Looking back on the week that was

My thoughts on the week

It’s been a crazy week. A white supremacist shoots up the Holocaust museum and takes a life in the process. “Them Jews”, but not all Jews, control Obama. Miss California gets the boot. A team in Pittsburgh won at some sport played on ice. And Rush Limbaugh is still an idiot.

• A sad event, which I’m certain you’re all aware of by now, occurred this past week. On June 10, James Von Brunn, an 88-year-old white supremacist from Maryland, stepped out of his car, walked into the Holocaust memorial and museum in Washington D.C., gun in hand, and began firing randomly. Unfortunately, Von Brunn killed security guard Stephen Johns, a man who actually had gone out of his way to open a door for Von Brunn, and injured another person. Von Brunn was well known by white separatists for his vile website and the disgustingly titled book, Kill the Best Gentile. It is truly disheartening to see the power of the First Amendment put in an evil man’s hands.
• On a similar, though considerably lighter note: Anyone else watched the news this week? I think I’m going to vomit. Reverend Jeremiah Wright (you may remember his vitriolic sermon on America), when asked by a reporter if he had spoken to President Obama was quoted as saying “Them Jews ain’t going to let him talk to me.” I’m not sure which offends me more: bad grammar or hate speech? Here’s a story on his apology. That wasn’t the only travesty this week. Carrie Prejean was fired as Miss California on Wednesday. According to sources, Prejean missed a number of mandatory public appearance resulting in a breach of contract. Prejean insists that the firing was a result of her stance on gay marriage and an unwillingness to be in Playboy. My take on the story: “Like that is totally unfair to do that to her. Cuz she has like the prettiest hair and stuff.” HOW IS THIS NEWS!?
• Uber-conservative radio show host Rush Limbaugh has really gone off his rocker. Limbaugh actually had the audacity to call the aforementioned Von Brunn a leftist. Sometimes I wonder what people from other countries think when they listen, watch or read American media. In all honesty they probably can’t understand what these dummies are saying. Don’t worry. I can’t either. What would the founding fathers think of all this nonsense? They might amend that whole freedom of speech thing. Abraham Lincoln, who was huge proponent of the press and the power of words, might even have to change his mind. Here’s what might happen if Lincoln was still alive a discussion topic among the pundits: “Look at that beard! Only terrorists have beards that long!” …or…”A top hat? Really? What does the hat say about the man?”
• As you can tell, I’m not a fan of all the fruits the First Amendment bears. However, I did catch “The Tank Man”, a documentary on the Tiananmen Square protests, on PBS. Suddenly I felt better about the country and free speech. Maybe I’ll learn to change the channel from now on.
• Has anyone else heard of a sport called hockey? It’s played on ice? Me neither. Anyway, I guess some team in Pittsburgh won the sport’s championship. Good for them! How long until football season starts?

Obama the antichrist?

The bright-colored leis. Those suspicious luaus. And let’s not forget the yummy, yummy poi. We should have seen the signs!
Here’s The Daily Show’s take on the Obama-antichrist debate.

"It's in Revelations, people!" Kent Brockman, The Simpsons

My take on “Shattered Glass”

After an extended period of time (my apologies Dr. Stone), I have come to a few conclusions about the film “Shattered Glass.”

A multitude of themes permeate the movie: truth, loyalty, humility, hypocrisy, etc. I’ll try to address a few and how they pertain to
to media ethics. I’ll also address one of my unanswered questions. Maybe someone can provide me with an answer.

Let’s begin with…the beginning.
The film opens to Stephen Glass giving a voice-over wherein he rants about his distaste for flashy journalists whose motives are to simply
get ahead. We learn throughout the course of the movie that it is, in fact, that very issue that sustains him as a writer. Glass actually enjoys
bringing his fictitious tales to tell life by standing on tables and shouting out his make-believe antics. He even seems to develop a dependency on the attention he starts to receive. Later we learn it is actually this particular quality that leads to his downfall. The notion of hyprocrisy in Glass’s work not only speaks to the world of journalists, rather the world as a whole. Perhaps Glass at some point did have an idealistic viewpoint that there was some middle ground where you can be well-liked and successful in an industry that doesn’t necessarily lend itself to friendships. Journalism has become a “dog-eat-dog” world where writers are pressured to “FIND THE BREAKING NEWS!” and “GIVE THE READERS WHAT THEY WANT!” It isn’t fair to burden them with such high expectations on every piece they publish, nonetheless these are the guidelines by which they operate. Maybe Glass’s demise was unintentional. He might have become what he despised without even realizing a transformation was taking place. Or, he could have had more sinister intentions from the start. Some people just live for success and damn the consequences. Publishing a novel based on his very actions does raise eyebrows, no?

Aisha eloquently noted on the discussion board the willingness of Glass’s peers to continually offer assistance on his various columns. However, I still haven’t ascertained an entire understanding as to why they were so amenable in this area. The easy answer is one present in bold throughout the film; a show of humility. But something else caught my eye. Glass was referred to many times as a “kid” or a “child.” His actions often dictated that of an infant – innocent compliments, gifts and asking his editors “Are you mad at me?” or “I’m not in trouble, am I?” It is the nature of most people to either identify with or accommodate to people who display this characteristic. However, I still find myself asking “What purpose did this have in the film?”

My final thought is one I’m sure most of you had. How do nearly 30 false stories get published in a reputable and admired magazine like The New Republic?Although I’ve already mentioned this on blackboard, I’ll state it again, especially because I think it’s a prevalent topic during these times. When a company is faced with financial support issues it becomes far easier to let standards drop. The New Republic didn’t have a particularly high number of subscribers and Glass’s pieces were entertaining and flamboyant. When someone, or something, is helping to keep a business viable, the prevelancy to look the other way on minor discrepancies starts increasing. Much like the recent sub-prime mortgage crisis, a few minor problems became one huge problem. The movie, while not necessarily an indictment on journalism as whole, did shed a little light as to how issues like Glass’s are born in the journalistic world.

Welcome to my Blog!

Hey everyone! Welcome to my Blog! Hopefully you’ll find what I have to say to be insightful and somewhat interesting. I have assignments to complete currently. However, do not fret! I will be posting later this evening.

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!