Class-August+23

=**Course notes for August 23, 2010**=

Summary of class
"News is a conversation, the story we tell about ourselves..." (Class Lecture). As beginning journalism students we must bring to our awareness that each of our personalities has been shaped by the world around us. We each have our passions and interests that we are nurturing through education. During the first class, our professors began to teach us exactly what it means to have "your mind constantly being mediated" (Mensing).

Our first video really got a lot of our classmate's blood pumping in response to the information they had just received. It became apparent that we each have our own thoughts and opinions of the dynamics of the world. I heard some of you passionately express your opinions while others sat back and learned. To be intelligent participants in our culture, we must nurture some key characteristics whether we are journalists or not: Reason, Argue, Deliberate, and Communicate.

My hope for this class is to do exactly that... learn how to become that person who reasons, argues, deliberates, and communicates with every single person necessary (maybe needing to meet them at their level or not) in order for us to get our information to them.

My psychology teacher shared her opinion with me the other day when I told her I wanted to be a famous writer: "each person has their own story that they're dying to tell, you just have to help them guide their point..." As a class, I'm sure we can accomplish this together =) = =

=**Comments and discussion about class**=

I have thought over the many subjects we have discussed and some main points have continued to stick out in my mind. As more controversial subjects, such as global warming and the bombing of the World Trade Center, arise to the topics of conversation where they are throw back and forth between apposing sides we all must realize that facts are skewed horrifically by the shroud of opinions and controversy. All humans are stubborn to the point where scientific facts and data do not sway their beliefs if they believe -nay, want to believe strong enough. I take for example the controversy over President Obama's birth certificate: Even after presented the medical documents from a registered American hospital that shows the President was born in these United States, the "Birthers" still believe he is not a natural born citizen. Now the reason I present you with this example is to not argue for the President's natural birth in America, but to show how opinions are swayed by beliefs and the desire for their view to be right. I find the news is the prime source and a dedicate industry to pump out ideas to turn the public to certain viewpoints. With the internet so prominent in our society, this culture has more sources of news then have ever existed up to this point in history. We must consider that a large sum of these sources have ideals they wish to push on their readers/listeners/viewers and as citizens we easily believe the things told to us as it seems to be in our nature.

When we discussed the idea that one source (Someone posting on Facebook) can incite a virus that could spread from person to person can be applied to more than just friends trusting friends. Let's step back and look at that closer: someone posting a piece of news and friends who trust them believing that piece and spreading it around. Now what would happen if that first friend was a news source the second trusted? This happens everyday where average citizens will read a piece of news without thinking about a few basic things: Is this source opinionated to one side, is this piece accurate, and what does the other side believe? The problem I find with the average citizen is that they do not ask questions and do not look at all sides to form an opinion. We must check the facts for ourselves and observe both sides before we form an opinion. One cannot have a well informed opinion if they do not look at all sides and decide from themselves. If you listen only to the ideals from the sources you trust, then you are nothing more than a robot programmed to push the virus around.

I talked to a friend of mine after class about these issues and one major realization happened that I must share. That it is much easier to disprove something than it is to prove it. One can say they did a study that showed no tangible evidence without having the other side having the ability to rebuttal while proving it require solid evidence, witnesses, and facts that can even be ignored at that point. (See birth certificate example)

In conclusion, I just want to summarize by saying that what I have taken from today's assessment is that we must look at all of the facts given and view the issue from all sides before we form an opinion. In this way we can argue deeper and more intellectually on the subjects that will arise in class.

//**Tara's Response**// In response to what you said about it being much easier to disprove something than it is to prove it, I definitely agree. But with an issue like global warming, I find myself wondering why it necessarily has to be proven that global warming is happening for the nation and the world as a whole to take steps to prevent environmental damage, when, from what I do know and see, it is certainly not as difficult as it has been made out to be. Mcdonald's runs their trucks on a mix of diesel and old cooking oil. If Mcdonald's can do it, it can't be a hugely unattainable goal.

As far as the average citizen not asking questions and looking at all sides to form an opinion, I also agree. I learned at some point in some class or another that an overwhelmingly high percentage of people adopt their parent's political views. This isn't necessarily wrong __**if**__ they consider themselves on a personal level and all different sides of issues, but when it's done simply because that's the only thing they know and they never bother to learn different, that can be a huge problem, particularly in a world that is progressing so quickly. If the youth simply adopt the views of their parents and their parent's generation - which is, no offense to my elders, a generation of the past - blindly for sake of convenience/not knowing anything different, how does progress ever happen? (note: I don't intend to imply that all political issues are necessarily relevant to this particular point, but it is one of many different things that can be discussed when talking about how our society forms opinions and makes decisions. I hesitate to stop here because of the many unaddressed other aspects without making that 'disclaimer').

//Alex's Response//
I want to take what you have said about the young taking viewpoints from their parents. I see the top reason for a person's viewpoints and ideals to be that of what they were taught as kids. Everyone I have personally known has a viewpoint that is similar or based on how they were raised. The torch is based down from generation to generation. While we do differ in many aspects, I find people to be the result of their upbringing.

I agree to an extent and think of progress as an ever-changing thing based on perspective. Progress is based on our perspective of our current world as well in that how we view that change. The issues today will not be the issues of tomorrow in many ways. Though we do effect the future and our actions cause the situations of tomorrow, what is important now may not be important tomorrow. Progress is much like news in that it is an ever changing thing.

=**Class Materials**=

Here is the Powerpoint presentation from class: And the video from the web site "Song of a Citizen" media type="custom" key="6768221"