Dangerous hatred in the US?

The article titled “Dangerous Hatred in the US?” appeared in Aljazeera. The article goes into the reasons many are against the Obama camp. I found this article to be interesting but disturbing at the same time at the rift that the U.S is facing between its own people. You would think that after all this country has been through we would learn to be more accepting of others yet it seems the “others” in our society although they can be the majority they will always be seen as the minority by some. The article talks about the efforts that the Obama camp has been trying to do to get this country to progress and they twist it making it into a bad thing by saying, “the US president plans to set  up mandatory re-education camps to get indoctrinate young Americans” I find it disturbing that they would bring up concentration like camps after all that we have seen in our history and pining it to a political figure as well known as Obama to tarnish his reputation.

I understand that not a lot of people may like a president when they are in office for their decisions made in the office, however I feel that we quickly forgot about the hatred we had for Bush once he left office and switched it to hating Obama. The article says, “Obama is a racist, with a deep-seated hatred for white people” and “Obama is a biblical Antichrist” the articles hatred and need to tear apart the president doesn’t end there. The article continues to say, “obama is a bloodsucking Muslim alien” and “ I’d take a gun to Washington if enough of you went with me, im going to pray he dies and goes to hell” I understand that some people may not agree with his decisions while in office but to make it personal and wish death upon a person is extreme. It shows that sadly we have not progressed as much as we would like to think these past years if people can take such extreme thoughts about a certain person and target them due to their race and religion.

The last part of the article that truly disturbs me is when it states, “But while their numbers may be relatively small, the right-wing radicals and the media bomb throwers who fire them up can do a lot of damage” I think that there is a freedom of speech in this country and while we may not like it everyone is entitled to speaking their mind. However I think that these media men that are disturbed I think since they spew hatred toward anything that isn’t white should be held accountable. They should be charged for the actions of others since they know their audience could be extremists and they rally them and get them all worked up with thoughts that could lead them to do bad things. It is sad to think that even though we have come so far and many whites in small communities in the middle of the country did vote for Obama many still think they are better than others.

I am glad that obama is president even if he doesn’t do anything spectacular for the country to show these extremists that the majority of the country doesn’t not share their disturbing beliefs and we wont stand for it. That we give equal opportunities to anyone who we see is qualified rather than based on their skin color. Now we may not all agree on Obama’s actions in office and may feel like he hasn’t accomplished what he set out to do so failed, but at least the action of having a black president has set our country forward and in the right direction. It shows the world that the majority of the US is accepting and progressing and we will not deny people the chance to try based on color. I do think that the fact that he was black got him into office since many minorities voted for him in hopes he would speak for them and others because they hoped the difference in this president and lasts would bring about change and hope. I think its sad that the media gives these believers, these haters if you will a platform to speak and spread their hatred. I don’t think we should listen to the words of angry people for they don’t have an issue with him because hes black the real issue is that they always need to have an issue to stay in the spot light. The less attention we give radicals the less power they have.

is hate speech in the media directly affecting our culture?

Henry Giroux takes the yes stance on the question of “Is Hate Speech in the Media Directly Affecting Our Culture?” and Georgie Weatherby and Brian Scoggins take the no side. Henry Giroux starts off by stating that “Many individuals and groups find themselves living in a society that measures the worth of human life in terms of cost benefit analyses. Many groups who are considered marginal because they are poor, unemployed, people of color, elderly, or young, have not just been excluded from ‘the American dream’ but have become utterly redundant and disposable, waste products of a society that no longer considers them of any value”(258). I think that this is sad and would like to say that not everyone believes this and that people are treated equally, however that is not the truth. Now with the economy going down the drain still and so many people struggling to hold on the their jobs there is a sense of a rift between the haves and have not’s more so then before. We would think that people would be more lenient in their judging of other since the troubles we all have yet we still judge thinking that they are the reason our economy is down since they don’t work, we blame the homeless for making us pay more taxes to home them. The last quote that I notice from his section was when he stated, “Hate talk that permeates right-wing media. This could be dismissed as loony right-wing political theater if it were not for the low levels of civic literacy displayed by so many Americans who choose to believe and invest in this type of hate talk. On the contrary it may be idiocy, it reveals a powerful set of political, economic and educational forces at work in miseducating the American public while at the same time extending the culture of cruelty.” (260) I think that since we have freedom of speech in the country many people can say things that are offensive to others and get away with it. Sadly there are those that for some reason believe these hateful words or associations to be true and therefore there is a never ending cycle of hate and misunderstanding and lack of compassion or tolerance. I think it is wrong to have outlets that spew hate but because we are in American and we have freedom of speech, we are allowed to say what we please even if means to be hateful.

