“The Massless Media”
By: William Powers

William Powers examines how mass media has changed since the 1800s. CBS, NBC and ABC news television channels have lost viewers for multiple reasons. Their viewers have found quicker ways to retrieve the same information as provided on these channels. With the advancement of technology, the success of mass media has decreased. Web blogs, news sites and radios have been more successful in providing the public with information than the mass media. Radio now has satellite and web variants that let listeners choose their taste pods with exceptional precision (468). Powers also states that channels focusing on certain products attract the viewers’ eyes more often than none. Business Week magazine reported the following quote about preferential viewers. “The country has atomized into countless market segments defined not only by demography, but by increasingly nuanced and insistent product preferences.” (468). With the advancement of technology and partisan viewers, the success of mass media has declined over the past two hundred years.

Powers does not effectively speak on the opposing argument, that mass media has not declined over the years and it is still the same as the 1800s. He focuses more attention on getting his argument across that mass media has changed significantly. Although Powers provides reliable sources such as Business Week magazine, a college professor and a Washington journalist, he does not take into consideration the views of the opposing side. He puts more emphasis on the idea that advancing technology affects the use of mass media. Some citizens select which type of news they want to follow allowing selective magazines, radio stations and websites to get more attention than mass media.

BLOG POST: “Is Pop culture Dumbing Us Down or Smartening Us Up?”

By. Sally Moon

“Brain Candy: Is Pop Culture Dumbing Us Down or Smartening Us Up?”

Malcolm Gladwell

Are you actually learning something while you’re watching that favorite TV show of yours? While you’re playing that video game that was just released at midnight? Is today’s pop culture actually making you smarter in ways that books cannot provide?

Malcolm Gladwell explores the various ways pop culture benefits our learning process, as a response to a book by Steven Johnson, which fully supported the idea that pop culture actually makes us “smarter” in many different ways. Whether it’s playing a video game or watching a television show, today’s pop culture is very different than that of 20 or 30 years ago. Today’s video games and television shows are far more complex than ever before, the complexity of these games and shows require complex interaction from the viewers/players. As Gladwell claims, greater cognitive demands are thrown at us by these television shows that require such in-depth thinking and thought processing. Watching and understanding some of these popular shows require scrutinizing the actions going on in the shows, second-guessing to try to figure out the plots, and approaching problems from many different points of views. While watching television shows has you on the edge of your seat, using your brain in ways that reading a book would’ve never been able to provoke, playing video games also plays a huge role in developing your collateral learning process. Playing video games requires the players to use their complexities. Every video game comes with a full imaginary world, along with very complex details. Playing video games requires the players to “manage a dizzying array of information and options, craft long-term strategies, and actively intervene to look for hidden logic, and find order in chaos” (Gladwell 455, 456). Gladwell’s appeal to logics succeeds at persuading the readers that pop culture does in fact benefit people’s learning processes. However, he concludes his argument by giving credit to both sides of the arguments. He states that the real importance is the balance between the collateral and explicit learning. While reading a book is important, credit should also be given to the extensive collateral learning promoted by today’s popular culture.

Gladwell successfully addressed the opposing point of view by presenting various questions that may have been raised by the opposing side. He even mentions possible downsides of the opposing approach. He quotes Steven Johnson’s response to the opposing arguments such as “books are also tragically isolating…”, “reading books chronically understimulates the senses…”, and “…this risks instilling a general passivity…”. This approach appeals to the logical perspective of the issue, which successfully supports his claim. However, is this enough evidence to disprove the opposing claim? Are his claims and approaches powerful enough to overpower the opposing side? Will supporters of reading and traditional learning be persuaded to switch their teaching methods from this argument? What more could he have done to make his argument more persuasive?

Reality Bytes: Eight Myths about Video Games Debunked

By: Henry Jenkins

The public’s perception of video games and what the research actually shows is a big issue for children, teens, and parents. Video games are being preserved as one of the top influencers for violence. Even though, ninety percent of boys and forty percent of girls play video games not all video games are harmful. Some people blame video games on anti-social acts, but according to a 2001 Surgeon General’s report, the strongest risk factors for these crimes are more centered on mental stability and the quality of home life, not media exposure (451). People believe that violent video games lead to them becoming violent in their everyday life. Research has shown only when coupled with other real-world influences, do violent video games become harmful to the game players. People say that playing video games is socially isolating, there has been a shift towards the globalizations of video game play. Although the gamer might be alone in his/her room this still might be playing online with multiple gamers (453). For example, Xbox live is like its own social network. There are many myths as to why video games are corrupting our youth today, but through research all these myths are proven to be wrong.

