[Insert Creative Title Here]

If I was to have to pick two articles to compare, it would not be Sullivan and Jarvis. While reviewing both articles, I found very few connections between them granted, they were both about literature.

Jarvis’ drawings along with the discussions we had in class focused on the way we receive our news today versus the way we did in the 1930’s. Unlike then, now we tend to go out and find our own sources rather than just relying on the media.

The reason I believe it was difficult for me to connect these two articles is that one is about media and its progress or change, and the other is about blogging, which can be considered a subcategory of media. With that said, the only major connection I found while reviewing both of these articles is that blogs “[fail] to provide stable truth or a permanent perspective.” The 1930’s media seemed to, according to my translation of the charts and graphs, take world events, condense them, and directly inform the reader. However, today there are many options from which we can get our news. The ability to use television, newspaper, online blogs, online news sites, video sites, etc does not provide, as Sullivan said “a stable truth of permanent perspective.” This is of course not to mention that all of these sources likely put their own slant on every news story.

The instability of blogs as well as modern news creates confusion in the minds of those who are not willing to dig a little deeper. However, in those who are willing to just read a little more than the front page, it creates the ability to think for oneself. The 1930’s news system, though streamlined, could easily make a person think in a certain way, whereas today in the most classic example, Fox keeps CNN in check and CNN in tun keeps Fox in check. It’s all about accountability.

We live in a bubble, baby. A bubble's not reality.

Because of the current internet situation on campus, I am going to write my reaction to “The Press Becomes a Press Sphere” in two parts. Part one will be my initial thoughts prior to reading the piece, and part two will be my actual reaction (after trekking to the library).

In my mind, the press’ job has always been to report local events as well as the events of the world to citizens in an accurate and fair way. However, media moguls have, in the last 25 to 30 years, vastly overstepped their bounds. The desire to constantly be on top of the media heap has caused travesties such as false or premature reporting, creation of hysteria, and even getting reporters or cameras involved in sensitive issues first hand. The “Press Sphere” sounds to me like the world created by news agencies. It is a world in which people only get the media’s perspective of news and where the only stories shared with the world are ones that have the possibility of making money for the company. In essence, this sphere is a limited view of the truth.

While reading the article and attempting to digest the many flow charts and graphs it contained, I stumbled on two key phrases.

The first is press-centric which indicated that the press is at the center of the world, or at least of the news story. Instead of the media ‘adopting’ a story and letting it play out on its own, they search for stories that they can refer to as breaking.

The second (and final) phrase is “creation of a news story.” This proves my earlier point that news is not always true. At times, news agencies have been known to fabricate or sensationalize stories that shouldn’t even be in the limelight.

This article makes a stride in proving that great care must be taken in educating yourself on current events. To be truly informed, one must avoid the sphere. The news is getting harder and harder to get the truth from. It seems as though today everyone has an agenda and a point they want to make no matter what the cost, even if truth is the cost.

Analyze This!

Just as a reminder, the blogs I chose to follow are Gretawire and The Daily Dish.

As a little throwback to elementary school, let’s do a little comparing and contrasting, shall we?

The purpose of these blogs have only similarities in the shallowest senses. They only want to inform and bring people to the view of their writers. The differences in purpose are vast. First, Gretawire is a very conservative blog in every sense of the word. There is rarely any case where her blog strays to the left. After all, she is affiliated with Fox (not that it is a bad thing!). This differs from The Daily Dish, which claims no party. The writer of The Daily Dish can be described as “new age conservative’ which some would even argue is not truly conservative at all.

The topic of author is one that I feel needs very little attention. Both Greta and Andrew have been highly educated and are both very professional. Greta is on television as well as online whereas Andrew is rarely televised. His blogging is his main way of communicating with the world. Greta’s politics are very straightforward, which is not always to say they are correct. She tents to stick to the mainstream view of conservatism. Andrew follows no visible path. In fact, you could even say he is paving his own path and creating his own politics.

The basic view of audience is very simple. Basically, both writers want to attract as many people as possible. Greta seems to be more strictly focused on the news which means that the people she would attract are looking for a very impersonal relationship with her. Andrews blog, though predominately news, includes topics of his life and his interest, not just ones The Atlantic wants him to include. This would, in my opinion, attract a wider range of people just because it seems almost as if it is a friendship instead of a subscription.

