Short Blog # 5 and # 6

From drugs, DUIs, theft, and debt, the list of celebrities who have committed crimes is outrageously long and sadly growing. There are numerous crimes committed that do not receive the proper punishment and justice they deserve. There especially seems to be a double standard with celebrities and the law. The media does not help with celebrity justice, but promotes it for higher ratings. CNN, ABC, and Fox news seem to cover celebrities who turn to the bad side quite often. It is rare that the news or comedy shows presents “happy” news. No one ever mentions if a celebrity does a good deed. Comedy shows such as the Colbert Report and the Daily Show also cover celebrities. The news shows usually have facts and truth to them. The comedy shows make jokes about the celebrities, and rarely state all the facts, just brief descriptions. However, through the sarcasm the comedy shows still have some truth about celebrities that the news shows would never say because it would be unprofessional. At the end of the day, the news is supposed to state the facts, while the comedy shows entertain.

The average Joe can be convicted of a crime having to do with dog fights and people will disgusted with him, while football player, Michael Vick can be convicted of the same type of crime, and all people will be concerned about is the next game he will be able to play in. Jon Stewart made jokes, but at the same time made completely valid points with how corrupt the law, NFL, and the media are when it comes to celebrities. On the Daily Show he showed a clip of NFL announcers saying, “were looking at Michael Vick not showing up in the NFL again until 2010…Jon replied yelling,” MY GOD …that’s almost 28 dog years from now”(The Daily Show). Because of the media, people seem to be devastated that their fantasy football teams will be missing Michael Vick. People should be more concerned about the innocent dogs that were cruelly killed. Jon made the point that people to need to wake up and realize that it is a big deal that Michael Vick committed an inhumane crime. This is a serious flaw in the legal system.  The media is another major factor that encourages this flaw to be ok. It’s exciting to turn on the TV and hear of the latest celebrity in trouble with the law, but if that celebrity were to go behind bars, what story would the media have to tell?  The media can’t go behind the bars, there’s no more suspense whether or not the celebrity will receive a certain punishment. Schudson mentioned, “ another major development in self-advertising was larger and darker headlines” (p.114). It seems that the media is just playing a big game with no rules, and whoever can get the most ratings wins.

The comedy shows may not always be stating proven facts, but they usually are bold enough to say the unspoken truth that the majority of the public is thinking. John Stewart made jokes about Michael Vick and the dog fighting, but in between the jokes was truth. Jon Stewart on the daily show stated, “let the dogs see how fast and as elusive as he says he is” (The Daily Show). Being on a comedy show he can say things that the media purposely ignores, while the news. Jon was implying that Michael Vick was inhumane and lets see what happens when the roles are reversed and the dogs get to attack him. He may be a great football player, but no one is impressed. News stations seem to just state “facts” that get them the highest ratings, they chose what to show to keep the publics interest. CNN reported that Michael Vick was close to completing his sentence and how he is teaming up with a human society to prove he is changed. At the end of the CNN clip, the reported mentions, “many people say one of Vick’s challenges in the coming months will need to convince NFL commissioner to lift the suspension and reinstate him into the league” (CNN). While those facts may be true, the media chose to say the good things Vick is doing, getting sympathy votes from the public. At the end of the clip, they made it seem like poor Vick, please let him back into the NFL, he is changed. If Jon Stewart used that clip on his show, he would make fun of the fact that they said one of Vick’s coming challenges is about getting back into the NFL. The NFL should be the least of his worries if he is a “changed” man. Smolkin also agrees that the Daily Show is the only show that stands up for what’s true. She stated, “The Daily Show' is hypocrisy, exposing hypocrisy. And nobody else has the guts to do it," Brown says. "They really know how to crystallize an issue on all sides, see the silliness everywhere”(Smolkin). Even though he is there to entertain, there is always some truth to his “jokes”.

The media, fans, lawyers need to be stopped from preventing anymore unfair bias when a celebrity is convicted. Not only is this not a fair system, but also what kind of examples do we want to set for the public? Celebrities who do good deeds should be the top story’s, not celebrities who commit crimes.  It is sad that the comedy shows tell more of the truth then the News when it comes to Celebrities. The media seems to be a flawed system, no matter the topic, the media decides what to show or say, making almost everything bias. I’m not sure I will base my information from what the media says, whether it’s a news station or comedy show, it seems to be lacking the full truth.