People may object that video games are a major influence on children’s violence. But parents are a major influence in children’s violence, because 83 % of parents purchase violent video games for their children (452). David Grossman argues that because the military uses games in training the generations of young people who play these games are being brutalized and conditioned to be aggressive in everyday life (452). But if you watch teens and children play these games you can see that they understand fake from reality. They enter a “magic circle” when playing these games then after the come back to reality and understand that it was just a game. Video games are sometimes played way too often, but it’s just like if a girl went shopping every day or a boy played a sport every day. It is just a way for teens and children to escape real life, just like the generation before them did when they played Gameboys or Zelda.

Amnesty? & Why Blame Mexico? By: Cody Boyd

Amnesty?

Let Us Be Vigilant and Charitable

By: John F. Kavanaugh

&

Why Blame Mexico?

By: Fred Reed

Issue Question: Should we pardon immigrants for illegally pursuing a life in the United States of America, and who should be blamed?

My Claim: I believe every person is equal, and should be treated equally. If a person is wiling to risk everything to create a better life for another person, then they deserve the decency to be given a chance. Though to be a citizen they should be required to act as a citizen. They should pay taxes, speak English, read and write, etc. I also believe that America is at fault, and that it is our problem we’ve created.

Because: The 14^th amendment states “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside”.

Because: America creates chances for these people that their country may not provide.

Because: “See this river? Don’t cross it. If you do, we’ll give you good jobs, drivers license, citizenship for your kids born here, school for kids, public assistance, governmental documents in Spanish for your convenience, and a much better future. There is no penalty for getting caught. Now, don’t cross this river here?”

How smart is that? We’re bating them (47.)

Because: The Catholic bishops of Mexico pointed out I January that the recent surge of immigration is a direct effect of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Opposing Claim: Some Americans believe that immigrants are criminals, who have broken the law to sneak into our country. Americans have created these laws, and they have found ways around them. “They have broken the law.” This is an interesting standard of ethics, justice or charity for a nation that sees itself as Judeo-Christian and humane (40.) The Government made a mistake, so its either go against everything America stands for, or welcome them into our country and make them do as we do.

Because: Mexico is a country, not a prison. It has no obligation to enforce American laws that America declines to enforce (47.)

Because: As for making the law our bottom line, do Christians know how many times Jesus was in trouble with the law? Do they know that the natural law tradition, articulated in the work of Thomas Aquinas, holds an unjust law to be no law at all? Do they forget that our nation was founded upon an appeal to a higher law than a positive law than positive law, an appeal shared by the labor movement, by Martin Luther King Jr., and by Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony (40.)

Enthymeme:

Claim: America did not thoroughly look into the 14^th Amendment when writing it, causing the problems with illegal immigration.

Reason: Back when the 14^th Amendment was written, the US was not even close to what it is today, so we had no way of knowing. We have caused this problem; we should step up and take responsibility.

Grounds: We are not going to round up millions of people and physically throw them across the border. Whether we should doesn’t matter. Its fantasy. Too many people want them here or don’t care that they are here or don’t want to uproot families who have established new lives here. Ethnic cleaning is ugly.

Warrant: If the 14^th Amendment wouldn’t state that if a person was born in America they are automatically a citizen.

Backing: If the Amendment said a quick background check of the parent’s citizenship, to approve the newborn child’s citizenship, America would not even be worrying about Illegal immigration at a severity it is now

Would have, Could have, Should have, we cant look back now. America is going to have to take responsibility, and find a solution to its mistake.

Summary of Argument:

Illegal Immigration is wrong, it is against the law, but America created the problem as a whole. Illegal Aliens are coming over trying to create a better life for them and their families. They are harder workers and do the jobs we don’t want to do, because they have to provide for the ones they love. Some may be criminals, but some of us Americans are criminals. “The Pursuit of Happiness” that is why we are America, to be able to pursue happiness. How can we be the judges of taking that away from somebody? We cant, and being the Christians we are supposed to be need to figure out a way for it to be right on both sides.

Youthful Indescretions: Should Colleges Protect Social Network Users from Themselves and Others?

Youthful Indiscretions: Should Colleges Protect Social Network Users from Themselves and Others?
By: Dana L. Fleming

ISSUE QUESTION: Should social networking sites be monitored and interfere with students education?

