Blog#9-William Campbell
Race is a relatively modern sociological concept manufactured by man to explain, justify, and condone social inequalities. It is a concept constructed from real social experiences, from value systems that were in conflict with circumstance, and it remains, even today, a concept that is driven by the historical imperatives that formed it. The concept of race has been so intricately woven into the fabric of our social policies, government, and laws it can appear as part of the “natural order” of life, even though there is no biological basis for this thesis. And the concept of race is intrinsically self-perpetuating as it provides the needed fuel, produced from its effects on whole populations, to drive the race machine forward. Ironies arise within this system from time to time, that can contradict, define, and teach.
While we often equate race with slavery, the existence of indentured servants and slaves far preceded the concept of race in history. Slavery was a part of life even before Medieval times. Race, as it applies to the United States, is an ideology that rose from a unique set of circumstances surrounding the birth of the nation. Our colonial economy was mainly slave supported, first with indentured whites and later with African slaves. The concept of freedom and free peoples was contradicted by the practice of slavery when we gained independence after the American Revolution. Science came forward in the late 1700’s with theories that were “fueled by preconceived notions of inferiority and superiority” and supported the birth of a racial philosophy by validating the belief that whites were of a higher natural order. (PBS) This new concept of race, or the separation of a population considered naturally inferior, allowed our fore fathers to explain, justify, and condone slavery. Views then evolved to include the premise that the superiority of whites was not only inevitable but was a moral responsibility. This attitude went beyond slavery to the taking of Mexican and Native American lands and the acquisition of overseas territories.(PBS)
“There is not one gene, trait, or characteristic that distinguishes all members from one race from all members of another.”(PBS) The two requirements for the development of a new species or subspecies are time and geographic isolation. Modern humans have only been around for a brief tic of time on the evolutionary clock, or about 150,000-200,000 years. This is not enough time to show any species altering recombinant or mutated variance. Humans are a young, adaptable and mobile species as animals go and have always been able to overcome the problem of geographic isolation. Humans evolved in Eastern Africa then quickly populated the world while mixing their genes, creating one large homogenous population. Thus, 94 percent of all genetic variation can be found in any continental population of humans. And, by comparison, the lowly fruit fly has ten times the genetic diversity of humans.(PBS) Certainly, there are obvious visual differences between populations, but these phenotypic, or visual traits do not guarantee certain underlying genetic traits. Humans simply do not have the groupings of genes that would result in what we want to define as races of people.
Biologically describing race, as discussed, lets one overlook the social factors that support discrimination. Turned around, though, the social reality of race does have biological impacts on persons of color. Native Americans have the highest incidence of diabetes in the nation, and African American males die of heart disease at five times the rate of white men.(PBS) The causes here are not genetic but social, such as access to health care, health insurance, decent living conditions, and, ironically, the stress of racism itself.
“Ideas of racial inferiority have been institutionalized-both explicitly and implicitly-within our laws, government, and public policies.”(PBS) This institutionalization of race has been historically applied to different groups in an inconsistent and arbitrary manner, and the definitions of what is race have often changed to match the political climate of the times. At one point, African Americans were classified by “blood” ancestry, an arbitrary percentage that varied from state to state. It was possible, ironically, to cross state lines and in the process, change ones race.(PBS) Existing laws and public policies are often constructed to be racially discriminating. Examples are the home lending system’s biases that view ones net worth as a major factor in granting a loan, and this can create a catch-22 riddle for persons of color. African Americans and Latinos are 60 percent more likely to be turned down for a mortgage.(PBS) George Lipsitz, a professor of Ethnic Studies at University of California, San Diego, points out that “net worth is almost totally determined by past opportunities for asset accumulation, and therefore the one figure most likely to reflect the history of discrimination.”(PBS) This ironic twist effectively bars many African Americans and Latinos from moving to desirable communities where they could gain real estate net worth. In other words, one needs a loan to own a home, but at the same time, one needs a home in order to get a loan. Another result of these discriminatory laws and policies is the separate and unequal segregation of wealth, opportunity, and living conditions. Whites are the most segregated of all groups and are 86 percent more likely to live in choice neighborhoods where 74 percent of them own their own homes.