Schudson, Michael. The New Journalism. In D. Crowley, P. Heyer, (Eds.), Communication in history, technology, culture, society (pp. 111-118). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Smolkin, Rachel.”What the Mainstream Media Can Learn From John Stewart”. American

Journalism Review (2007). Web. 20 Oct.2010. http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=4329

“Human Society Will Work With Vick”. 19 May 2009. Youtube. Accessed 20 October 2010. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFcAYgC-7bc&feature=related>

“Dog Fighting.” Thedailyshow.com, n.d. Web. 20 Oct. 2010. <

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-july-18-2007/dog-fighting>

“Vicks Rub.” Thedailyshow.com, n.d. Web.20 Oct. 2010 <http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-august-21-2007/vick-s-rub>

Short Blog # 4 (makeup blog)

The printing press has expanded our society’s knowledge and advanced our technology.  The printing press has had major impacts directly and indirectly on historical, social, cultural, and political aspects of our society. The printing press allowed mass production, which consequently spread prints of all kinds around the world to differently types of people. This allowed for us to communicate to each other all around the world, sharing our knowledge and enhancing our society.

As the printing press developed and moved to printer’s workshops, as Eisenstein mentions, “ it revolutionized all forms of learning…particularly important for historical scholarship” (p.78).  The printing press allowed people to spread works of literature, art, poetry, stories, etc.  The printing press spread other’s knowledge, which in return created new ideas and advancements. For example, if I were to see someone else’s picture, it could spark new ideas in my head, and I would advance that drawing into something even better. All of these ideas that the printing press spread created the way our civilization socializes today. Many people such as Harvey Graff, argue that the Printing Press can be viewed as, “an educational reform movement…involved factors far beyond the religious and theological…economic, political, cultural, and social issues” (p.86). No longer did only the rich have access to prints of any sorts, with the printing press all economic classes had access to prints.  For example, simple technologies such as posters were spread through out the villages. The invention of the printing press ultimately educated more of the world then just the wealthy. It increased the world’s overall well-being. The amount of people who could read may not have had a large increase, but people’s communication level definitely increased.

The I-pad and the Kindle have become the “new books” of our future. Many argue that we rely on these technologies and that they are decreasing our knowledge. Personally, I think that technology like I-pad and Kindle increase our technology, giving us easier access to valuable information. I do not think that the book will ever disappear, especially the Bible. For example, I-pods have become the new technology since the millennium, but CD’s are still created and used today. Sometimes, it’s just a matter of preference, and with the many personalities of the world, I believe the book, I-pad, and the Kindle, are here to stay. The I-pad does not only contain books, but so many apps that could be viewed as educational. For example, educational math games, maps, etc. I-pads and Kindles are also becoming socially trendy, which will encourage young people to read. Sites accessed through the I-pad such as Facebook may be viewed as non-sense, but in my opinion you are still practicing communication, writing, and reading skills. I do not personally own any technology that contains books on it, but if I could I would chose to. It would be more convenient to have a Kindle for example, It would save me space instead of having books all over the place. It would also save me time, books would be easy for me to access. Just because I would have the technology, wouldn’t mean that I would get rid of the books I did have, or that I would refuse to read a book, it’s about preference for me personally.  Technology increases the spread of educational prints, Pham and Sarno state, “digital tools are making it possible for independent authors to publish and promote their books, causing an outpouring of written work on every topic imaginable”(pg1). Technology allows a huge increase of works to be shared around the world.

Technology will continue to advance, enhancing our communication skills. The printing press has been the direct cause of technology, which has impacted our society in every aspect. Just as Eisenstein states in her essay, “ Neither political, constitutional, ecclesiastical, and economic events, nor sociological, philosophical, and literary movements…can be taken into account without the influence of the printing press upon them” (p.79). The printing press has educated our population and allowed us to have advancements such as the Kindle and I-pad that only further advance our society.

Eisenstein, Elizabeth .Aspects of the Printing Revolution. In D. Crowley, P. Heyer, (Eds.), Communication in history: technology, culture, society. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Graff, Harvey. Early Modern Literacies. In D. Crowley, P. Heyer, (Eds.), Communication in history: technology, culture, society. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Eisenstein, Elizabeth .Aspects of the Printing Revolution. In D. Crowley, P. Heyer, (Eds.), Communication in history: technology, culture, society. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Pham, Alex, and David Sarno. "The Future of Reading." Physorg. N.p., 21 July 2010. Web. 17 Oct.2010.<http://www.physorg.com/news198955146.html>.