MY CLAIM: Social networking sites should not be monitored, only if necessary and the information on someone’s profile, blog, etc. should not have an effect on that persons educational career.

Because: The 1st Amendment gives us “Freedom of Speech”
Because: If there is a life or death situation the website should be monitored
Because: A review of a student’s profile may be appropiate where that student is involved in a disciplinary proceeding (443.)
Because: Some schools use material from Myspace and Facebook in their judiciary proceedings while others turn a blind eye to the site (442.)

OPPOSING CLAIM: Social networking sites should be monitored and consequences shall come to the students that display disorderly conduct online.

Because: The dangers of online social networking transcend disciplinary actions and reputational harm (442.)
Because: Nonetheless…we are all expected to behave on campus, in public, and online in a manner consistent with the Universities Honor Code and Guiding Values (442.)
Because: Courts treat people online postings as evidence in criminal procedures (443.)

ENTHYMEME

CLAIM: Students should be allowed to say what they want online and if law enforcement needs to monitor something which will help them bring a criminal to justice it should be allowed.

REASON: They are only expressing themselves, which isn’t inteferring with their education, and justice will be served.

GROUNDS:
Courts treats people’s online postings as evidence in criminal proceedings, and college and university lawyers routinely check student’s online proceedings (443).
It would take a full-time staff working around the clock to scratch the surface of a single network (443.)
A young woman was denied her teaching degree after a fellow student one of her Myspace photos to the attention to the school administrators.

WARRANT: If school officials wouldn’t examine profiles a lot of students would be in a better predicament.

BACKING:
In May 2005, two swimmers at LSU lost athletic scholarships for making disparaging comments about their coach on Facebook(441.)
A chemical engineering major sabotaged his career in a similar manner by confessing in his online bio that he liked to “blow things up.)(441)

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT:
Social networking sites are very popular among our youth today. It sometimes is a way for one to express his or herself. The users wouldn’t think that their post will be seen by a teacher at school and will cause them their scholarship. There are dangers to online social networking. The things that are posted online are out for the public to see and colleges and parents are trying to find out a way to protect users.
Dana L. Fleming is a Boston area attorney specializing in higher education law. In this article Fleming talks about our social networks today that are used by millions. She explains what happens to students when they say or post something that is unsuitable. As a result of that comes a consequence for those actions. These online sites have become a place for predators to trick and stalk girls. She believes that there needs to be a way to make everything more private and safe.

A False Wikipedia “Biography”

A False Wikipedia "Biography"
By: John Seigenthaler

ISSUE QUESTION: Should websites such as Wikipedia, Answers.com, and Reference.com be monitored for false information?

MY CLAIM: The owners of these websites should monitor information before it is published to eliminate public embarrassment from false or malicious information.

Because: John Seigenthaler thought that he would not be hurt my anything negative said about him but he was. (436)

Because: Representatives of Answers.com and Reference.com said their computers are programmed to copy data verbatim from Wikipedia, never checking whether it is false or factual. (437)

OPPOSING CLAIM: These websites should not be monitored and the reputation of others is not of issue.

Because: Wales insisted that his volunteer editors correct mistakes within minutes (437)

ENTHYMEME:

Claim: Websites such as Wikipedia, Answers.com, and Reference.com are unreliable sources for information.

Reason: Millions of people visit these sites daily for quick reference “facts,” composed and posted by people with no special expertise or knowledge—and sometimes by people with malice. (436)

GROUNDS:

• Directly quoted from Wikipedia, “John Seigenthaler Sr. was the assistant to Attorney General Robert Kennedy in the early 1960’s. For a brief time he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John and his brother, Bobby.”(436)

• The individual who posted this particular information had no connection or inside knowledge about Seigenthaler.
WARRANT: The publishing of offensive and false information is publicly embarrassing, hurtful, and can be misjudged; this issue needs to be controlled.

BACKING:

• The story that Seigenthaler tells is very personal to him. (436)

• John Seigenthaler states “I thought I was beyond surprise or hurt at
anything negative said about me. I was wrong.”

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT:

Websites such as Wikipedia, Answers.com, and Reference.com have been in use for many years. They are designed for individuals to post information whether it is accurate or false. These individuals may also post false information out of malice. The people “employed” by these sites, Wikipedia for example, are volunteers. These volunteers are those who edit the information that is published on the website; still not insuring that the information is completely accurate.

