This was an essay written by Farnaz Fassihi, and he talked about what good journalism was like, as he was taught in school. He briefly compared the differences of the American press with journalism outside of America. He writes, "The American press, on the contrary, prides itself on reportage that is independent, free, objective, balanced, fearless, and truthful" (166).
Upon reading the essay, one would already be able to conclude that Fassihi takes his job seriously. He was very reflective in the way he questioned where he stands as a journalist, whether his citizenship or his job come first. What I found the most interesting was when he writes, "We find the right words to depict the horrors of war in spite of the military minders and government officials who try to muzzle us and feed us their perspective" (168). There they are, trying to do their jobs, yet the military tries to censor them. Is it not part of their job description to give their audiences raw, unbiased news? At the war fronts, are they not supposed to be our eyes and ears? I understand that military censorship - or censorship by itself, for that matter - isn't new in any media. But trying to omit important information such as the status of the war in which family members may be playing an active role in is not immoral. Those soldiers are dying at war, and yet their superiors don't want the people back home to know what they're going through? What the hell kind of world is this? With the taxes I'm paying they wouldn't even tell me the truth about what the hell is really going on out there?
Going back to the top... I'm sure the American press could be objective, fearless, and truthful, but having the military tell them what to write on paper, or otherwise be accused of treason, doesn't really make them seem like they're all that objective, fearless, and truthful. I wouldn't wanna be jailed for being honest. Then again, it defeats the purpose of giving clean, untainted news. Ugh, such hard decisions journalists face.
Anyway, I read the essay and I thought to myself, "Time to take over the world." Yup, I'm gonna create myself a utopian nudist community where everyone will live in peace and harmony without censorship. :D
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Monday, November 23, 2009
Bad Knowledge
The essay is written by Alice O'Connor and she talks about these think tanks feeding us "bad" knowledge. The research that the "idea mills" were churning out are pretty much skewed and are designed to support whatever company is sponsoring them. "They are also highly misleading and in some cases demonstrably false" (100). She then gives examples that contribute to bad knowledge and categorizes them as: 1) hidden premises, 2) misleading "indicators", 3) methodological creep, 4) pretentious diction, and 5) historical vacuums. She also forwards and adds to Orwell's rules that will ultimately promote political knowledge.
At first, I didn't like the essay. I was trying to read it and I didn't understand it. Also maybe because there was a lot of distractions in this damn house. Irrelevant.
After reading the essay, I thought to myself, "Wowzaaa! I never thought of it like that!" I mean, I had an idea that the materials that we get to peruse and the information that we take in are manipulated one way or another, but O'Connor was able to write it in a 12 page essay!
In her essay, it seemed like she was against the right-wing way of thinking. She just seemed to bash a lot of the traditional things that the conservative people are trying to preserve, even though they're totally outdated.
At first, I didn't like the essay. I was trying to read it and I didn't understand it. Also maybe because there was a lot of distractions in this damn house. Irrelevant.
After reading the essay, I thought to myself, "Wowzaaa! I never thought of it like that!" I mean, I had an idea that the materials that we get to peruse and the information that we take in are manipulated one way or another, but O'Connor was able to write it in a 12 page essay!
In her essay, it seemed like she was against the right-wing way of thinking. She just seemed to bash a lot of the traditional things that the conservative people are trying to preserve, even though they're totally outdated.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Infotainment Freak Show
AHAAAAA. That's a combination of Information and Entertainment. I've got a knack for the obvious, obviously.
Martin Kaplan, you're a genius. I thought it was super interesting. It's about "entertainment [substituting] juxtaposition for order, storytelling for truth telling, graphics for text, sensation for reason, spectacle for seriousness, combat for discourse, play for purpose, sizzle for steak" (137). He pretty much states that it's not Big Brother who rules us, but entertainment. He then goes on that it's very important that every domain of human existence grab and hold the attention of its audiences. In politics and in news, it's pretty much just a popularity contest. He talks about how everything has to have some sort of entertainment aspect, otherwise we won't get sucked in.