Georgie Weatherby and Brian Scoggins argue the no side stating that there are three methods that people use the internet in a foul way to persuade people into bad things. The three techniques that this section talks about is important since it talks about how through this the internet people can control peoples thoughts. The first technique is “Foot-in-the-door technique, this is the theory that a person will be more likely to accede to a request if he or she previously has agreed to a smaller related request”(265). This is similar to the second technique called “Low-Ball technique, compliance is gained by not telling the person the whole story. This method is often intertwined with foot-in-the-door techniques. This is in fact how propaganda works, the person or organization trying to persuade tells only part of the story”(265). These two techniques work together and the last technique is called, “Door-in-the-face technique  happens when someone initially is asked to perform a large request and then is asked to perform a smaller one. It arouses a person’s interest in something unusual.”(266) I think that all these techniques are used to target people from hate groups or as a way to infiltrate people’s ideas and cause them to think in a certain way that the group may want them too. This is noted in the book when it states, “the internet allows hate groups to control their image in terms of how they wish to appear to the public. Groups are able to appear much more respectable, and nearly all are choosing to take this route.”(267) I think that Weatherby makes good points which is that the internet has been a good tool but it also allows hate groups to spread and to multiple in members. The fact that we do have freedom of speech protects them to some point and sadly with the internet its hard to check the facts presented to you so some people may think that some of these hate sites that don’t look like them are factual. I think that their should be some form to make the sites note their associations to hate groups to not trick people into believing its true. Sadly we cant shut them all down but I think that there should be cautionary note on the site.

Do Media Represent realistic images of arabs

Gal Beckerman represents the yes side while Jack Shaheen states no. The yes argument is titled The New Arab Conversation and talks about how Arabic culture and society has evolved to a better place but I think although it has good arguments it is not truthful since the media does not show these advances as the question asks even though they may have advanced. The argument for the yes side tries to persuade you that it has evolved since now it states that “they reflect a new culture of openness, dialogue and questioning” (51) the article tries to make life seem better and more open and free by his statements, and continues “whether it is a Jordanian student discussing the taboo subject of the monarchy’s viability or a Saudi woman writing about her sexual experiences or an Egyptian commenting with sadness at an Israeli bloggers description of a suicide bombing each of these unprecedented acts is on small move to opening up these societies”(51)this statement makes it seem that Arabic societies have become more accepting and free, making readers think that things have become more liberal and people are no longer afraid to speak their mind.

The last positive point that the article makes is when it states, “blogs can serve two functions they are diaries where the minute of a life are spelled out in 500 word posts and they are a personal op-ed page in which a writer comments at will about news articles and daily political developments rambles in anger or appreciation”(52) I think that this is a great thing to hear that more people are willing to express their thoughts and ideas but I find it odd that an article trying to persuade you that Arab countries are evolving for the better would say, “Arab bloggers, most of whom are anonymous for their own safety, commit small actions of bravery simply by speaking their minds.”(52) This is great to know but if your trying to say its better wouldn’t add that you can speak your mind but in secret. The article continues to tarnish everything it did to try and prove that Arabian countries   have evolved for the better by saying, “there are good reasons why most of the Arab blogosphere remains anonymous. Just this past year several bloggers were jailed in Egypt”(54) again I wonder if this person is trying to convince me that Arabic countries are better for their citizens or worse because his entire argument is teetering on the line which actually helps the opposing argument more.

