Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Host for Truth
For someone who comes off somewhat opinionated in the article “Host,” John Zeigler is just objective enough to be a very intriguing radio host. He doesn’t have an on air persona like almost all radio hosts and the standout difference between Ziegler and other radio hosts is that he seeks and wants the audience to know the truth. He criticized the media for not airing the Berg tape, “denying Americans ‘a true and accurate view of the barbarity, the utter depravity, of these people." He was also outraged that the Berg tape wasn’t as big of a deal as it should have been, when the U.S. press has been going crazy over the prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib. I will say this: Zeigler is definitely pro-American, but he is objective enough so that anyone with any opinion can listen along and agree with some things and disagree with some things. He does not offend callers, but is not afraid to defend what he thinks is true.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Twitter Dissapointment
This week was my first Twitter experience and to start I 'followed' some famous people including the likes of Shaq, Bill Simmons, Chad Ochocinco, and Roger Ebert. Right off the bat I was troubled and discouraged by the fact that people pose as other people. Why would somebody pose as Shaq? Why would somebody pose as Roger Ebert and tweet fake half-ass movie reviews? Don't people have better things to do?
I have heard so many good things about Twitter since it came out, and the first thing I see when I start my account is that there are ten versions of every celebrity. Yeah I understand that I can find the real one by shuffling through and looking at how many followers each one has, but that's bullshit that I even have to do that. Twitter needs to find a way to control this.
Another thing about the celebrities is that only a few of them actually post things themselves. You can tell when it is actually them. I wanted to follow NBA basketball journalist Michael Wilbon and he has a twitter ,but it is just a machine that quotes everything he says in his daily ESPN television show 'Pardon the Interruption.'If I wanted to know what he said on his show then I'm just going to watch his show.
I guess I am just confused with a lot of the hype. Maybe if I start getting some followers and follow people I know then it might be a more useful experience, but for now I am dissapointed with Twitter.
I have heard so many good things about Twitter since it came out, and the first thing I see when I start my account is that there are ten versions of every celebrity. Yeah I understand that I can find the real one by shuffling through and looking at how many followers each one has, but that's bullshit that I even have to do that. Twitter needs to find a way to control this.
Another thing about the celebrities is that only a few of them actually post things themselves. You can tell when it is actually them. I wanted to follow NBA basketball journalist Michael Wilbon and he has a twitter ,but it is just a machine that quotes everything he says in his daily ESPN television show 'Pardon the Interruption.'If I wanted to know what he said on his show then I'm just going to watch his show.
I guess I am just confused with a lot of the hype. Maybe if I start getting some followers and follow people I know then it might be a more useful experience, but for now I am dissapointed with Twitter.
Commenting Articles vs. Facebook
There seems to be reoccurring patterns in both article commenting and facebook commenting. First I looked at what kind of articles to comment on and there are only a few different categories. There are sports articles on ESPN and other sites, there are news articles on large news sites like CNN and small newspaper sites as well, and the other category people use is blog commenting.
Sports commenting, particularly on ESPN, has interactive commenting meaning some of the ESPN writers actually comment back, and there are legitimate conversations going on. If I comment on an article about the College Basketball AP top 25 then I am going to get someone who almost immediately comments either agreeing with me or contradicting me or both. There are some comments that don't add to the conversation like anything on the web, but I feel like they are the most easy to look over on these type of articles. In news articles people get too into it, offended almost; and on blog commenting I wouldn't consider it a conversation because it takes too long for other people to rebuttal comment. People will comment on a blog but that's it; one and done. So I think it has to do with the speed of it all, the faster the more interactive.
Facebook is a whole different thing. People only comment on their friends' posts. I commented on a post one of my friends wrote on another friends wall. The post said: "I wanna do a road trip down to AZ soon." I and two other of my friends talked under this post about how we want in on the road trip. Whether the road trip happens or not even the idea of this kind of plan gets people excited. It is a great way to make plans with friends you haven't seen in a while, and to make fun of friends you see all the time. The way I see it, it is my generations new AIM. AIM is apparently dead. I still use it, but I only talk to about five buddies. Away messages of movie quotes and jokes that I would put up now go up as my facebook status, and I can talk to more people on facebook easier.
Some people like the fact that no one knows who you are when you are commenting on articles or blogs on the web. Some people get scared by that. Facebook has created a comfort zone for every type of person, and that is why it has boomed.
Sports commenting, particularly on ESPN, has interactive commenting meaning some of the ESPN writers actually comment back, and there are legitimate conversations going on. If I comment on an article about the College Basketball AP top 25 then I am going to get someone who almost immediately comments either agreeing with me or contradicting me or both. There are some comments that don't add to the conversation like anything on the web, but I feel like they are the most easy to look over on these type of articles. In news articles people get too into it, offended almost; and on blog commenting I wouldn't consider it a conversation because it takes too long for other people to rebuttal comment. People will comment on a blog but that's it; one and done. So I think it has to do with the speed of it all, the faster the more interactive.
