Thursday, April 7, 2011
Olivias group
one must be inventor to read well” · Instead of absorbing what’s on the sheet, come up with your own ideas · Doing what u feel is right · Looking at it in a diff. point of view · Not to be a mouther of words · Reading takes more than one skill · Creativity · Originality · Dig deeper to create more connections, being aware!
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Non Stop News
“Everything is rushed. Annita Dunn says, When journalists call you to discuss a story, it’s not because they’re interested in having a discussion. They’re interested in a response. And the need to file five times a day encourages this. Instead of seeking context or disputing a claim, reporters often simply get two opposing quotes and file a “He said story”. David Axelrod, who for years was a reporter for the Chicago tribune, says, there are some really good journalists there, really superb ones. But the volume of materiel they have to produce just doesn’t leave a whole lot of time for reflection”
“Obama’s campaign also had a superior grasp of new media. By October of 2008, its Internet arm had compiled an e-mail list of thirteen million supporters about twenty percent of the total number of votes we would need to win.”
This passage is significant because it emphasizes the professional way journalists deal with their tasks as reporters. As it says, they don’t seek context or dispute claims, they simply get two opposing quotes and file a “He said story”. I find this way of reporting to be much more subjective and honest. Also Obama’s campaign knowledge about new media definitely enhances his chances of getting more and more support
“Obama’s campaign also had a superior grasp of new media. By October of 2008, its Internet arm had compiled an e-mail list of thirteen million supporters about twenty percent of the total number of votes we would need to win.”
This passage is significant because it emphasizes the professional way journalists deal with their tasks as reporters. As it says, they don’t seek context or dispute claims, they simply get two opposing quotes and file a “He said story”. I find this way of reporting to be much more subjective and honest. Also Obama’s campaign knowledge about new media definitely enhances his chances of getting more and more support
1. Passage: “…Phillips says. “Our policy people are going on the Web and they are asked very difficult questions by the public. It’s unclear to me whether the press is actually covering that.” What the press is paying attention to, Anita Dunn says, is cable and blog attacks on the Obama Administration…She marvels at an often overlooked impact of the internet: “The effect on people who cover the White House is extraordinary. The ability for online to drive stories into the mainstream media is significant.” Once a story gains traction, she says, the Administration must respond quickly or “rumors become facts.”
2. In this Article there is a lot of talk about the media and presidency. Both can affect one another a great deal and sometimes not in a positive way. There is always going to be Media about politics and our president, it’s something we will never escape and it’s a good thing too. We want to know about what’s going on with the leader of our country and we have that right, but like this passage says, the information can be manipulated and things that are untrue and become real. There are times when the news and media isn’t focusing on the right thing. We can get so wrapped up in little scandals that are more involved with personal life’s then with subject that are more directly affecting us.
3. And 4. In this passage alone there isn’t much direct evidence, but it’s something that most people can relate with. This isn’t something that happens in just a political view, it happens in most media. People feed off of gossip and exciting things that happen to individuals, usually the more negative the more interested people are. Coming from Anita Dunn, Obama’s chief communications officer, I believe that this is something that is very common in the White House. Someone with such a huge responsibility wouldn’t be talking about this if it wasn’t affective. Most of us now get our information and news on the internet so we know how it works, but anyone can put what is now called “news” on the internet, so it’s tricky to separate what’s false from fact.
2. In this Article there is a lot of talk about the media and presidency. Both can affect one another a great deal and sometimes not in a positive way. There is always going to be Media about politics and our president, it’s something we will never escape and it’s a good thing too. We want to know about what’s going on with the leader of our country and we have that right, but like this passage says, the information can be manipulated and things that are untrue and become real. There are times when the news and media isn’t focusing on the right thing. We can get so wrapped up in little scandals that are more involved with personal life’s then with subject that are more directly affecting us.
3. And 4. In this passage alone there isn’t much direct evidence, but it’s something that most people can relate with. This isn’t something that happens in just a political view, it happens in most media. People feed off of gossip and exciting things that happen to individuals, usually the more negative the more interested people are. Coming from Anita Dunn, Obama’s chief communications officer, I believe that this is something that is very common in the White House. Someone with such a huge responsibility wouldn’t be talking about this if it wasn’t affective. Most of us now get our information and news on the internet so we know how it works, but anyone can put what is now called “news” on the internet, so it’s tricky to separate what’s false from fact.