The no sides arguments brought by Jack Shaheen are quick and simple and to the point. I agree more with Shaheen’s argument since he provides a better argument sadly. He starts off by stating that; “stereotypes equating Islam and Arabs with violence have endured for more than a century.” (57) This is true sadly for in all the movies they are the dark mysterious figure to watch out for and the article states “today the stereotype’s power which is Arab=Muslim= Godless Enemy, inflicts more damage on innocent people since 9/11 than before”(57) I think this is true we knew they were different before 9/11 due to the way they dressed but we were not so fixated on signaling them out before as we were after 9/11. The lat two quotes that make me agree with his article was when he states “Hollywood’s fractured mirrors of popular imagination lumped together Muslims and Arabs as on Homogenous blob, however there are more than 20 million Arab Christians in the Arab world ranging from Eastern Orthodox to Roman Catholic to Protestant”(58) I find this truthful and funny, since Hollywood has had a major impact on peoples beliefs and views on other cultures since not everyone has personally interacted with other cultures so they base their thoughts about others on what they see. I also find it funny since the media in general lumps all Arabs as being Muslim and or radical ones and therefore we don’t think as them being someone we could relate too but this shows that many are not actually Muslims.  

The last Quote that made me agree with his argument is when he states, “the total number of films that defile Arabs now exceeds 1,150. 950 pre-9/11 Hollywood features existed. Since then I viewed 100 + pre 9/11 films defiling Arabs that were not included in Reel Bad Arabs…Post 9/11 films I found that 22 movies (1 IN 4) that otherwise have nothing whatsoever to do with Arabs or Middle East contain gratuitous slurs and scenes that demean Arabs. (59) I think this is true we once added them in if we needed a shady character in a film like in Aladdin the Disney movie they were all from the Middle East but only Jafar the bad character was visibly darker than the rest even though all were said to be middle eastern. Now however many films ad them in and make a mockery of them or even if no visible middle eastern is present we still refer to them in a harsh light. I think this has been happening for generations and only has gotten worse sadly since 9/11 it has given Americans a reason to continue doing what they have done for years which is distrust and slander the ones that are different. I think that the Middle East may be changing for the better however I don’t think that it will be applauded or cared for much. 

Do Media Cause Individuals to Develop Negative Body Images?

Shari L. Dworkin and Faye Linda Wachs argue that the images and portrayals of bodies in the media leads people to feel inadequate while Michael Levine and Sarah Murnen argue that that is not the case. The argument of yes brought on by Dworkin and Wachs states that, “Women’s power and experience of self is based on the ability to meet current cultural ideals. Women and girls come to experience themselves as if someone were looking at them (as an object) and evaluate themselves based on appearance and their successful presentation of self as an object”(70) I think that this is true sadly the media an the culture has made it where women are more self conscious even subconsciously where we do think well do I look ok before going out and if we don’t feel like we look good we tend to think that everyone is looking at us.

Dworkin and Wachs state that, “grooming practices and fashion expand, as it is framed as ‘imperative’ for both women and men (manscaping, manicures, spa treatment, massages). Maintaining a fit body is no longer viewed as a personal choice, but as an obligation to the public good and a requirements for good citizenry”(71-72). This is sadly true again we as a society have become so use to the medias coverage of what an ideal body should look and be like that now we tend to look around on a daily basis and when we she something that does not fit into the mold we question why they don’t look like they should. We question whether or not we are being looked at and judged as well. The section continues to state that, “fat is unhealthy. Prevents you from being everything you can be. Leads to public ridicule, especially at the hands of the opposite sex. Is a sign of one’s failure to demonstrate a proper ‘work ethic’. The ratification of the fat-free form is visually reinforced almost continuously with the imagery in magazines. Idealized bodies with no body fat are featured on the covers and throughout magazines”(72) I find this funny since doctors say a little fat is necessary for everyone. I do get that people should not be obese due to it causes health problems but our societies addiction with pressuring everyone to lose weight doesn’t help, infact I think that the pressure can lead to many developing problems emotionally and physically, trying to keep up with societies ideals is harmful. The last quote that they mention that I thought was worth mentioning was the fact that society is crazy, “for women, decreasing fat was the most common diet recommendation. For women fitness and dieting are critical to become slim”(73) I think that watching the amount of fat that you intake is important as well as watching the sugar and everything else you eat. But the fact that Fat reduction is only associated with women diets is ridiculous. I don’t understand why for women the less fat is better but shouldn’t it be the case for everyone men and women?