(PBS) Non-whites are forced to live in decaying urban centers or segregated at risk suburban areas where poverty becomes concentrated, further eroding the communities so affected. This vicious cycle of segregation continues as these areas decline and become home to violent crime, drugs, homelessness, poverty, and resource depleted schools. A culture of poverty is now associated with people of color, who are, ironically, the ones being blamed for the poverty, the crime, drugs, and homelessness, thus perpetuating the concept of race. John Powell, professor of ethnicity and civil rights at Ohio State University, states, “Not only have we racialized our space, but it is
through space that we do our ‘racing’ in the 20th century.”(PBS)
The gap between whites and non whites continues to widen. The dichotomy has been attacked with anti discriminatory laws, but because the issue of race is so deeply intertwined, it simply does not go away. In fact, some legal attempts have ended up perpetuating the same arbitrary categories they were enacted to combat.(PBS) There are those who urge affirmative action but vilify racial profiling and vice versa.(Kennedy) There are those advocacy groups who often feel that with free expression, someone might “hand hate a microphone.”(Ramirez) Randall Kennedy, a Harvard law professor, in his essay “Blind Spot,” reached only one conclusion, there was a real need for debate on the matter. “Although exasperating, this is actually good for our society: and it would be even better if participants in the debates acknowledged the simple truth that their adversaries have something useful to say.”(182) This conclusion was reached by the Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity at Ohio State University. Their belief is that “colorblindness” as a solution, even with the best intentions, would be a huge mistake. They feel “The critical question is not whether to use race, but how to talk about race in a variety of contexts.”(Kirwan Institute) To them the question is an empirical one. And to support their fact based methods, it should be understood that the freedoms and rights fought for and won by the victims of discrimination have ended up being the freedoms and rights that everyone enjoys today.
Works Cited
PBS, “Race: The power of an Illusion.” http://www.pbs.org/race.
Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity, “Talking About Race.” http://www.osu.edu.
Randall Kennedy, “Blind Spot.” The Atlantic Monthly, April, 2002
Jessica Ramirez, “When Hate Becomes Hurt.” Newsweek, March 10, 2008.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Blog#8-WmCampbell
Blog #8-William Campbell
The First Amendment of our constitution guarantees each person’s right to freedom of expression, and most citizens consider this one of the cornerstones of our system of government. This freedom, though, can at times be a double edge sword. Certain views and beliefs and the way they are presented publicly may cause hardship and pain to others at some point. This issue runs headlong into another of our rights as free citizens, the legal right to be free from verbal abuse or harassment. Where do we draw the line and who defines what is or is not acceptable speech without undermining one’s guarantee to free expression? At what point might censorship be considered to curb offensive speech, or can censorship even be considered at all? These issues and questions have long been points of contention on university and college campuses across the nation.
Present law allows public academic institutions to limit the “time, place, and manner of speech.”(Silverglate 123) This means that it is not appropriate to hold a loud protest during sleeping hours in a dorm hall. Still, any regulations prohibiting students to speak or requiring them to speak only from places where they will not be seen or heard are considered unconstitutional. Also, broad content-based speech codes have universally been struck down by the courts.(Silverglate 123) The question of hate speech protection under the First Amendment is often in the fore front of campus concerns. Richard Delgado writes in an opinion article in “USA Today” that “Hate speech is rarely an invitation to a conversation. More like a slap in the face, it reviles and silences.”(127) Because of this, Delgato feels hate speech should not have First Amendment protection. During the past decade, schools have designated “free speech zones” on campuses in response to legal criticism of campus content speech codes. While this might seem a balanced solution to the problem, Harvey A. Silverglate, in his essay, “Muzzling Free Speech,” notes that “There is a growing recognition, especially by students and civil libertarians, that our entire country is a free speech zone, and our campuses of higher education, of all places, cannot be an exception.”(124) Free speech zones regulations have most recently come and gone and have often been simply rephrased in the face of multi-pronged challenges. What remains constant in all of this is the desire of schools to put regulations in place that will both protect free speech and satisfy their perceived moral obligation to create a respectful learning environment.