Mental Influence
1. “Glenn beck of Fox News, mounted an assault on Van Jones a White House Environmental advisor, who, in 2004 signed a petition saying that the Bush administration may have well been the cause for 9/11 to happen perhaps a pretext
for war.”
2. In this part of the text he refers to cable news influence on forty percent of America, and talking about the statistics of partisan bias.
3. It somehow seems that 9/11 is some democrat/republican issue that it has nothing to do with truth and nothing to do with lies, but conflict, which stirs up between the parties, as if somehow it had something to do with politics and not at all with money, drugs, and resources, overall an economic issue not even a religious one. Things that stand out are “mounting assault”, “9/11”, and “pretext for war”. On both sides there are people who believe it happened due to our government in the variety of ways this country seem to be involved, and then there are those that don’t who’s intention is either to influence other opinion for the sake of taking more power, or those who are blinded by authority and the “official” story, which is the real conspiracy theory?
4. The media on both sides seem to be funded by groups with special interests which lure the truth farther away. For this article, I don’t quite understand why it was added in the claim, it is one of those just over the surface issues that people don’t seem to like talking about, just mentioning, and have somebody else think about which no one seems to do. It frustrates me the amount of suggestive thinking, that changes perspectives there are, how the people seem to be sheep following the shepherd to the slaughter house, and blind in conformity.
Jonah Laugharn
1. “Glenn beck of Fox News, mounted an assault on Van Jones a White House Environmental advisor, who, in 2004 signed a petition saying that the Bush administration may have well been the cause for 9/11 to happen perhaps a pretext
for war.”
2. In this part of the text he refers to cable news influence on forty percent of America, and talking about the statistics of partisan bias.
3. It somehow seems that 9/11 is some democrat/republican issue that it has nothing to do with truth and nothing to do with lies, but conflict, which stirs up between the parties, as if somehow it had something to do with politics and not at all with money, drugs, and resources, overall an economic issue not even a religious one. Things that stand out are “mounting assault”, “9/11”, and “pretext for war”. On both sides there are people who believe it happened due to our government in the variety of ways this country seem to be involved, and then there are those that don’t who’s intention is either to influence other opinion for the sake of taking more power, or those who are blinded by authority and the “official” story, which is the real conspiracy theory?
4. The media on both sides seem to be funded by groups with special interests which lure the truth farther away. For this article, I don’t quite understand why it was added in the claim, it is one of those just over the surface issues that people don’t seem to like talking about, just mentioning, and have somebody else think about which no one seems to do. It frustrates me the amount of suggestive thinking, that changes perspectives there are, how the people seem to be sheep following the shepherd to the slaughter house, and blind in conformity.
Jonah Laugharn
Non-stop News
“This difference, of course, is a result of the technological transformation of the media and the way that transformation has influenced how the press goes about its work.”
2. This passage is coming after Ken Auletta describes the amount of times President Obama has been on the cover of magazines and how much coverage in the media he actually gets. He goes onto describe when George W. Bush was President there was no Facebook, no Twitter, no YouTube. Auletta states, from between 2006 and 2008, daily online use jumped by a third. Which meant that one-quarter of Americans were getting the news online. So, while the news cycle gets shorter this gives reporters the urge to write an article then move onto the next, without looking into the issues at hand. Leaving the issue an issue and not trying to find ways to solve any of them.
3. This is interesting to me because we are so wrapped up in finding out new things, we aren’t looking at what is really important. In the article Auletta talks about how interested we are with the First Family, we care about what their kids are up to and things like that and we shouldn’t. The littlest new things are exciting to us and it’s kind of ridiculous.
4. The media is controlling the information we see and having a huge impact on us. It is causing us to let any sort of information go in one ear and out the other due to the constant updates on news articles and the internet. Not giving us time to process things like we need too.
2. This passage is coming after Ken Auletta describes the amount of times President Obama has been on the cover of magazines and how much coverage in the media he actually gets. He goes onto describe when George W. Bush was President there was no Facebook, no Twitter, no YouTube. Auletta states, from between 2006 and 2008, daily online use jumped by a third. Which meant that one-quarter of Americans were getting the news online. So, while the news cycle gets shorter this gives reporters the urge to write an article then move onto the next, without looking into the issues at hand. Leaving the issue an issue and not trying to find ways to solve any of them.
3. This is interesting to me because we are so wrapped up in finding out new things, we aren’t looking at what is really important. In the article Auletta talks about how interested we are with the First Family, we care about what their kids are up to and things like that and we shouldn’t. The littlest new things are exciting to us and it’s kind of ridiculous.