Michael Levine and Sarah Murnen states right in the beginning that they believe people with “negative body images, and unhealthy behaviors have mental problems” that cause these issues not the media. They continue to say “the few published studies do suggest that early exposure to thin-ideal television predicts a subsequent increase in body image problems”(82) they continue to state that, “common sense and people’s lived experience specifically if mass media are a casual risk factor should show how the media provides the raw material from which children and adolescents extract and construct the information and behavioral cues necessary to develop the components of eating disorders.”(80-81) I think that both articles state that the media does impact a persons life and their views on their body. Although one is against and another for the impacts that the media can have they both states how the media has effects on our lives and how it is easy to become pessimistic about your body due to the media scrutiny and the media’s dedication to making slim bodies the ideal. I think that there is a line where at a certain age you should know that its only TV and not allow it to affect you, however its hard to not let it affect you in some why. We can’t escape it sadly but I think by telling yourself that it is around you and that being rail thin may not be healthy for you then you can try and ignore it. Everyone is a different size and people are meant to be different, as long as your healthy I don’t think it should matter if you measure up to what a model is expected to look like after airbrushing. 

RA #3

Research Project

My topic is alcohol. Specifically if ads contribute/influence a person’s decision on drinking in general but more so does a brands ad influence their decision on trying that drink. I want to know if a person is more willing to try a type of drink due to an ad that caught their attention or if its more through word of mouth that gets them wanting to try a product. I want the know if there has been an ad so appealing to a person that has gotten them to want to try a product, or at least stuck with them enough that they could recognize the product where ever they went. I want to know what influences their decision on what drink they consume does the way its represented influence their decision? Where are the most ads seen for alcohol in magazines, TV or billboards? Are these ads effective?

Hypothesis:

I believe that there will be a group of people that don’t drink and will be caused by the fact that they might be underage and that prevents them from getting alcohol. However those that can and don’t will be more likely not to for external reasons such as religion or family values. I think that the result I will get is that the majority of the people that do drink will say that a friend got them into trying a drink rather than an ad. However I am positive that everyone has seen at least one ad that has compelled them to try a drink, or to want to.

Method:

I think that the best way to conduct my research is by doing a survey on Facebook again to reach a big group of people. I think that having it be a survey that will clump the information together in the end for the results will allow people to open up, where that might not if their names were placed. I will provide a multiple choice survey like I did with the last research project and make it more specific asking people to name the brand of liquor that they saw most in ads, where they saw these ads, or were compelled to try it because of the ad and why?

Results:

            I do not have the results right now since I have yet to do the survey. However I do think that once I get the results I would do a pie graph to show the results again for each question so see what was the most effective brand, the most effective method of advertising and the most effective ad.

Conclusion:

 I believe that I will get a lot of information and willing participants since many have just become over age. However even if someone cant drink does not mean that they haven’t seen an ad somewhere in their life about a brand of alcohol and thought what it tastes like. I believe that in my results I will get a lot of different drinks, would be interesting to see if any are similar but I want to see mainly how effective these ads are in targeting us that they make us want to try them and if someone does I want to see if they got what the product says or if they think it was horrible and misleading. 

Do video games encourage violent behavior?

Do video games encourage violent behaviors? This is a question that so many have asked themselves and parents fight about, if the games they allow their children to play drives them to a point where the commit acts of violence due to the correlation that they create between the video game and the real world. Craig Anderson and Henry Jenkins take opposing sides on the issue to state their views. Craig Anderson argues that yes video games do encourage violence and Henry Jenkins claims that video games don’t have anything to do with the violence in the real world.