To which solution do higher education administrators turn? Certainly, censorship might stop speech in the moment but does nothing to change the attitudes or opinions behind the speech. Also, censure still remains unconstitutional. “Free speech zones” as a solution has come under attack and soon might go the way of content based speech codes. What is next? Denise Chaykun, in her editorial, “Free Speech Sucks!...But Censorship Sucks Even More,” feels the speech protection granted by the First Amendment is sufficient as it stands. She states, “Allowing free speech always sucks for someone,” (132) and she ends by defining what she perceives are the only available choices with regard to this issue. “We can choose to protect feelings or ideas. Hurt feelings can be mended by ideas, but lost ideas might never be recovered.”(132) Free speech, whether kind or unkind, supportive or hurtful, usually creates a discourse from which we can learn. In this time of carefully engineered “politically correct” and empathic responses to issues of the day, regulations abound, often sparsely disguised as thought reform. Perhaps a direct response, as written by Don Henley of “The Eagles” in his song of the same title, might sometimes work for those thought to be victims of free speech. He simply states, “Get over it!”
Works Cited
Denise Chaykun, “Free Speech Sucks!...But Censorship Sucks Even More.” Counterweight, March 27, 2003.
Richard Delgato, “Hate Cannot Be Tolerated.” Insight on the News, June 24, 1996.
Harvey A. Silverglate, “Muzzling Free Speech,” The National Law Review, October 7, 2002.
The First Amendment of our constitution guarantees each person’s right to freedom of expression, and most citizens consider this one of the cornerstones of our system of government. This freedom, though, can at times be a double edge sword. Certain views and beliefs and the way they are presented publicly may cause hardship and pain to others at some point. This issue runs headlong into another of our rights as free citizens, the legal right to be free from verbal abuse or harassment. Where do we draw the line and who defines what is or is not acceptable speech without undermining one’s guarantee to free expression? At what point might censorship be considered to curb offensive speech, or can censorship even be considered at all? These issues and questions have long been points of contention on university and college campuses across the nation.
Present law allows public academic institutions to limit the “time, place, and manner of speech.”(Silverglate 123) This means that it is not appropriate to hold a loud protest during sleeping hours in a dorm hall. Still, any regulations prohibiting students to speak or requiring them to speak only from places where they will not be seen or heard are considered unconstitutional. Also, broad content-based speech codes have universally been struck down by the courts.(Silverglate 123) The question of hate speech protection under the First Amendment is often in the fore front of campus concerns. Richard Delgado writes in an opinion article in “USA Today” that “Hate speech is rarely an invitation to a conversation. More like a slap in the face, it reviles and silences.”(127) Because of this, Delgato feels hate speech should not have First Amendment protection. During the past decade, schools have designated “free speech zones” on campuses in response to legal criticism of campus content speech codes. While this might seem a balanced solution to the problem, Harvey A. Silverglate, in his essay, “Muzzling Free Speech,” notes that “There is a growing recognition, especially by students and civil libertarians, that our entire country is a free speech zone, and our campuses of higher education, of all places, cannot be an exception.”(124) Free speech zones regulations have most recently come and gone and have often been simply rephrased in the face of multi-pronged challenges. What remains constant in all of this is the desire of schools to put regulations in place that will both protect free speech and satisfy their perceived moral obligation to create a respectful learning environment.
To which solution do higher education administrators turn? Certainly, censorship might stop speech in the moment but does nothing to change the attitudes or opinions behind the speech. Also, censure still remains unconstitutional. “Free speech zones” as a solution has come under attack and soon might go the way of content based speech codes. What is next? Denise Chaykun, in her editorial, “Free Speech Sucks!...But Censorship Sucks Even More,” feels the speech protection granted by the First Amendment is sufficient as it stands. She states, “Allowing free speech always sucks for someone,” (132) and she ends by defining what she perceives are the only available choices with regard to this issue. “We can choose to protect feelings or ideas. Hurt feelings can be mended by ideas, but lost ideas might never be recovered.”(132) Free speech, whether kind or unkind, supportive or hurtful, usually creates a discourse from which we can learn. In this time of carefully engineered “politically correct” and empathic responses to issues of the day, regulations abound, often sparsely disguised as thought reform. Perhaps a direct response, as written by Don Henley of “The Eagles” in his song of the same title, might sometimes work for those thought to be victims of free speech. He simply states, “Get over it!”
Works Cited
Denise Chaykun, “Free Speech Sucks!...But Censorship Sucks Even More.” Counterweight, March 27, 2003.