Facebook is a whole different thing. People only comment on their friends' posts. I commented on a post one of my friends wrote on another friends wall. The post said: "I wanna do a road trip down to AZ soon." I and two other of my friends talked under this post about how we want in on the road trip. Whether the road trip happens or not even the idea of this kind of plan gets people excited. It is a great way to make plans with friends you haven't seen in a while, and to make fun of friends you see all the time. The way I see it, it is my generations new AIM. AIM is apparently dead. I still use it, but I only talk to about five buddies. Away messages of movie quotes and jokes that I would put up now go up as my facebook status, and I can talk to more people on facebook easier.
Some people like the fact that no one knows who you are when you are commenting on articles or blogs on the web. Some people get scared by that. Facebook has created a comfort zone for every type of person, and that is why it has boomed.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
To Daily Collegian
Re: Justice for Jason
Dear editor,
I am sympathetic to everything that happened two years ago to Jason and the other two men, but it is hard for me to sit here and feel good about all the people who “braved the cold” in support of Jason. I have been seeing and hearing opinions on the situation for two years now, and the majority of people, protesting or not, don’t even know the real story.
I know what happened and it might have been a race issue in the end, but that does not justify stabbing two different people five to seven times EACH. Those two kids are lucky to be alive, and there is a point where self defense ends. Also, Jason had a knife that he used for wiring things. Why would you bring out your knife with you when going to pay for a pizza at such late hours, knowing there are two kids out there who you just had a verbal confrontation with?
I’m not on either side. It just bothers me that people are so quick to jump to the aid of someone in a race issue without even looking at pieces of the case that are so illogical.
Sincerely,
Dan Mangan
Dear editor,
I am sympathetic to everything that happened two years ago to Jason and the other two men, but it is hard for me to sit here and feel good about all the people who “braved the cold” in support of Jason. I have been seeing and hearing opinions on the situation for two years now, and the majority of people, protesting or not, don’t even know the real story.
I know what happened and it might have been a race issue in the end, but that does not justify stabbing two different people five to seven times EACH. Those two kids are lucky to be alive, and there is a point where self defense ends. Also, Jason had a knife that he used for wiring things. Why would you bring out your knife with you when going to pay for a pizza at such late hours, knowing there are two kids out there who you just had a verbal confrontation with?
I’m not on either side. It just bothers me that people are so quick to jump to the aid of someone in a race issue without even looking at pieces of the case that are so illogical.
Sincerely,
Dan Mangan
To Daily Collegian
Re: UMass bonding time
Dear editor,
Apparently people are asking for ideas to unify the campus. In my opinion sports is the number one way bring people together. Yeah skating on the pond would be fun, but how many people would be able to skate? It would most likely end up in a fight for the ice.
I would love nothing more than to get pumped on a Wednesday or Friday night and go cheer on the basketball team, but how can I have respect for myself cheering for a team that lost to the University of Central Florida by seventeen points.
Here’s an idea: let’s keep a coach here long enough to build the program back up. Every time we get on the brink of starting to make progress our coach leaves. Let’s get some players that will give us some incentive to cheer for them. From what I have seen the hockey games are the only evidence of school spirit here, and that is true for one reason only: they contend.
Sincerely,
Dan Mangan
Dear editor,
Apparently people are asking for ideas to unify the campus. In my opinion sports is the number one way bring people together. Yeah skating on the pond would be fun, but how many people would be able to skate? It would most likely end up in a fight for the ice.
I would love nothing more than to get pumped on a Wednesday or Friday night and go cheer on the basketball team, but how can I have respect for myself cheering for a team that lost to the University of Central Florida by seventeen points.
Here’s an idea: let’s keep a coach here long enough to build the program back up. Every time we get on the brink of starting to make progress our coach leaves. Let’s get some players that will give us some incentive to cheer for them. From what I have seen the hockey games are the only evidence of school spirit here, and that is true for one reason only: they contend.
Sincerely,
Dan Mangan
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Letters To The Editor
To the Sports Editor:
Re “Panel Calls for Treatment in Sex Ambiguity Cases,” Jan. 21: Scrutinizing female athletes based on their looks to scan for potential masculinizing disorders is demeaning and sends a harmful message to all women.
Female athletes are role models for those who wish to live a healthier lifestyle and vow to exercise as a result. They also stand for the mental toughness of women in being able to train and transform their bodies. Female athletes should not be exposed to such negative scrutiny because of their ability to prepare their bodies for competition.
If the International Olympic Committee is truly concerned about medical disorders, then testing should be required for all female athletes to scan for multiple types of disorders and not just masculinizing disorders.
Amy Welch Brighton, Mass.
This letter to the editor is from the NY Times on January 30th. It is a good example of responding to an article. First of all it is very well written: short summarizing her opinion on the article and then ending with a possible solution. The main reason I like it though is because this issue raises so many questions, it is a true dilemma. I personally understand what she is saying about the idea that some of these things could be demeaning to women; but I also think that it is almost similar to testing for steroids. If it is something that is going to make them perform better than other women, then it is a performance enhancer.
