Who owns the media?

In class we were issued an article that is about the GE not having to pay taxes because of their position on certain issues and their close relationship with president Obama.  This business operates and controls in the headquarters of the United States.  It is not a company that is non-profit, they make more than enough and still they do not have to pay taxes.  If anything they should have to pay more taxes than other companies making less money. 

GE company also advises Obama on decisions, and i believe that Obama is the president he does not need them to advise he can make decisions on his own that help benefit other companis and not just GE.  Also with them not paying taxes, will fuel the fire to other people, and might create riots or more occupations. 

It is not fare to every other company that GE does not pay federal taxes.  It should not be up to one person or group to make the decisions.  I believe that is should be a group effort with multiple companies coming to an agreement. 

Will evolving forms of journalism be an improvement?

The yes side states that journalism has improved and keeps growing.  Things like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter are helping society be better informed in what is occurring at all times.  The news is so fast that people do not have to wait all day for the news, or the next morning for the paper.  People can also go back if they missed the news and watch it again.  Videos on youtube and updates on social networking help people give there own opinions as well.  This is the yes argument for the journalism improving.

The no side however argues that journalism is dying and becoming repetitive.  It states that all of these different sites are saying the same thing and not benefiting people.  It also believes that it is more and more bias and not the actual truth of the news but just people opinions.  This is the no side on how journalism and internet is not improving.

I agree with the yes side, i think that journalism has improved dramatically.  It is amazing how something can just happen and then seconds later be online, ready for people to read.  People do not have to wait anymore, also i think the videos are great, people can go back and watch news shows that they missed.  I think journalism and internet are improving more and more.    

Is advertising good for society?

The yes side on the issue explains how advertising is good for society because it provides information that can benefit people in a way that they can learn about new products for there health and for their everyday living.  Also it lets people get ideas on what they should be taking ans lets them go research it to find out if it is right for them.  But without this advertising they would never find out what is out there.  Advertising also provides more money for society and creates more jobs.  This is why advertising is good and benefits the society.

The no side argues that advertising is pressures people to keep buying more and more things, when in reality they do not need these things to survive.  These things are just junk and stuff they do not need.  It creates anxiety for people and creates more stress in  their lives.  Advertising is also dishonest, and different companies put down one and other in there commercials and confuse the people.  Also the health ads have more side effects than what they are actually curing. This is the no argument for why advertising is not good for the society.

In my opinion i think that the yes side is correct.  Advertising helps the society and keeps people better informed.  The no side does not give society to have a choice to say no to advertising or say yes.  People can choose on what products to buy, advertising just helps better inform them on what can help.

Is hate speech in the media directly affecting our culture?

The Yes argument on the question simply states that popular media has caused people to act differently and more violent in reality.  These people watch movies, news, and play violent video games such as grand theft auto and saints row.  More and more people are attracted to this violence, because America likes violence in media.  However America is seeing more and more crimes and murders due to following what they see and play.  This media is becoming a lot more popular and is causing different ethnic groups too hate each other. Another example are the war games, like modern Warfare, these games have the U.S. killing all the middle eastern and other country's people in war.  By these kids playing this it is teaching them that when they grow up to hate all these certain people and some of them act on it when they are older.  When a lot of these people are citizens of the Unites States and have done nothing wrong.  Hate Speech has directly affected the culture.

The No side  argues that the study of extremist groups using internet has benefited them.  In the middle east the internet and media has helped get the voice of these movements heard.  First they form a group to stand up, and the journalists from the United States reads it and puts it out in the media and gets there voice heard to get them some power and help from others.  With this being said media/internet has not affected the culture in  a bad way.

In my opinion i believe that these video games are getting out of hand, and that a certain age should not be allowed to play them because they have not been taught a lot about the world and cannot judge it and or make violent acts based on a video game.  And i do agree that the media has not affected the culture in the way that the movements in the middle east are succeeding.  

Are people better informed in the information society?