            Craig Andrews states in his argument that he believes violence does spill over from the TV screen to gamers actions outside of the fantasy world by stating, “some field experiments have used behaviors such as biting, pinching, hitting, pushing, and pulling hair behaviors that were not modeled in the game. The fact that these aggressive behaviors occur in natural environments does not make them ‘normal’ play behavior, but it does increase the face validity.”(95) I think that this is true that maybe these specific forms of fighting does not come up in the game but I do notice that violence does come up in some games. Even the little kid games where they have to over come the bad witch or something they fight her tell she dies or they win. The amount of violence does vary as the games go through the age groups but doesn’t mean there isn’t violence in the little kid games.  These forms of aggression that he says kicking, biting and pushing I think that is normal kids play, they do it even if it isn’t involving a video game when they are engulfed in a game. I think once someone gets to the higher forms of violence and thinking about doing real harm then there is an issue, but hitting and biting that’s something siblings do to each other in a normal basis.

The last quote that he brings up is that “high levels of violent game exposure have been linked to delinquency, fighting at school and during free play periods, and violent criminal behaviors”(96) I find this funny since I know that to some they do have difficulty in separating reality from fantasy and do commit violent actions as a result of gaming, however this is like saying everyone that lives in poor neighborhoods will rob. I know that it may be a higher percentage of people that game and are violent as well as those that commit illegal actions in bad neighborhoods but there is always an exception. I don’t think that this applies to everyone and most people actually are not violent unless when gaming and violent only in the game.

Henry Jenkins argues that video games do not have as much influence on people to commit bad choices or be violent like many would like to believe and I agree with him. Jenkins states, “Researchers find that people serving time for violent crimes typically consume less media before committing their crimes than the average person in the general population”(99) This is important to note since everyone that thinks games cause people to be crooks and criminals needs to realize that their have been extreme cases where someone played a game and fell of the wagon, however for the most part people cant separate a game and life and don’t spin out of control after turning off the game. A good point that he brings up is that “young girls often build upon these representations of strong women warriors as a means of building up their self confidence in confronting challenges in their everyday lives”(100) I think that this is a good thing however I don’t know if it is good they are relying on a game to build their confidence. He states that, “Games enhance learning, players are active problem solvers, players search for newer, better solutions to problems and challenges. Almost 60 percent of frequent gamers play with friends.”(101-102) I think that this is important to break down the stereotype that games sit alone in a room, which causes them to break down.

In the end I agree more with Henry Jenkins, especially on something that he states saying “clearly more should be done to restrict advertising and marketing that targets young consumers with mature content, and to educate parents about the media choices they are facing. But parents need to share the responsibility for making decisions about what is appropriate for their children. “(100) I think that that quote really sums up the entire issue. The parents can blame the video game companies for producing violent games for their children, but in reality they are the ones that buy them the games. No one is forcing a child to get a game and the only way they can get it is if you buy it for them, so truth is watch what you buy them and stop complaining about it. A game is a game but if in the wrong hands it can take a whole new turn so be a parent and watch what your kids get a hold of. 

is advertising good for society?

John Calfee and Dinyar Godrej face each other on the issue of whether or not advertising is good for society. Calfee says that it is good for society, while Godrej states that it actually is bad for society. I agree more with John Calfee in thinking that advertising is good for society, although Godrej does make a good case on why advertising is not good for society.

Dinyar Godrej states that advertising is bad for society when he states that, “Advertising is a bit of a compulsive liar” he continues to explain this theory of his by stating, “Advertising today has little to do with introducing a new product or describing an existing ones virtues. It has everything to do with images, dreams and emotions, stuff we are evolutionarily programmed to engage with but which is almost without exception in the ad biz fake” (141) While I agree with him in the sense that the marketing business tries to engage consumers and get them to buy their products by appealing to them in a certain angle that guarantees most will buy the product, yet I disagree that marketing isn’t inventing new products. I think that they may be the same idea of a product that was already invented but I think most times the new product has been altered to make it more efficient and better than the products existing in the market that do the same function if not what is the purpose of releasing it to the public if it’s the same thing as what’s already available. Where is the competition in that?