After I read this, I was like, "WHOAAAA, you are so right! How could I have been so ignorant all this time?" So yeah, he was pretty much right about entertainment substituting almost everything. If you suck at parenting, turn on the TV, buy a game console, and voila! You've got a substitute mother (or father. I wouldn't want to generalize now). Kaplan says that "objective knowledge is a mirage" (139) which just means that there really is no such thing as objectivity anymore, because according to him, all reality is socially constructed, and that everything, including truth, is politics. We're all pretty much screwed then. I wonder how long it took him to realize everything that he's written? He just might be my new savior.
Everything that's being done nowadays are pretty much for entertainment. In class, we talked about how the media decided to put so much airtime for balloon boy, instead of something really newsworthy. That family didn't need any more additional 15 minutes of fame. They were in freaking Wife Swap. OOOOOH, the lenghts people would go through just to get some airtime. Seriously, go pull a William Hung and audition for American Idol. That would be much more entertaining.
OH NO!
I said a baaad word. I am falling into the media's trap!
UGH, I go to church at 12:30 today. Damn. Yay for family not giving you room for choice.
Martin Kaplan, you're a genius. I thought it was super interesting. It's about "entertainment [substituting] juxtaposition for order, storytelling for truth telling, graphics for text, sensation for reason, spectacle for seriousness, combat for discourse, play for purpose, sizzle for steak" (137). He pretty much states that it's not Big Brother who rules us, but entertainment. He then goes on that it's very important that every domain of human existence grab and hold the attention of its audiences. In politics and in news, it's pretty much just a popularity contest. He talks about how everything has to have some sort of entertainment aspect, otherwise we won't get sucked in.
After I read this, I was like, "WHOAAAA, you are so right! How could I have been so ignorant all this time?" So yeah, he was pretty much right about entertainment substituting almost everything. If you suck at parenting, turn on the TV, buy a game console, and voila! You've got a substitute mother (or father. I wouldn't want to generalize now). Kaplan says that "objective knowledge is a mirage" (139) which just means that there really is no such thing as objectivity anymore, because according to him, all reality is socially constructed, and that everything, including truth, is politics. We're all pretty much screwed then. I wonder how long it took him to realize everything that he's written? He just might be my new savior.
Everything that's being done nowadays are pretty much for entertainment. In class, we talked about how the media decided to put so much airtime for balloon boy, instead of something really newsworthy. That family didn't need any more additional 15 minutes of fame. They were in freaking Wife Swap. OOOOOH, the lenghts people would go through just to get some airtime. Seriously, go pull a William Hung and audition for American Idol. That would be much more entertaining.
OH NO!
I said a baaad word. I am falling into the media's trap!
UGH, I go to church at 12:30 today. Damn. Yay for family not giving you room for choice.
Monday, November 9, 2009
George Orwell
So my good friend George Orwell wrote an essay that show how the English language plays a big role on politics. He claims that "language is a natural growth and not an instrument which we shape for our own purposes" (205). He says that English is full of "bad habits"(206) and getting rid of these bad habits is the way to go so that we can all think clearly. And according to him, thinking clearly is the right path to political regeneration. He then gives four examples of what he calls "tricks" that prose-construction habitually dodges. The examples are: 1. dying metaphors, 2. operators of verbal false limbs, 3. pretentious diction, 4. meaningless words.
I thought the essay was pretty interesting. As I was actually writing this, I'm thinking about the six rules that he outlined so that I wouldn't continue to contribute to the bad habits of the English language. His opinions were strong, and it makes sense. Politics isn't necessarily my subject of interest, but in the 19 years that I've been alive, I've experienced several types of government from two different countries. Needless to say, Orwell was correct in that politicians manipulate the language in order to sway their constituents' thinking, which I think is quite clever. Why not take advantage of the fact that you can use your speech for your own advancement? Then again, if other people were to manipulate me with their speech, I'd be outraged. So I guess it's not really fair for me to have the power of manipulation, and someone else not.