Richard Delgato, “Hate Cannot Be Tolerated.” Insight on the News, June 24, 1996.
Harvey A. Silverglate, “Muzzling Free Speech,” The National Law Review, October 7, 2002.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
blog#8 Jason Sylvester
Blog #8 do campus speech violate student rights
Some colleges and universities have designated ‘free speech zones’ on campus where students assemble to speak and protest. Students must request permission from the administration to use the free speech zones. The free speech zones movement present a major threat to the ideals of free thought and free inquiry to which colleges and universities should be devoted. College administrators have used every trick in the book to try to limit student speech. When college speech zones have faced a court test they will almost certainly be declared unconstitutional. The law requires that government infringements on first amendment rights be narrowly tailored to accomplish a specific, legitimate purpose-which speech zones are not. Although free speech zones may be a violation of student rights, in some cases it may be necessary to control what topics should be discussed publicly or privately, therefore I believe that free speech zones are necessary
Some colleges and universities have designated ‘free speech zones’ on campus where students assemble to speak and protest. Students must request permission from the administration to use the free speech zones. The free speech zones movement present a major threat to the ideals of free thought and free inquiry to which colleges and universities should be devoted. College administrators have used every trick in the book to try to limit student speech. When college speech zones have faced a court test they will almost certainly be declared unconstitutional. The law requires that government infringements on first amendment rights be narrowly tailored to accomplish a specific, legitimate purpose-which speech zones are not. Although free speech zones may be a violation of student rights, in some cases it may be necessary to control what topics should be discussed publicly or privately, therefore I believe that free speech zones are necessary
Monday, March 10, 2008
Blog# 7 WmCampbell
Blog # 7 William Campbell
The impact television has had on the culture of man for the past 60 years has certainly been greater than any other force. Television has become the source of almost everything for man. It reports news, entertains the masses, regulates commerce, dictates lifestyles, defines social issues, and captures our attention for close to fifteen percent of our lives. Because of the profound experience that is television, it is often blamed for all our social ills and for the general failings of western civilization. Violence in television and its effects on children has been rigorously studied for decades. There are experts who state with certainty that violent television breeds violent behavior in children in addition to other undesirable behaviors. Conversely, there are experts who feel any tampering with the art of television is in violation of our first amendment rights and is purely a form of censorship. These experts place the responsibility of programming and of what children view squarely on the shoulders of parents.
It has been 20 years since the National Institute of Mental Health informed the public of its field study findings that violent television programs led to violent behavior in children and teenagers. Later research has defined three specific responses to viewing violence. (1) “Children may become less sensitive to the pain and suffering of others,” (2) “Children may be more fearful of the world around them,” and (3) “Children may be more likely to behave in aggressive or harmful ways toward others.”(American Psychological Association 249) Later real-life studies seemed to back up the field studies especially with regards to long term responses. Leonard Eron, Ph.D., and his associates at the University of Illinois, discovered that those who watched a great deal of television violence as children showed more aggressive behavior upon reaching their teens. These same subjects were more likely to be arrested and convicted of crimes as adults.(American Psychological Association 250) While there are many reasons why children include violence in their day to day play and dealings, it is known “from both therapeutic and cognitive perspectives, children use play to work out an understanding of experience, including the violence to which they are exposed.”(Levin 254) In other words, children are constantly struggling to work out and understand the violence in their lives. One of the outcomes of this effort to understand violence often leaves the child out of control and frightened, and, thus diverted from the positive lessons we want them to learn.(Levin 255) Children tend to see bad guys and violent behavior as one dimensional and do not understand what may make them bad in the first place. Good guys, on the other hand, are allowed to do whatever horrible things that need to be done just because they are good.(Levin 255) Children tend to want to play the role of the good guy or the superhero and often imitate violent behavior, especially during popular war play. George Gerbner, in his essay, “Television’s Global Marketing Strategy Creates a Damaging and Alienated Window on the World,” describes television as being more than simple programming, “-television is a mythology-highly organically connected, repeated every day so that the themes that run through all programming and news have the effect of cultivating conceptions of reality.”