Issue 10: "Will Evolving Forms of Journalism Be an Improvement?"

We live in a society known as the "information age" as well as the "digital age". The internet has become one of the main sources for information in today's society, causing journalism to evolve. Now, we even something called citizen journalism, where anyone could post updates of news. We as a society don't need to wait for news to come out through newspapers, anymore. In the text, there are two arguments. Mark Deuze, Axel Bruns and Christoph Neuberger take on the YES argument concerning this issue. David Simon takes on the NO argument concerning this issue. The YES argument shows the rewards as well as the difficulties of news organizations that are trying to incorporate participatory news practices. The NO argument shows or tries to make the point that high end journalism is dying in America.

I believe that the new forms of journalism can be beneficial. News goes around a lot faster and people can get the news from those who experienced the event, first hand.

Issue 7: "Is Advertising Good for Society?"

There are definitely pros and cons to advertising. Advertising has changed a lot overtime and now covers a much wider range of media. in the text, there are two arguments to this issue. Former U.S Trade Commission economist John Calfee, takes on the YES argument. Dinyar Godrej takes on the NO argument. John Calfee argues that advertising helps consumers make better decisions because advertising puts out a lot of information on a product. Dinyar Godrej argues that advertisements play with the consumer's emotions. The goal of advertisers is just to sell the products and so the advertisments create anxiety within the consumer if they do not get the product. He also makes the argument that advertising causes people to buy more than they need.

I feel that for this issue in particular, the arguments have pretty solid and interesting points. The question given at hand is actually a pretty difficult question to answer. While there are benefits to advertising, I feel that the ethics of business and selling products are questionable.

Issue 12: "Is Hate Speech in the Media Directly Affecting our Culture?"

There isn't really a clear and definite definition for the term "hate speech". For most cases, it can be seen as, as stated in the text, something that "demonstrates some level of contempt for other people, but the term is meant to convey the deliberate bias toward and discrimination against persons that could be incited because of the form of hate speech." In the text, there are two arguments to this issue. Scholar Henry Giroux takes on the YES argument, that hate speech does in fact affect our culture. Then we have Georgie Ann Weatherby and Brian Scoggins that take on the NO argument. Henry Giroux believes that hate speech has ultimately created a culture of cruelty. He believes that citizens are beginning to undermine our government's responsibility to protect the interests of people. Also, he makes a point that hate speech has become an exercise of power. On the other hand, Georgie Ann Weatherby and Brian Scoggins found sites that downplay the messages of hate by using other persuasive techniques. The thing about this article that doesn't make it as convincing is that, they only examined web pages of four extremist groups. Ir narrows the subject of hate speech to one form of media, but hate speech is found in all types of media. Just because there are a few web pages that don't have any form of focus on hate speech, it doesn't mean all forms of media is like that.

Article: "Email: 'Time to kill the wealthy'"

This article explains how several New York lawmakers have been recieving threatening E-mails. The E-mails, entitled "Time to Kill the Wealthy", are being sent by those in support of the state's tax surcharge on millionaires. Figures such as the State Assembly Speaker, State Senate Majority Leader and the State Assembly Majority have already recieved the E-mail. According to them, the message(s) are very detailed and disturbing. The messages also make some reference to the terminology found in the Occupy Movement. A section in the article states:

"The email references terminology that has been used in the “Occupy Wall Street” movement — that the1 percent, the super rich, are exploiting the remaining 99 percent of Americans. The angry message demanded that Albany politicians “stop shoveling wealth from the lower 99 percent into the top 1 percent” and “set aside your ‘no new taxes on anybody’ pledge.”"

The current state of the New York surcharge on millionaires is about to expire. As of now, the governor is opposed to renewing it. I feel that I understand where those a part of the "99 percent", that are sending those e-mails, are coming from. It makes me wonder whether or not the government will take into consideration the messages. Also, if they do, are they doing it to better the nation or because their afraid of the threats in the messages?

(Article URL: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/65307.html)

The Arab Spring

1. The Arab Spring is basically a movement of protests and demonstrations that have been occurring across the middle east, as well as north Africa. Motivation for this movement come from factors such as government corruption and employment decline. Through the Arab Spring, governments have already been overthrown. Just like many other protests, violence is another result of this movement.

2. The role of "citizen journalists" in this movement is basically to aware others of what is going on. Not only does "citizen journalists" arise awareness to the movement itself, but also to the results and changes that occurred because of the movement. By using media such as Facebook and Twitter, these citizen journalists are able to fill in the gaps that traditional media/journalists leave. Because many of this is first hand experience, these blogs are a lot more widespread.

Hate Speech

Issue 18: Are People Better Informed in the Information Society?

Technology plays a large role in today's society. There are many forms of technology that have made it into our everyday lives and we probably don't even recognize how significant they have become. For example, the use of cell phones. With new smart phones, such as the iPhone, it's so simple to obtain information and communicate with others. In the text, we have Linda Jackson and Mark Bauerlein have different arguments concerning this issue. Linda Jackson, who argues YES, conducted a survey and found that youth who use the internet often, had higher scores when it came to standardized testing and had higher GPA's. Mark Bauerlein, who argues NO, considers this generation, "the dumbest generation". He believes that "the information age has failed to produce a well-informed, thoughtful public. Instead we have a nation of know-nothings who don't read, follow politics, or vote-and who can't compete internationally." (Pg. 364).

In class, we discussed how as technology advances, we become more dependent on it. We also discussed how because of this dependency, there are people who lack the ability to acquire knowledge. For example, the calculator. It's a form of technology that we use for math, but can we say that we are able to do math, without it? I believe that both arguments in the book have good points. Again, I feel that they don't really do a good job at answering the question. Although, I agree with each point to a certain extent. Although we do develop somewhat of a dependency on technology, it doesn't mean we don't acquire the necessary knowledge. Our generation is still helping advance technology.