I'm thirsty. I think politics dehydrates me. Or it could be the weather. It's 79 degrees right now.
The four "tricks" that he mentioned were pretty spot-on. Who the hell would be able to relate to a metaphor if it was a metaphor from, like, the 1800's? I mean, maybe it makes sense... but as Orwell said, some people don't even know the correct meaning of the metaphors that are being thrown about anymore. If people are able to mold and shape language to their personal advantage, can't they also think up of new metaphors that would actually be compelling to people? For his "operators of verbal false limbs"... I like long phrases, :(. I use it all the time. It makes my writing sound smart, but I suppose Orwell is correct in using his analogy of waxing a car that doesn't have a working engine. What the hell are long, smart-sounding phrases going to do for you if it's just full of shit? Then again... that's a tough call: sentences sounding wonderful and yet full of crap, or sentences that are short and succinct and NOT full of crap? Hm.. thinking thinking thinking. Anyway, moving on to pretentious diction: yeaaaaah, I know of some people who do that, trying to act smart, or sound smart rather, and use biiiig words quite excessively. We get it, you're smart. You don't have to continually try to prove it, because then it just makes it seem like you're compensating for something. Like a short guy with a huge truck. Yeah. Like that. Finally, meaningless words. Pretty much, those words are not interpreted using one solid definition. The people don't care to know the exact definitions of words, nor do they want to acknowledge the exact definition so that they can use it to their own liking. A discussion we had in class was regarding the word "democracy". That word is continually used by both sides of the political system, using their own definition of it. If the word was given an exact definition, it would not be applicable to the motives in which it is being used for. The word won't be able to be manipulated according to people's personal preferences.
So that's it for my rant. I'm not thirsty anymore. I got a drink of water. :D
I thought the essay was pretty interesting. As I was actually writing this, I'm thinking about the six rules that he outlined so that I wouldn't continue to contribute to the bad habits of the English language. His opinions were strong, and it makes sense. Politics isn't necessarily my subject of interest, but in the 19 years that I've been alive, I've experienced several types of government from two different countries. Needless to say, Orwell was correct in that politicians manipulate the language in order to sway their constituents' thinking, which I think is quite clever. Why not take advantage of the fact that you can use your speech for your own advancement? Then again, if other people were to manipulate me with their speech, I'd be outraged. So I guess it's not really fair for me to have the power of manipulation, and someone else not.
I'm thirsty. I think politics dehydrates me. Or it could be the weather. It's 79 degrees right now.
The four "tricks" that he mentioned were pretty spot-on. Who the hell would be able to relate to a metaphor if it was a metaphor from, like, the 1800's? I mean, maybe it makes sense... but as Orwell said, some people don't even know the correct meaning of the metaphors that are being thrown about anymore. If people are able to mold and shape language to their personal advantage, can't they also think up of new metaphors that would actually be compelling to people? For his "operators of verbal false limbs"... I like long phrases, :(. I use it all the time. It makes my writing sound smart, but I suppose Orwell is correct in using his analogy of waxing a car that doesn't have a working engine. What the hell are long, smart-sounding phrases going to do for you if it's just full of shit? Then again... that's a tough call: sentences sounding wonderful and yet full of crap, or sentences that are short and succinct and NOT full of crap? Hm.. thinking thinking thinking. Anyway, moving on to pretentious diction: yeaaaaah, I know of some people who do that, trying to act smart, or sound smart rather, and use biiiig words quite excessively. We get it, you're smart. You don't have to continually try to prove it, because then it just makes it seem like you're compensating for something. Like a short guy with a huge truck. Yeah. Like that. Finally, meaningless words. Pretty much, those words are not interpreted using one solid definition. The people don't care to know the exact definitions of words, nor do they want to acknowledge the exact definition so that they can use it to their own liking. A discussion we had in class was regarding the word "democracy". That word is continually used by both sides of the political system, using their own definition of it. If the word was given an exact definition, it would not be applicable to the motives in which it is being used for. The word won't be able to be manipulated according to people's personal preferences.