John Seigenthaler was a Journalist for the Nashville Tennessean newspaper. In a recent post on Wikipedia, Seigenthaler was falsely accused of being involved in the assassination of John F. Kennedy and his brother Bobby. John had never been hurt by anything negative slandering his name until this “biography” was posted. He attempted to find the “biographer” but was only led to an IP (Internet Protocol) number provided by Wikipedia which only sent him on a wild goose chase. Knowledge of Bellsouth being the individual’s Internet provider was the only knowledge he had. However, Bellsouth has a policy that protects the identity of their customers and John would not receive the name of the person who posted this false information unless he filed a lawsuit and was given a court subpoena. After multiple meetings and interviews, executives of these websites have now removed the false content about John Seigenthaler at his request. But they do not know, and cannot find out, who wrote this “biography”.

“Tomorrow Will Not be Like Today” : Literacy and Identity in a World of Mulitliteracies

By: Browyn T. Williams

Issue Question: Do the rapid changes in technology and students’ usage of internet encourage a new world of literacy practices and identities?

My claim: Changes in technology have made young people accustomed to a new world of literacy practices online and introduced them to online identities.

· Because some changes are promising, young people read and write online more than they used to( 429)

· Because people’s main communication is through new technology: iPhones, Facebook, MySpace, etc. (429)

· Because they have played with their identities on multiple sites (430)

· Because people read and write thousands of words a week online (430)

· Because new technologies can offer exciting opportunities to rethink communication through words, images, and sounds (433)

· Because students have access to computers and can make their writings global (430)

· Because young people learn from experience how to enter a new community through reading and writing (431)

· Because young students learn to negotiate literacy situations online and they learn valuable lessons about reading and writing (431)

· Because teachers may be surprised to find students’ knowledge from experiences ( 431)

· Because the importance of identity will not change in terms of literacy practices (433)

Opposing claim: Changes in technology have not changed young people’s literacy practices and has not caused them to manipulate their online identities.

· Because people still read and write a lot in the classroom

· Because not all people manipulate their identities online

· Because students can still learn traditional ways of literacy in the class room

· Because students that use this technology already have reading and writing skills, otherwise they wouldn’t be able to use technology correctly

· Because young people are surrounded by older people with tradition literacy skills

Enthymeme:

Claim: Changes in technology help students to learn literacy in different ways

Reason: because evolving possibilities of online literacy practices may change a great deal about how we perceive and teach reading and writing (433)

Grounds:

· There is an example on the bottom of page 432-433. New exercises, such as a class MySpace page, could help students rethink their activities outside of the classroom. ( class would discuss how to represent its identity and how to determine its audience)

· Teachers can create better understandings of their students’ literacy, thus create opportunities for better understanding of needs, concerns and desires

Warrant:

People of different generations all perceive reading and writing differently due to technology or absence of technology.

Backing:

· The changing world of technologies is unnerving to Williams( a teacher) (433)

· Life online is a natural way of life for young students (430)

· The online world of reading and writing fast, and multitasking is overwhelming to teachers and parents (430)

· Young people growing up reading and writing online, think and feel different about literacy and communication versus people who did not grow up this way (433)

Summary of Argument:

It is obvious that technology today, is advancing at a very rapid rate. As the title declares, “Tomorrow will not be like today”. As technology changes so does the effect it has on people’s literacy and identity. Years ago, people had to handwrite everything or use typewriters. People that did not grow up using computers have a different outlook on literacy in contrast to young students today that are accustomed to doing everything on computers. Older people unaccustomed to computers or other types of new technology are bewildered by students’ natural use of technology and their new literacy practices learned online.

Browyn T. Williams, an English teacher, has been blown away by this change in technology. She is overwhelmed by its complexity. She watches her students comfortably utilize the Internet to read and write. Williams feels as if young students have a different outlook about literacy and communication because they grew up reading and writing online. For example, students read and write online more than they do in the classroom. In fact, students are reading and writing way more than students did years ago. “Life online” is a natural way of life for young students. Williams is optimistic about this new world of literacy. She remarks that’s students with online identities can write in ease and can accessibly share writings globally. Williams believes that teachers should communicate with their students to discover the social skills they have learned online. Teachers can then combine teachings of traditional literacy practices and new literacy practices. This new world of technology opens a wide door of opportunities for understanding of reading and writing in a totally new way.