To the Editor:
Bob Herbert’s Jan. 30 column about Howard Zinn, “A Radical Treasure,” is a wonderful tribute to a great man. We never met Mr. Zinn except through his books and films. Yet his death left us with a profound sadness.
There aren’t many people who speak truth to power and do so with as much grace, intelligence and compassion as Mr. Zinn. His “People’s History of the United States” should be read by all Americans. It’s our failure to understand and take responsibility for our arrogance that has led us into so many military mistakes and economic calamities. Thank you, Bob Herbert, for reminding us of what this world lost when this great man died.
Larry Barkan
Carol Barkan
Tempe, Ariz., Jan. 30, 2010
I’d call this letter a tribute letter; almost a thank you to Bob Herbert and mostly Howard Zinn. As much as I respect and love the work of Howard Zinn I like to read different kinds of opinions in the Letters to the editor; things that raise question and spark conversations. I guess it’s tolerable because of the impact Howard Zinn had, but there were so many Letters to the editor about Zinn.
Re “Panel Calls for Treatment in Sex Ambiguity Cases,” Jan. 21: Scrutinizing female athletes based on their looks to scan for potential masculinizing disorders is demeaning and sends a harmful message to all women.
Female athletes are role models for those who wish to live a healthier lifestyle and vow to exercise as a result. They also stand for the mental toughness of women in being able to train and transform their bodies. Female athletes should not be exposed to such negative scrutiny because of their ability to prepare their bodies for competition.
If the International Olympic Committee is truly concerned about medical disorders, then testing should be required for all female athletes to scan for multiple types of disorders and not just masculinizing disorders.
Amy Welch Brighton, Mass.
This letter to the editor is from the NY Times on January 30th. It is a good example of responding to an article. First of all it is very well written: short summarizing her opinion on the article and then ending with a possible solution. The main reason I like it though is because this issue raises so many questions, it is a true dilemma. I personally understand what she is saying about the idea that some of these things could be demeaning to women; but I also think that it is almost similar to testing for steroids. If it is something that is going to make them perform better than other women, then it is a performance enhancer.
To the Editor:
Bob Herbert’s Jan. 30 column about Howard Zinn, “A Radical Treasure,” is a wonderful tribute to a great man. We never met Mr. Zinn except through his books and films. Yet his death left us with a profound sadness.
There aren’t many people who speak truth to power and do so with as much grace, intelligence and compassion as Mr. Zinn. His “People’s History of the United States” should be read by all Americans. It’s our failure to understand and take responsibility for our arrogance that has led us into so many military mistakes and economic calamities. Thank you, Bob Herbert, for reminding us of what this world lost when this great man died.
Larry Barkan
Carol Barkan
Tempe, Ariz., Jan. 30, 2010
I’d call this letter a tribute letter; almost a thank you to Bob Herbert and mostly Howard Zinn. As much as I respect and love the work of Howard Zinn I like to read different kinds of opinions in the Letters to the editor; things that raise question and spark conversations. I guess it’s tolerable because of the impact Howard Zinn had, but there were so many Letters to the editor about Zinn.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Journalism Today
“Journalists stand in a paternalistic relationship to readers: They guide them rather than engage them in conversation. They decide on the legitimate and valuable topics for the agenda based on the estimation of the public’s need to know, but don’t see the necessity for listening to the public.”
I don’t think the journalist can tell the public what their news is anymore. The public can find what they want to read anywhere. They do guide readers more than engage in conversation though. Even if readers are engaging in conversation it is after they have read an above article on the internet.
“Making news became commercially viable through the selling of audiences to advertisers, instead of newspapers to partisan audiences…The new centrality of advertising income also meant that owners and editors were compelled to abandon controversial, partisan material from their reports, and instead aimed to please as many advertisers ad consumers as they possibly could by printing ostensibly “neutral” content and proclaiming their political independence.”
I think this is very true and very bad for newspapers. Advertisers are the ones controlling everything. The advertisers pay for ads in newspapers that the most people are going to read, and the newspapers think that most people are going to read a newspaper that doesn’t have an opinion. I think news needs an opinion. News needs to question things. Some is always going to be shocked or angry over a certain news view and that’s the way it should be. The quality of the news is hurt by the neutral viewpoint.
I don’t think the journalist can tell the public what their news is anymore. The public can find what they want to read anywhere. They do guide readers more than engage in conversation though. Even if readers are engaging in conversation it is after they have read an above article on the internet.
“Making news became commercially viable through the selling of audiences to advertisers, instead of newspapers to partisan audiences…The new centrality of advertising income also meant that owners and editors were compelled to abandon controversial, partisan material from their reports, and instead aimed to please as many advertisers ad consumers as they possibly could by printing ostensibly “neutral” content and proclaiming their political independence.”
I think this is very true and very bad for newspapers. Advertisers are the ones controlling everything. The advertisers pay for ads in newspapers that the most people are going to read, and the newspapers think that most people are going to read a newspaper that doesn’t have an opinion. I think news needs an opinion. News needs to question things. Some is always going to be shocked or angry over a certain news view and that’s the way it should be. The quality of the news is hurt by the neutral viewpoint.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)