(Gerbner 263) He goes on to say that growing up with television violence has three major costs, that when operating together creates what he calls the “mean world syndrome.” Viewed separately, the costs are (1) The programming “reinforces the worst fears and apprehension of people,” (2) The programming “desensitizes viewers to victimization and suffering,” and (3) The programming creates “the pervasive sense of insecurity and vulnerability” and people “are afraid of strangers and meeting other people.”(Gerbner 263) These costs closely resemble the three responses to violence the American Psychological Association defined earlier. Gerbner feels television violence is driven by the system of global marketing and in this form acts to censure what writers can write and producers can produce. He cites polls which list 85 percent of the participants as saying they want less violence in television programming. The problem is that the action of violent programming sells well on the world market, and in Gerbner’s opinion, within the marketing system of television “cultural decision making is now out of democratic reach.”(Gerbner 264)
While there is often general agreement that violence in television poses a potential threat to children, there are arguments as to how much of a threat it poses and disagreement with the methods of dealing with the threat. In his essay, “Stop Blaming Kids and TV,” Mike Males brings to light the often overlooked connection between children and parents. Males quotes James Baldwin from “Nobody Knows My Name,” “Children have never been very good at listening to their elders, but they have never failed to imitate them.”(Males 268) The contention is that violent behavior begins at home. While many point the finger at kids and the television programming that is claimed to corrupt them, federal reports show an increasing problem with alcohol and drug related crimes among adults who are the age group that are the parents of today’s children.(Males 271) Children do as parents do and react to violence as their parents react. The resolution of this issue becomes less complicated in theory than the TV violence and children connection. Males writes, “The inescapable conclusion is this: If you want to change juvenile behavior, change adult behavior.”(Males 271) Another school of thought focuses on the responsibility of parents to their children by taking action at home to “vote with the remote” or to simply turn the television off. “Don’t like it? Don’t watch it,”(259) writes Tim Goodman, a media critic, in his article for the San Francisco Chronicle, April 29, 2001. Goodman contends the attack on television programming is wrong, is pure censorship, and blames the media for lax parenting.
The issue of violence in television will continue to be debated for years to come. The two sides of the debate, without empirical evidence to decide the outcome, will continue to promote their theories. To some, television will always be the demon. Gerbner feels television should not have the power to “drive an entire culture,” and children have “the right to be born into a more diverse, more fair, more sane, more equitable cultural environment.”(265) Others feel the issues of violence begin at home. Goodman writes, “Television is not the problem in our society. It may always be the scapegoat, but it’s nothing more than a bastard machine, not half as disturbing as the real thing.”(260) Still others will straddle the argument and point out that we live in violent and threatening times as witnessed by September 11, 2001 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Levin feels any solution should “require adults to create a more peaceful world and limit children’s exposure to media violence.”(Levin 256)
Works Cited
American Psychological Association, “Violence on Television-
What Do Children Learn? What can Parents Do?”
www.apa.org/pi/pii/vio&tv.hmtl. Copyright by American Psychological
Association, 2003.
George Gerbner, “Television’s Global Marketing Strategy Creates a Damaging and Alienated Window on the World.” The Ecology of
Justice, Context Institute, (IC#38). Spring, 1994.
Diane E. Levin, “Beyond Banning War and Superhero Play:
Meeting Children’s Needs in Violent Times.” Young Children, May, 2003.
Mike Males, “Stop Blaming Kids and TV.” The Progressive,
October, 1997.
Tim Goodman, “Hate Violence? Turn It Off.” San Francisco
Chronicle, April 29, 2001.
The impact television has had on the culture of man for the past 60 years has certainly been greater than any other force. Television has become the source of almost everything for man. It reports news, entertains the masses, regulates commerce, dictates lifestyles, defines social issues, and captures our attention for close to fifteen percent of our lives. Because of the profound experience that is television, it is often blamed for all our social ills and for the general failings of western civilization. Violence in television and its effects on children has been rigorously studied for decades. There are experts who state with certainty that violent television breeds violent behavior in children in addition to other undesirable behaviors. Conversely, there are experts who feel any tampering with the art of television is in violation of our first amendment rights and is purely a form of censorship. These experts place the responsibility of programming and of what children view squarely on the shoulders of parents.
