For example, WWF wrestling is not Reality TV, but many young adults are greatly influenced by what they are watching. (Watch Youtube video) This video shows what kinds of things people are willing to do for entertainment. They take it too far and cause serious injury. If people are willing to throw out rationality when it comes to physical pain because of what they see on TV (even though their conscious tells them it’s wrong), what’s stopping them from throwing out their morals and ethics as well. Wouldn’t that be easier? And less painful? Why not take advantage of people and stab them in the back like they do in The Hills and Laguna Beach? That’s what it takes to be popular, right? Why not be as promiscuous as possible like they do in Flavor of Love, Shot of Love, and Rock of Love? That’s what I should do to find love, isn’t it?
One can conclude that these shows will have an influence on young generations. It is visible without scientific studies of the effects of Reality TV on viewers. Watch the video again and try and explain how WWF wrestling was NOT an influence. The same will soon be said for the rest of the “reality” TV.