So that's it for my rant. I'm not thirsty anymore. I got a drink of water. :D
Sunday, October 25, 2009
English Blog Number Quatro(?): Swine flu = National emergency?!
The article is from the Los Angeles Times Website: http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-na-national-flu-emergency25-2009oct25,0,7907031.story , written by Janet Hook on October 25, 2009.
Apparently, our dearest president Barrack Obama declared the H1N1 Virus a national emergency. By doing so, he gave the Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius temporary authority to grant waivers that will expedite the steps needed in order to set up off-site emergency rooms to treat the flu "victims" separate from other patients. It's supposedly a preemptive measure "to ensure that the tools for a quick response were in place".
So this H1N1 virus has gotten quite a notoriety because it is now considered to be a pandemic. Ooooh. A pandemic. How fancy sounding. Anyway, it's the influenza virus -- just a different strain, so what's all the fuss about? According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, approximately 36,000 people in the United States die each year due to flu complications. There's only been 1,000 deaths since the start of the "pandemic" -- which was April of this year. That's 6 months. If it follows the trend, another 1,000 people will die additionally in the next 6 months. Whoooaaaa, 2,000 deaths in one year from the H1N1 virus, compared to the seasonal flu. That's huge. I suppose the people from the White House who referred to the H1N1 virus as a pandemic were right. The H1N1 virus is like the black plague of the 21st century. It's gonna kill off all the Americans. How scary.
I think the article, though informative, is scaring people into thinking that this is gonna kill off the entire population of the great United States of America. What's up with the usage of the word "victims" when referring to the flu? Is it some sort of serial killer out to kill the types of people that would make them notorious? A pandemic? No. AIDS and HIV are pandemics. And what's with the whole situation that I'm hearing about mandating the vaccination of H1N1? I understand that people are trying to stay alive, but mandating the vaccination of H1N1 is a bit of a stretch, I think. Also, at the end of the article, with the national emergency declaration, some hospitals are making off-site tents to isolate the infected patients. What is this? Leprosy? Does the declaration of the H1N1 virus as a national emergency and pandemic create some sort of social stigma? I haven't heard of any off-site tents for the "victims" of HIV and AIDS. Are they being isolated as well? Are the articles covering the "swine flu pandemic" some sort of propaganda scaring people shitless with this whole thing? I just think people should just say it exactly how it is, without all the medical jargon that all sound so serioius. That way, people don't go nuts, increasing the amount of hypocondriacs with have in this world.
Apparently, our dearest president Barrack Obama declared the H1N1 Virus a national emergency. By doing so, he gave the Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius temporary authority to grant waivers that will expedite the steps needed in order to set up off-site emergency rooms to treat the flu "victims" separate from other patients. It's supposedly a preemptive measure "to ensure that the tools for a quick response were in place".
So this H1N1 virus has gotten quite a notoriety because it is now considered to be a pandemic. Ooooh. A pandemic. How fancy sounding. Anyway, it's the influenza virus -- just a different strain, so what's all the fuss about? According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, approximately 36,000 people in the United States die each year due to flu complications. There's only been 1,000 deaths since the start of the "pandemic" -- which was April of this year. That's 6 months. If it follows the trend, another 1,000 people will die additionally in the next 6 months. Whoooaaaa, 2,000 deaths in one year from the H1N1 virus, compared to the seasonal flu. That's huge. I suppose the people from the White House who referred to the H1N1 virus as a pandemic were right. The H1N1 virus is like the black plague of the 21st century. It's gonna kill off all the Americans. How scary.