I agree with John Calfee, because although I think that marketing and advertisements do get us to buy products we don’t need, yet it does give us a choice or at least a sense of having a choice. I think that advertising is important to companies to get their product recognized and ultimately bought but also to get potential customers aware that there is a product out there that they want and this is the company selling it. Calfee states, “It routinely provides immense amounts of information that benefits primarily parties other than the advertiser” (131) he continues to state that “the ability to use information to sell products is an incentive to create new information through research. Whether the topic is nutrition, safety, or more mundane matters like how to measure amplifier power, the necessity of achieving credibility with consumers and critics requires much of this research to be placed in the public domain, and that it rest upon some academic credentials” (131-132) Calfee makes a good point that there are ads that are repetitive and useless, however not all of them are. I have seen ads on the television primarily after Haiti’s incident where famous people would advertise on commercials for people to be more prepared no matter where you live. They advertised having water, flash lights and a first aid kit, now this doesn’t always appear on TV or plastered on the streets, however I agree with him that there are useless ads but not all of them are useless.

The last quote that he says in his argument that makes me take his side is when he states, “the unremitting nature of consumer interest in health, and the eagerness of sellers to cater to consumer desires, guarantee that advertising related to health will provide a storehouse of telling observations on the ways in which benefits of advertising extend beyond the interests of advertisers to include the interests of the public at large”(132) I think that this is important, it shows that yes advertisements goal is to get money for the product and those that make it but advertisement can also be beneficial to the consumers. I have seen many ads on the television for Kaiser Permanente; I know that by doing that the company is making money by potentially getting new clients/new patients however they company is also doing good for the consumers by telling them how to get a hold of them and where they are located. Same goes for Walgreens, I have seen all over the place ads to go get the flu shot there, it’s good for them because brings them customers but does a service to the community to get shots locally and cheaper or even free. I see the points that both arguments are making however I have to agree more with John Calfee in the fact that advertisement does more good than bad.

RA 2

Fabiola Figueroa

 Ms. Andrews

Media, Politics and society

October 26, 2010

Introduction:

I am conducting a survey on my peers to see if we as a younger generation are truly informed. My main purpose is to see if the form of technology that we use has any correlation with how informed we are specifically on the California Governors race.

Hypothesis:  

I believe that while conducting this survey amongst my peers that I will find that all of the ones that use their cell phone or the internet to find out about the current events will be more informed. I also believe that in my survey it will show that the most used forms of technology are cell phones and the internet.

Method:

I conducted my survey through the internet, I sent several people the survey questions through a message on Facebook. This allowed me to send it to several people at once and receive several responses quickly. This made it faster to conduct my survey than if I were to have tried to do it in person.

Description: 

The survey was made up of six simple questions, all were multiple choice. The survey questions were broken down into three questions on technology and the last three on the governor’s race

1) How many hours a day do you use technology?

            A. 0-3 hours

            B. 4-6 hours

            C. 7-9 hours

2) What form of technology do you use the most?

            A. Computer

            B. Cell phone

            C. IPod

            D. Radio

3) What form of communication do you use to get information on current events?

            A. Newspaper

            B. Television

            C. Internet

            D. Radio

4) Pick one person running for the California Governor’s race?

            A. Jerry Brown

            B. Meghan McCain

            C. Meg Whitman

            D. George Clooney

5) Pick one way you can vote?

            A. Over the internet

            B. Over the phone

            C. by mail

            D. in person

6) Do you know when to vote?

            A. December 3^rd

            B. November 2^nd

            C. November 15^th

            D. October 31st

Result summary: 

After conducting my survey I noticed that most of the people that I surveyed were very informed. The ones that were informed were those that used their cell phones, internet or watched TV. I noticed that the higher percentage of people that knew when the election date was and at least one person running has said that they use the internet or phone with capability for the internet. The few that had no clue who were running or when the election was seemed more to have said they use their IPods more than any other form.

Conclusion: 

My hypothesis is correct, I was certain going into this survey that the majority of the people would get the answers right. I also assumed that those that said they used their cell phones or the internet would be the most informed, however that was never a guarantee. I was surprised to see how low some people were in their awareness and noted that the majority of those people had used their IPods. It is never absolute, yet it would seem now that the form of media more so then the time spent on using that media is the real factor on how informed someone is.

Are people better informed in the “information society?”