In this reading the question that will be discussed is " Are people better informed in the information society?"  On the Yes side fr this argument, the articled created a survey for the youth in today's society, and found that the kids that used internet more had better scores on tests and better grades than the others that did not.  After this survey the article expressed how the internet is the future for students and that it needs to be provided to the kids to help them succeed in the classroom.  However the no side states that the internet among the kids has not been beneficial, but it has hurt there minds and made them not social with the public in the outside world.  It also argues that the kids do not use the internet properly, that they are using it to look up other things like videos, television shows, and everything else that is not school related.  He also believes that by these kids using the internet so much for school it has made them not as smart, because they do not read as much, or actually do the math problems they use a calculator, and they are not learning as much and it is making our future for this country not as knowledgeable.

In my opinion I believe that the internet is very useful for student and it helps everyone around the world know what is going on in the world or there country or even there community.   It also helps people better communicate, it helps our society out a lot.  Both arguments have valid points but i would side with the yes argument due to better evidence.  On the students issue i believe that the internet is very helpful and can only help the students with school not hurt them.  However with that being said i would make them actually do school work before letting them browse on the internet.  Also the students would have to use the resources that they are provided with, because there are plenty of students in today's world that have all the resources and have access to everything to make them a better student and they do no take advantage of it.  When other student do not have that provided for them and they still succeed in the classroom.  I think all students should have the same resources and access to technology they need for school.  

Does media depict realistic images of Arabs?

In this reading the question that is answered is, "Does media depict realistic images of Arabs?"  Gal Beckerman supports the yes side on this topic.  He believes that today in media for the United States, we portray Arabs but what they actually blog from the Middle east.  He talks about how now days in this day and age the middle east has upgraded and has more access to the social networks.  By them having this, people all over the world can go and find there blogs or whatever they are on and read what they have to say n certain issues effecting them.  This lets them have a voice now in there country and they feel that they are finally being heard.  However Jack Shaheen, is supporting the no side in this argument and he has other issues with this question.  He thinks that in today's society after 9/11 and the terrorists attacks the United States has created a stereotype image about the Arabs, saying that they are all terrorists.  Now after all the movies, shows, advertisements, etc on the Muslims being terrorists, people in the Unites States have come to not trust them.  He believes the media portrayed a bad image for all of the middle eastern people and has brain washed the public to think that they are all Muslims and bad people.  When in reality this is not true they are not all Muslims they are  citizens in the Unites States just like everyone else.  

I think in my opinion that i would side with the no argument, because it is very true that the media created this image after the terrorists events.  It is what gave us a reason to go to war with them.  I think that it will be hard for the citizens of the Unites States to ever think of the Arabs as good people again because they have been so convinced other wise by the media.   There is a lot more evidence defending the no side and not a lot for the yes side.  However with that being said i agree with what Gal Beckerman said about the Arabs feeling that they finally have a voice and can look up anything they need to on the internet.  In today's world the internet is taking over and more and more people are being heard from things they have expressed about their feelings on the internet.  

City weighs medical pot ban

In the reading for this week the topic is on, Should medical marijuana businesses be banned permanently in Redwood City?"  This article is stating that the city wants to ban the Medical marijuana businesses because they believe that it is not good for there community.  However no other city in the bay area is doing so, and this may cause riots in the city and crime rate might increase.  To pass this law for the city the planning commission is meeting with the city-staff to discuss the outcome.  However before a final decision is made the public will get a say on the situation.  By doing this ban the city will lose income because they make a of profit off of these stores and it is not actually hurting anyone, it is for medical patients that need it for certain reasons.

In my opinion i believe that Redwood City should not ban the medical marijuana stores because it has shown that it has done no harm to the city, it is proven that alcohol has caused a lot more issues that marijuana, so what are they going to do next ban alcohol?  Also in this day and age the country is not doing so well with money and with the ability to find jobs.  Not only will this give more people jobs for the stores but it will bring in money for the city, it can help them rebuild buildings, re do roads, etc.  Also the people that have the medical marijuana cards can get their medicine for there problem and it will not cause more crime rates and riots by the people against it.