Extended Blog # 1

Is technology improving or destroying our world? Many argue that we are losing the fundamentals of our culture with the advancement of technology. However, I beg to differ, I think technology has made us smarter. The only flaw I see with our advanced world is that we rely on it. For example, we would be in a panic if computers crashed. With the invention of papyrus, we have the ability to write down important and non-important information, nevertheless recording information on our culture. Not only can you record while writing, you also practice your speech skills. I firmly believe that how you speak reflects on how you write. In other words, if you speak well then you write well. Without one of the first advancements in technology, the papyrus, we would still be living in a primary oral world. With writing and computers, we can communicate around the world. We can share our cultures with others while we learn their culture as well, better connecting us.

Personally, I’m not sure I would read or that others would read, even if the Internet didn’t exist. There are so many options to occupy ourselves, with or without technology, who is to say we would spend our spare time reading? Also, does reading a gossip book make us smarter? Do fictional books increase our intelligence? Sure, Twilight can educate me on fictional vampires, but where in the novel does it increase my knowledge of real life facts. However, Gardner brings attention to the fact that, “Works of fiction -- the writings of Jane Austen, Leo Tolstoy, Toni Morrison, William Faulkner -- allow us to inhabit fascinating worlds we couldn't have envisioned” (Gardner, p.1). I do agree that works of fiction, allow us to imagine, helping us in the creativity department, but I do not think that not reading books of any kind makes our society illiterate. The ability to simply “Google” can increase one’s intelligence, it is much more convenient to look up information quickly, rather then trying to find time to search through books at a local library. Gardner states, “the advantages of Amazon's hand-held electronic Kindle reading device trumps a suitcase full of dog-eared paperbacks” (Gardner, p.1). Technology such as the Kindle, allows people to have multiple books on a device, making it easy to carry around a thousand books on one device. Sites such as Google, Bing, etc make it easy to look up information that could be contained in millions of books. Ong mentions, “in a primary oral culture, the expression, “to look up something is an empty phrase” (Ong, p.50). In our secondary orality culture, we can save time when using the Internet. We can “look up” information of all kinds expanding our intelligence. Technology does not seem like an evil, but a faster way of broadening our intelligence.

Writing did not make us “dumb”, but yet made us individuals. We have the ability to express who we are through modern technology, rather than acting as robots strictly memorizing information. Jacoby mentions that fewer and fewer people read books in today’s world, making us ignorant and dumb. She states, “The proportion of 17-year-olds who read nothing (unless required to do so for school) more than doubled between 1984 and 2004. This time period, of course, encompasses the rise of personal computers, Web surfing and video games”(Jacoby, p.1). However she does not mention the positives of modern technology and how the rise of personal computers allows us to retrieve information from the Internet versus books. For example, even through Facebook I find important links about current events, local news, school events, history, etc where I learn information. Without modern technology, I would not know nearly as much as I do today. Modern technology and social networking sites such as Facebook allow others to share their knowledge that can be of great importance. Every day, I check Facebook and I practice my grammar skills through what I type on the Internet.

Whether it’s typing, texting, or writing on a daily basis, we are improving our speech and writing skills rather then only having the ability to speak. Technology helps us practice our communication skills. Writing or typing also improves our memory skill, allowing us to share effectively through technology, orally, or on paper. Technology is not perfect, it can have its faults. Technology such as computers can be bad for the human eyes. Those of us who use slang through text messaging and social net working sites can decrease our grammar skills. Video games can serve to be bad influences on children. However, overall technology has improved our writing and speech skills, improving our world. The emphasis on reading is exaggerated. While reading helps improves our grammar, speaking, and writing skills, it does not make us less or more smart. Our modern day technology such as the kindle, Internet, cell-phone, social networking site, etc provides us easy and fast access to important information. In today society, we have numerous ways to learn and “new inventible ways of speaking about human life, therefore of thinking about it” (Havelock, p.41).We are constantly learning even though we may not realize it, we do not have to pick up a book to be considered as smart intellectuals. In our world today, almost everyone knows basic history and local knowledge. Back in the day of only oral communication, only a few people knew history, stories, etc spending their whole day memorizing and repeating their knowledge. Because of the advancement of writing, almost everyone in our modern society can have a life full of activity while still knowing history, current events, etc. Writing has made our world what it is today. It has benefited us in every aspect.

Gardner, H. (2008, February 17). The end of literacy? don't stop reading. The Washington Post.

Havelock, E. (2003). The Greek Legacy. In D. Crowley, P. Heyer, (Eds.), Communication in history: technology, culture, society (pp. 38-43). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Jacoby, S. (2008, February 17). The dumbing of America. The Washington Post.

Ong, W. (2003). Orality, Literacy, and Modern Media. In D. Crowley, P. Heyer, (Eds.), Communication in history: technology, culture, society (pp. 49-55). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.