4. The media is controlling the information we see and having a huge impact on us. It is causing us to let any sort of information go in one ear and out the other due to the constant updates on news articles and the internet. Not giving us time to process things like we need too.
News Post
The transformation in media technology has also altered government communications strategy. “The biggest White House press frustration is that nothing can drive a news cycle anymore,” Mark McKinnon, the media adviser, said. “In the old days, you could say, ‘We’d like October to be about the environment.’” Today, a vicious news cycle swallows most white house strategies. When the Berlin Wall went up, in 1961, President Kennedy was on vacation. “For six days, no one pressed him hard for a reaction,” Beschloss said. “If that happened now, President Obama would have three seconds.” While Obama was on vacation over Christmas in Hawaii, for three days he failed to respond to the foiled terrorist plot to blow up an American airliner. In his absence, Janet Napolitano, the Secretary of Homeland Security, made a disastrous appearance in which she claimed that “the system worked.” Both she and Obama were savagely criticized.
Overall this passage is basically saying that with the new technological advancements in media we, United States citizens, demand immediate response and new. After Pres Obama had someone fill in for his place for a speech, during a very serious and largely televised event, and was criticized for the fact it wasn’t him responding. Auletta shows how this new attitude has changed, from previous attitudes, by using a similar situation with a different outcome as an example. In 1961 Pres Kennedy failed to make appearance about the Berlin Wall and no crap was thrown his way. She tries to show that because of the way media is beginning to set up it has changed our attitude about immediate news.
The two biggest words that stuck out to me were “savagely criticized” because savage is a pretty strong word. Some other words are “vicious” and “swallows” when she talks about this new news cycle. The use of these words shows the severity of how we need instant news.
Basically this passage discusses how the new media has affected to the way the government has to deal with media. To the overall article it shows how we have had an attitude shift due to this new media (due to technology.)
Overall this passage is basically saying that with the new technological advancements in media we, United States citizens, demand immediate response and new. After Pres Obama had someone fill in for his place for a speech, during a very serious and largely televised event, and was criticized for the fact it wasn’t him responding. Auletta shows how this new attitude has changed, from previous attitudes, by using a similar situation with a different outcome as an example. In 1961 Pres Kennedy failed to make appearance about the Berlin Wall and no crap was thrown his way. She tries to show that because of the way media is beginning to set up it has changed our attitude about immediate news.
The two biggest words that stuck out to me were “savagely criticized” because savage is a pretty strong word. Some other words are “vicious” and “swallows” when she talks about this new news cycle. The use of these words shows the severity of how we need instant news.
Basically this passage discusses how the new media has affected to the way the government has to deal with media. To the overall article it shows how we have had an attitude shift due to this new media (due to technology.)
nonstop news
“When Obama was running for the Senate in Illinois in 2004, his two main opponents in both parties were destroyed by the release of their respective divorce records; Obama won the primary easily and ended up running in the general election against Alan Keyes, a Republican carpetbagger who came to Illinois to talk about abortion and not much more.”
This passage isn’t particularly important in the scheme of the article. It was intended to explain the history of Obama’s political career in his run-up to his presidency, and how he was very adverse to criticism from the media in the beginning. The reason why it interested me was because of the conclusions we might draw about a democratic process that allowed those events to potentially determine a President from a non-President. If those other candidates had not been ruined by their divorce records, Obama might still be a member of Congress. I’m sure that this sort of ruining your opponents career over the skeletons in his closet mindset has been going on since the beginning of the country, but I think that the nature of this process that weeds out candidates in such a manner is possibly being affected by the same changes ongoing in the media that Auletta was talking about. The proliferation of this un-researched quick-story journalism that is more pro-conflict biased, is probably making our democratic process also even more susceptible to this demagogic sort of mentality.
This passage isn’t particularly important in the scheme of the article. It was intended to explain the history of Obama’s political career in his run-up to his presidency, and how he was very adverse to criticism from the media in the beginning. The reason why it interested me was because of the conclusions we might draw about a democratic process that allowed those events to potentially determine a President from a non-President. If those other candidates had not been ruined by their divorce records, Obama might still be a member of Congress. I’m sure that this sort of ruining your opponents career over the skeletons in his closet mindset has been going on since the beginning of the country, but I think that the nature of this process that weeds out candidates in such a manner is possibly being affected by the same changes ongoing in the media that Auletta was talking about. The proliferation of this un-researched quick-story journalism that is more pro-conflict biased, is probably making our democratic process also even more susceptible to this demagogic sort of mentality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)