It has been 20 years since the National Institute of Mental Health informed the public of its field study findings that violent television programs led to violent behavior in children and teenagers. Later research has defined three specific responses to viewing violence. (1) “Children may become less sensitive to the pain and suffering of others,” (2) “Children may be more fearful of the world around them,” and (3) “Children may be more likely to behave in aggressive or harmful ways toward others.”(American Psychological Association 249) Later real-life studies seemed to back up the field studies especially with regards to long term responses. Leonard Eron, Ph.D., and his associates at the University of Illinois, discovered that those who watched a great deal of television violence as children showed more aggressive behavior upon reaching their teens. These same subjects were more likely to be arrested and convicted of crimes as adults.(American Psychological Association 250) While there are many reasons why children include violence in their day to day play and dealings, it is known “from both therapeutic and cognitive perspectives, children use play to work out an understanding of experience, including the violence to which they are exposed.”(Levin 254) In other words, children are constantly struggling to work out and understand the violence in their lives. One of the outcomes of this effort to understand violence often leaves the child out of control and frightened, and, thus diverted from the positive lessons we want them to learn.(Levin 255) Children tend to see bad guys and violent behavior as one dimensional and do not understand what may make them bad in the first place. Good guys, on the other hand, are allowed to do whatever horrible things that need to be done just because they are good.(Levin 255) Children tend to want to play the role of the good guy or the superhero and often imitate violent behavior, especially during popular war play. George Gerbner, in his essay, “Television’s Global Marketing Strategy Creates a Damaging and Alienated Window on the World,” describes television as being more than simple programming, “-television is a mythology-highly organically connected, repeated every day so that the themes that run through all programming and news have the effect of cultivating conceptions of reality.”(Gerbner 263) He goes on to say that growing up with television violence has three major costs, that when operating together creates what he calls the “mean world syndrome.” Viewed separately, the costs are (1) The programming “reinforces the worst fears and apprehension of people,” (2) The programming “desensitizes viewers to victimization and suffering,” and (3) The programming creates “the pervasive sense of insecurity and vulnerability” and people “are afraid of strangers and meeting other people.”(Gerbner 263) These costs closely resemble the three responses to violence the American Psychological Association defined earlier. Gerbner feels television violence is driven by the system of global marketing and in this form acts to censure what writers can write and producers can produce. He cites polls which list 85 percent of the participants as saying they want less violence in television programming. The problem is that the action of violent programming sells well on the world market, and in Gerbner’s opinion, within the marketing system of television “cultural decision making is now out of democratic reach.”(Gerbner 264)
While there is often general agreement that violence in television poses a potential threat to children, there are arguments as to how much of a threat it poses and disagreement with the methods of dealing with the threat. In his essay, “Stop Blaming Kids and TV,” Mike Males brings to light the often overlooked connection between children and parents. Males quotes James Baldwin from “Nobody Knows My Name,” “Children have never been very good at listening to their elders, but they have never failed to imitate them.”(Males 268) The contention is that violent behavior begins at home. While many point the finger at kids and the television programming that is claimed to corrupt them, federal reports show an increasing problem with alcohol and drug related crimes among adults who are the age group that are the parents of today’s children.(Males 271) Children do as parents do and react to violence as their parents react. The resolution of this issue becomes less complicated in theory than the TV violence and children connection. Males writes, “The inescapable conclusion is this: If you want to change juvenile behavior, change adult behavior.”(Males 271) Another school of thought focuses on the responsibility of parents to their children by taking action at home to “vote with the remote” or to simply turn the television off. “Don’t like it? Don’t watch it,”(259) writes Tim Goodman, a media critic, in his article for the San Francisco Chronicle, April 29, 2001. Goodman contends the attack on television programming is wrong, is pure censorship, and blames the media for lax parenting.
The issue of violence in television will continue to be debated for years to come. The two sides of the debate, without empirical evidence to decide the outcome, will continue to promote their theories. To some, television will always be the demon. Gerbner feels television should not have the power to “drive an entire culture,” and children have “the right to be born into a more diverse, more fair, more sane, more equitable cultural environment.”(265) Others feel the issues of violence begin at home. Goodman writes, “Television is not the problem in our society. It may always be the scapegoat, but it’s nothing more than a bastard machine, not half as disturbing as the real thing.”(260) Still others will straddle the argument and point out that we live in violent and threatening times as witnessed by September 11, 2001 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Levin feels any solution should “require adults to create a more peaceful world and limit children’s exposure to media violence.”(Levin 256)
Works Cited
American Psychological Association, “Violence on Television-
What Do Children Learn? What can Parents Do?”
www.apa.org/pi/pii/vio&tv.hmtl. Copyright by American Psychological
Association, 2003.