Mark Bauerlein stands for the no side, and Linda Jackson and her colleagues try to prove yes. Linda Jackson argues the side to the issue. Her article is titled “Does Home internet use Influence the Academic Performance, of Low-Income Children?”, Although she was trying to prove that people are better informed I found it odd that she would being by stating that her “findings were inconclusive” although this may be true to know that as the first thing she informs me as she tries to pursue me to believe her I must say it does the opposite. I start to think well if she doesn’t even know her point then why should I take her word for it. Even with that mishap she manages to state some good points, “the benefits of computer-based instruction are clearer for mathematics and science that they are for other subjects” she continues to state that “positive effects are more likely to emerge when technology is used to support the four fundamentals of learning; active engagement, participation in groups, frequent interaction and feedback, and connections to real-world contexts” I think that she in incorporating something that most people already know which if you give someone the tools to learn they are more likely to succeed. The argument continues to state that, “Having a home computer has been associated with higher test scores in reading” this would be a good thing if it weren’t followed by a statement stating that the survey could not be positive on this since they couldn’t monitor what was used on the computer. This makes me think that they haven’t proven anything, the students that have access to a computer and tools could be cheating while using the computer, the ones that are not using a computer could not really be doing worse just because of the factor of not having a computer. This entire argument to me is more about the possibility that the internet could potentially have some kind of effect however unknown what kind. It has not proven much, having a computer is associated with higher scores and “higher GPAs” but how can they be one hundred percent sure that this is true that having internet or not truly impacts a student’s education for better or worse. They assume that the ones that don’t have a computer are doing poorly because of this factor but don’t truly measure in other factors that could result with failure or success.

Mark Bauerlein, covers the no side. His article is titled, “The dumbest generation: how the digital age stupefies young Americans and jeopardizes our future” This article I thought proved more what the side they were representing was with facts unlike the first one that left me confused. The article states that, “young adults have absorbed digital tools into their daily lives like no other age group, grown up with more knowledge and information readily at hand, taken more classes, built their own web sites, enjoyed more libraries, bookstores, and museums” the quote continues to state, “the world has provided them extraordinary chances to gain knowledge and improve their reading/writing skills, offering financial incentives to do so, young Americans today are no more learned or skillful than their predecessors, no more knowledge, up-to-date, or inquisitive except in materials of youth culture. They don’t know any more history or civics, economics or science, literature or current events; they read less on their own both books and newspapers” the rant goes on to say “ Fewer books are checked out of the library and more videos. More kids go to the mall and fewer to the museum. Lunchroom conversations never drift into ideology but web photos pass nonstop from handheld to handheld”. I have some negative aspects to say about both sides and some positives too to begin the first article had no evidence to back anything they were saying so really didn’t mean anything, however they stated that their was a possibility that students with access to a computer and certain tools could do better in school, I agree with this, I think that technology has allowed us to move forward in the sense that it makes studying, getting access to information and people faster which in the end can help with your grades and knowledge. The second article I liked that it stated how we have information available immediately making it easier to advance in the technology world and with homework. I disagree when it states that we go less to libraries, museums and bookstores, I think that if students had the time now to go to these places more they would, I think many students go to the libraries especially in universities since they are booked with homework, just because when we go we don’t enjoy it due to other priorities like class does not mean we lack the interest to go to these places. I have to disagree with the last quote since just like they are quick to state that we know less or careless about subjects like history and the news does not make it so. There are young people that lack knowledge on certain items but that doesn’t mean they wouldn’t care. If students now had the time to do those things I think they would, these surveys are not to old but they have to think that students are worked to the max during school hours and when time comes to relax they don’t think of going to a museum to learn more no they think I want to rest, sleep, turn on the tv and listen to noise. We are placed into this never ending cycle of wanting to but never having a chance to, and when we don’t we are condemned for not doing so. The section states that many students use the internet for fun and not to learn when I personally have seen so many doing work and stressing of deadlines which makes me wonder where these students are with so much free time to lounge. There is no time to lounge so to condemn us for not picking educational alternatives for our down time when we don’t even have down time is contradictory