NYTIMES

The New York Times is considered to be one of the nation’s leading news sources. I have been charged with reading it daily to keep truly understand online news and to better keep up with current events. I honestly haven’t been keeping up with it as well as I should be but nonetheless, I have noticed a few noteworthy points.

First and foremost, I have learned that news stories have a long lifespan. Just because something isn’t on the front page anymore, does mean that it not longer makes the news, especially in the case of online news. One story I have seen over and over is about anything to do with the H1N1 vaccine or the virus itself. The last time I saw anything of it on the front page, the vaccine was being given out and side effects were being explored. In June or July, the scare of the virus died down a little and it was during that time that I can almost guarantee the story got moved deeper into the website. The most popular stories are always on top.

I believe it was Hedges that pointed out the online generation’s impatience with reading. When examining the layout of the front page of NYTimes.com, one may agree with him. It has a very small preview of each story with an option to read the whole story. These are meant to peak your interest and possibly even give you a little information you might not have though you wanted to know prior. However, these are not by any means a replacement for the actual news articles.

Follow the... leader?

I have decided to follow Greta Van Susteren’s blog as well as the Daily Dish by Andrew Sullivan. The main reason is simple: I need to better keep up with what’s going on in America. Since this is an assignment I figured I should use this time to my advantage and actually try to learn something!

You may have noticed the traditional conservative (Greta) vs new age conservative/ ‘no party’ (Sullivan) connection. As mentioned in my previous blogs, I think variety is a good way to get the real story, even though my choices may not be the largest span in variety. Also, I have my opinions on things and instead of being further stuck in my ways, I want to keep an open mind. To do this, I need to see more sides of the issue. Simple right? Hopefully I can not be disgusted… by either of them.

Me vs You (Part Two)

While skimming through my classmates’ blogs, one very interesting thing kept popping out of me- there are a vast number of news sources which, in the traditional sense, may not be considered news.

The basic kinds are from the television. Fox, CNN, MSNBC, and the like dominate the television news world. There all have their own ‘special’ way to present a story. If an event worthy of news occurs and you watch the aforementioned channels, you will get three completely different stories. Because of the vast difference in the reporting, the most basic difference in the way we perceive news is created.

The irony when it comes to news is that all means of presentation claim to be just the facts and all say they want to let you decide. However, this is not truly the case. Every media source has its own agenda (as granted to it by the first amendment!) This does not by any stretch of the imagination mean that they will all agree with your opinions or even be correct.

As Sylvia Scribner points out, we have yet to see the bounds of literacy. I believe that modern news has created a partnership between television, physical print, internet print, and even online streaming video. All of these mediums present different information rather than repeating the same things over again. We are given a plethora of opportunities to learn as much as we desire on almost any topic. The way the internet has come to interact with our literate life has catalyst rather than a hindrance toward the boundaries of literacy. Personally, when I wrote my first blog, I only considered the most basic forms of news- television and internet. My eyes were opened when I discovered that this was not the end of the means to get news. It was only the beginning.

Round two.

In today’s society, news is more readily available than it ever has been. Everywhere we turn we see “Breaking News” or even just the latest headlines. The hard part about this is finding the truth. Somewhere among the mass of opinions and conspiracy theories there is a truth that we must ourselves find to truly understand the events of our day. To say that any news source is infallible is to say that it is not run by humans.

The easiest way to find out the truth is to use multiple sources and read about the same event. Fox News is typically known for its conservative slant whereas CNN News is known for its liberal bias. If we put all of our faith into one of these sources, no matter what our political opinion, our personal ignorance will be perpetuated. All sources must be considered and when the common threads show between sources, it’s possible that you’ve found the truth.

Another simple way to find out the truth is through other people. This however is a double edged sword. Just like news sites or channels, individuals have opinions and in fact, most single person sources will be more biased than even the news. Because of this, finding a trustworthy person to receive information from is sometimes a tricky process. In the end, it may be worth the effort so that the process of filtering through the lies portrayed by the television and internet is easier.

By far the most reliable way to find news is to wait until events are no longer breaking or even news at all. Just because an event is no longer front page news doesn’t mean people don’t write or care about it anymore. In fact, it likely means that since all the hysteria is over, the sensationalists are the only ones who have stopped caring. With time, the truth always comes out. It’s just a matter of being concerned with events long enough to ensure that you are enlightened by the truth on a personal level.

Extended Essay FINAL (uh-oh)

Here is a link to my final draft.

I hope you enjoy it.