George Gerbner, “Television’s Global Marketing Strategy Creates a Damaging and Alienated Window on the World.” The Ecology of
Justice, Context Institute, (IC#38). Spring, 1994.
Diane E. Levin, “Beyond Banning War and Superhero Play:
Meeting Children’s Needs in Violent Times.” Young Children, May, 2003.
Mike Males, “Stop Blaming Kids and TV.” The Progressive,
October, 1997.
Tim Goodman, “Hate Violence? Turn It Off.” San Francisco
Chronicle, April 29, 2001.
blog32 corrections
Blog # 2 corrections
One of the most influential factors in a young persons’ life, I believe, is music of choice. In this day and age, teenagers are very impressionable. They think that by taking on the lifestyle that a musician pretends to have will help them be accepted. This lifestyle that musicians portray can be extremely enticing to a teenager, but kids fail to recognize that musicians are also actors who portray an image to entice the younger generation to buy their music so that they can boost their album sales.
I believe that the record labels selling the music are well aware of the impact that music has on the younger generation. If they take away the image of a musician, then it would be very hard to sell albums that are based on image. Gangster rappers need to act like they are gangsters and death metal rockers need that hard core, bad-to-the-bone image, or teenagers will not be as easily influenced by their music, and record sales would plummet.
It is sad to see all of these younger children who dress in dark clothing, makeup, and earrings all over them and other groups dressing in big clothes and acting like they come from the ghetto because they think they will fit in. kids need to be made aware of the fact that the lifestyle that these musicians portray are only to help sell albums, not to be confused with reality.
One of the most influential factors in a young persons’ life, I believe, is music of choice. In this day and age, teenagers are very impressionable. They think that by taking on the lifestyle that a musician pretends to have will help them be accepted. This lifestyle that musicians portray can be extremely enticing to a teenager, but kids fail to recognize that musicians are also actors who portray an image to entice the younger generation to buy their music so that they can boost their album sales.
I believe that the record labels selling the music are well aware of the impact that music has on the younger generation. If they take away the image of a musician, then it would be very hard to sell albums that are based on image. Gangster rappers need to act like they are gangsters and death metal rockers need that hard core, bad-to-the-bone image, or teenagers will not be as easily influenced by their music, and record sales would plummet.
It is sad to see all of these younger children who dress in dark clothing, makeup, and earrings all over them and other groups dressing in big clothes and acting like they come from the ghetto because they think they will fit in. kids need to be made aware of the fact that the lifestyle that these musicians portray are only to help sell albums, not to be confused with reality.
blog #6 rough draft essay #2
Blog # 6 rough draft essay # 2
Jonathan Alter is a senior editor for Newsweek and author of its ‘between the lines’ column, which examines politics, media, and society at large. He is also a correspondent for NBC News. ‘Who’s Taking the Kids’, is an article that appeared in the July 29, 2002, issue of Newsweek.
Jonathan Alter talks about how media hype is affecting the way we live out our every day lives. Some believe that it is no longer safe to send your child to the market or that it is dangerous to let their child play in the back yard. But where do we draw the line. Jonathan Alter asks us how much of our fear is common sense caution and how much is fueled by media hype, and is the media preying on our insecurities?
When I was a child my parents allowed me to do a lot of things that today might be considered dangerous. From the age of at least eight years old I was aloud to ride my bike alone as long as I stayed in the neighborhood. When we would summer on the cape we were aloud to take walks through woods or go to the beaches alone. My parents had no fear of us being abducted or lured by a sex offender. In fact they were more worried about us hurting somebody else.
Today there is so much media hype about child abductions that parents are being forced to fear for their child and their safety. I have an eight year old brother and for my parents to even think about letting him have the freedom that his older brothers had is forbidden. Maybe they are being overprotective and I can understand why. If I had children I would probably be just as paranoid about leaving them unattended as my parents are. I understand that the media has a huge influence on the way my parents are raising my brother. Although sheltering will keep him from harm it will also keep him from healthy childhood adventures like riding his bike with his friends or exploring the trails in the woods, or building forts. Sheltering him will most certainly keep him alive but it will also distance him from life.