I think the article, though informative, is scaring people into thinking that this is gonna kill off the entire population of the great United States of America. What's up with the usage of the word "victims" when referring to the flu? Is it some sort of serial killer out to kill the types of people that would make them notorious? A pandemic? No. AIDS and HIV are pandemics. And what's with the whole situation that I'm hearing about mandating the vaccination of H1N1? I understand that people are trying to stay alive, but mandating the vaccination of H1N1 is a bit of a stretch, I think. Also, at the end of the article, with the national emergency declaration, some hospitals are making off-site tents to isolate the infected patients. What is this? Leprosy? Does the declaration of the H1N1 virus as a national emergency and pandemic create some sort of social stigma? I haven't heard of any off-site tents for the "victims" of HIV and AIDS. Are they being isolated as well? Are the articles covering the "swine flu pandemic" some sort of propaganda scaring people shitless with this whole thing? I just think people should just say it exactly how it is, without all the medical jargon that all sound so serioius. That way, people don't go nuts, increasing the amount of hypocondriacs with have in this world.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
English Blog Numero Three: Civil Rights Curriculum
This was taken from the ABC News website: (http://abcnews.go.com/US/mississippi-schools-introduce-civil-rights-curriculum/Story?id=8793332&page=1), written by Carmen K. Sisson on October 11, 2009.
The story is about the US State of Mississippi mandating Civil Rights to be part of the US History curriculum. It is said to be a groundbreaking reform -- believed to be the first one in the country. It will be taught and tested all throughout the Mississippi public school system. Proponents such as state curriculum specialist Chauncey Spears wonders how we can have such a strong educational program with high-achieving students who have little understanding of history. Black civil rights organizer Jacquelyn Martin believes that healing does not begin until the problem is talked about. The story also covers some opponents of the new bill, saying that the wound is still fresh, and it does not need to be talked about.
I believe this story is worthy of attention because it is in fact true that many students in this country do not know much about their nation's history, let alone the number of presidents this country already has had, and the names of prominent leaders who run this country. I found the news with little bias, since Sisson covered both views on this new law. However, even though both sides of the situation were outlined, I found that very little was said about the opponents of the bill. Regardless, I found this story interesting, and I think it should really be part of US History curriculum. Not just in Mississippi, but nationwide. It sounds interesting to learn the struggle that Americans went through to shape this country that I now call home. And I do agree with one of the proponents saying that healing does not begin until we start talking about it. The story of ordinary groups of people going through extraordinary lengths to acquire the freedom that they have been promised after the Emancipation Proclamation is extremely moving. The injustice and inequality that happened throughout those years should be something that students nationwide should be familiarized with, because I believe that through this, they will know the origins of all the prejudice and hatred that are plaguing the society. That way, educating everyone about that particular issue would eradicate most ignorance that some people hold to this day about race matters.
Also, maybe, just maybe, people would be a little more careful in their assumption that all the Asians they meet are Chinese. HAAAAH. Completely irrelevant.
Fin. :D
The story is about the US State of Mississippi mandating Civil Rights to be part of the US History curriculum. It is said to be a groundbreaking reform -- believed to be the first one in the country. It will be taught and tested all throughout the Mississippi public school system. Proponents such as state curriculum specialist Chauncey Spears wonders how we can have such a strong educational program with high-achieving students who have little understanding of history. Black civil rights organizer Jacquelyn Martin believes that healing does not begin until the problem is talked about. The story also covers some opponents of the new bill, saying that the wound is still fresh, and it does not need to be talked about.