The emphasis in recent years on child safety has most certainly been a tremendous life saver but sheltering your child from normal activities may, in some cases, do more harm than good.
Work cited,
Gary Goshgarian ‘What Matters in America’
Chapter 3 do the media promote a culture of fear
Jonathan Alter Who’s Taking the Kids
Newsweek Magazine July, 29, 2002.
Jonathan Alter is a senior editor for Newsweek and author of its ‘between the lines’ column, which examines politics, media, and society at large. He is also a correspondent for NBC News. ‘Who’s Taking the Kids’, is an article that appeared in the July 29, 2002, issue of Newsweek.
Jonathan Alter talks about how media hype is affecting the way we live out our every day lives. Some believe that it is no longer safe to send your child to the market or that it is dangerous to let their child play in the back yard. But where do we draw the line. Jonathan Alter asks us how much of our fear is common sense caution and how much is fueled by media hype, and is the media preying on our insecurities?
When I was a child my parents allowed me to do a lot of things that today might be considered dangerous. From the age of at least eight years old I was aloud to ride my bike alone as long as I stayed in the neighborhood. When we would summer on the cape we were aloud to take walks through woods or go to the beaches alone. My parents had no fear of us being abducted or lured by a sex offender. In fact they were more worried about us hurting somebody else.
Today there is so much media hype about child abductions that parents are being forced to fear for their child and their safety. I have an eight year old brother and for my parents to even think about letting him have the freedom that his older brothers had is forbidden. Maybe they are being overprotective and I can understand why. If I had children I would probably be just as paranoid about leaving them unattended as my parents are. I understand that the media has a huge influence on the way my parents are raising my brother. Although sheltering will keep him from harm it will also keep him from healthy childhood adventures like riding his bike with his friends or exploring the trails in the woods, or building forts. Sheltering him will most certainly keep him alive but it will also distance him from life.
The emphasis in recent years on child safety has most certainly been a tremendous life saver but sheltering your child from normal activities may, in some cases, do more harm than good.
Work cited,
Gary Goshgarian ‘What Matters in America’
Chapter 3 do the media promote a culture of fear
Jonathan Alter Who’s Taking the Kids
Newsweek Magazine July, 29, 2002.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
blog # 5 does media promote a culture of fear
Blog #5 does the media promote a culture of fear? Jason Sylvester
When I was a child my parents allowed me to do a lot of things that today might be considered dangerous. From the age of at least eight years old I was aloud to ride my bike alone as long as I stayed in the neighborhood. When we would summer on the cape we were aloud to take walks through woods or go to the beaches alone. My parents had no fear of us being abducted or lured by a sex offender. In fact they were more worried about us hurting somebody else.
Today there is so much media hype about child abductions that parents are being forced to fear for their child and their safety. I have an eight year old brother and for my parents to even think about letting him have the freedom that his older brothers had is forbidden. Maybe they are being overprotective and I can understand why. If I had children I would probably be just as paranoid about leaving them unattended as my parents are. I understand that the media has a huge influence on the way my parents are raising my brother. Although sheltering will keep him from harm it will also keep him from healthy childhood adventures like riding his bike with his friends or exploring the trails in the woods, or building forts. Sheltering him will most certainly keep him alive but it will also distance him from life.
When I was a child my parents allowed me to do a lot of things that today might be considered dangerous. From the age of at least eight years old I was aloud to ride my bike alone as long as I stayed in the neighborhood. When we would summer on the cape we were aloud to take walks through woods or go to the beaches alone. My parents had no fear of us being abducted or lured by a sex offender. In fact they were more worried about us hurting somebody else.
Today there is so much media hype about child abductions that parents are being forced to fear for their child and their safety. I have an eight year old brother and for my parents to even think about letting him have the freedom that his older brothers had is forbidden. Maybe they are being overprotective and I can understand why. If I had children I would probably be just as paranoid about leaving them unattended as my parents are. I understand that the media has a huge influence on the way my parents are raising my brother. Although sheltering will keep him from harm it will also keep him from healthy childhood adventures like riding his bike with his friends or exploring the trails in the woods, or building forts. Sheltering him will most certainly keep him alive but it will also distance him from life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)