I believe this story is worthy of attention because it is in fact true that many students in this country do not know much about their nation's history, let alone the number of presidents this country already has had, and the names of prominent leaders who run this country. I found the news with little bias, since Sisson covered both views on this new law. However, even though both sides of the situation were outlined, I found that very little was said about the opponents of the bill. Regardless, I found this story interesting, and I think it should really be part of US History curriculum. Not just in Mississippi, but nationwide. It sounds interesting to learn the struggle that Americans went through to shape this country that I now call home. And I do agree with one of the proponents saying that healing does not begin until we start talking about it. The story of ordinary groups of people going through extraordinary lengths to acquire the freedom that they have been promised after the Emancipation Proclamation is extremely moving. The injustice and inequality that happened throughout those years should be something that students nationwide should be familiarized with, because I believe that through this, they will know the origins of all the prejudice and hatred that are plaguing the society. That way, educating everyone about that particular issue would eradicate most ignorance that some people hold to this day about race matters.
Also, maybe, just maybe, people would be a little more careful in their assumption that all the Asians they meet are Chinese. HAAAAH. Completely irrelevant.
Fin. :D
Sunday, October 4, 2009
English Blog Numero Dos: Soda Tax
The article is from the LA Times website, written by Jerry Hirsch on October 3, 2009. The website is .
The story states that The Center for Science in the Public Interest is lobbying to add an excise tax to sugared drinks because they conducted a study in which they found that states -- including California -- whose budgets are strapped can generate up to $10 billion a year by adding a 7 cent tax per 12 ounce can of soda or any other beverage. They also believe that raising the prices would reduce consumption, and as a result reduce obesity (considering that many studies were conducted proving the correlation of sugared drinks and the disease) and skyrocketing medical costs. However, people who disagree with the tax see the tax as a sort of intrusion on people's personal choice, believing that the tax would come off as controlling people's dietary choices.
I find the article free of any biases. It's not a very controversial topic, and even though the matter has sides, the journalist did not disclose his opinion on the news. Politics aren't really my thing, nor is lobbying for taxes, but it does make sense to put a tax on sodas. If it helps raise money which will help the budget deficit, then yeah, that's fine. It's not as though soda is a super major thing like adding a tax on the very precious polluted air we breathe. I suppose it's also somewhat of the same concept as the tax placed on cigarettes and alcohol. Plus, if it reduces consumption, it can definitely help with the ever increasing health problems that are pestering Americans. It's funny how the cheapest things could cause the most debilitating problems in a person's life. Like sex. Sex is cheap, and it causes such a pain in the ass when done wrongly or stupidly. However, there are instances when sex is definitely NOT cheap... but I digress.
So my point being: I guess I wouldn't mind the tax being imposed; I'm not a big soda drinker anyway. I prefer water. :D. Do they have a tax on that one too?
The story states that The Center for Science in the Public Interest is lobbying to add an excise tax to sugared drinks because they conducted a study in which they found that states -- including California -- whose budgets are strapped can generate up to $10 billion a year by adding a 7 cent tax per 12 ounce can of soda or any other beverage. They also believe that raising the prices would reduce consumption, and as a result reduce obesity (considering that many studies were conducted proving the correlation of sugared drinks and the disease) and skyrocketing medical costs. However, people who disagree with the tax see the tax as a sort of intrusion on people's personal choice, believing that the tax would come off as controlling people's dietary choices.
I find the article free of any biases. It's not a very controversial topic, and even though the matter has sides, the journalist did not disclose his opinion on the news. Politics aren't really my thing, nor is lobbying for taxes, but it does make sense to put a tax on sodas. If it helps raise money which will help the budget deficit, then yeah, that's fine. It's not as though soda is a super major thing like adding a tax on the very precious polluted air we breathe. I suppose it's also somewhat of the same concept as the tax placed on cigarettes and alcohol. Plus, if it reduces consumption, it can definitely help with the ever increasing health problems that are pestering Americans. It's funny how the cheapest things could cause the most debilitating problems in a person's life. Like sex. Sex is cheap, and it causes such a pain in the ass when done wrongly or stupidly. However, there are instances when sex is definitely NOT cheap... but I digress.
So my point being: I guess I wouldn't mind the tax being imposed; I'm not a big soda drinker anyway. I prefer water. :D. Do they have a tax on that one too?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)