I think the idea of starting a college radio station is very feasible. However, I do believe there will be some issues that need to be addressed beforehand. Some problems that might arise is what will and won't be allowed on the radio. If the student radio station follows the same rules and regulations as local radio stations, this should not be a problem. Another topic that might come to light is the genre of music played. If certain times were dedicated to a specific genre, and all genres were allowed air time, I don't foresee this being a deal breaker either.
To fund this project, I would attempt to get local business to support this student project by buying advertisement time on the radio station. It would be a great way for businesses to reach out to the college population, and offer student discounts.
All in all, I think a Linn Benton Community College radio station would be a wonderful idea! It would help students in many different majors be able to practice what they have learned, and even use it on a resume for their future career!
Thursday, August 24, 2017
MUSIC'S INFLUENCE
I grew up in a family where our parents did what most call "sheltering." My mom and dad believed they needed to sensor the movies we watched, and the music we listened to. As an adolescent, I never did understand what the purpose for this was. And, of course, I still found ways to do what I wanted when they weren't looking.
Now that I am an adult, and I have children of my own, I completely understand the intentions of my parents. I often hear children singing along to songs, completely unbeknownst to what exactly they are saying. My parents were never trying to control me in ways I did not agree with. Instead, they were trying to prevent me from being inappropriate without explaining to me why.
My mom and dad did not give us a lot of options as far as what music we could listen to. I however, understand their intentions now. I try to give my children a variety of music that is appropriate for them, so that they can choose for themselves what they like to hear. So that they can choose their own sense of style. I am not against censoring anything upon appropriate age groups, but I do believe there is a way to which this can be accomplished without censoring their taste.
Growing up, I was pretty much only allowed to listen to the local Christian radio station. Unfortunately, I just did not care for the beat and melody. Today, I listen to just about all genres of music. I can not choose just one as a favorite! It really just depends on the mood I'm in. Some of my favorite artists are Dirty Heads, Led Zeppelin, Mumford and Sons, Cody Jinks, Phantogram, and In This Moment. To this day, my parents would not agree with my music choices, but as an adult, that is my decision.
Now that I am an adult, and I have children of my own, I completely understand the intentions of my parents. I often hear children singing along to songs, completely unbeknownst to what exactly they are saying. My parents were never trying to control me in ways I did not agree with. Instead, they were trying to prevent me from being inappropriate without explaining to me why.
My mom and dad did not give us a lot of options as far as what music we could listen to. I however, understand their intentions now. I try to give my children a variety of music that is appropriate for them, so that they can choose for themselves what they like to hear. So that they can choose their own sense of style. I am not against censoring anything upon appropriate age groups, but I do believe there is a way to which this can be accomplished without censoring their taste.
Growing up, I was pretty much only allowed to listen to the local Christian radio station. Unfortunately, I just did not care for the beat and melody. Today, I listen to just about all genres of music. I can not choose just one as a favorite! It really just depends on the mood I'm in. Some of my favorite artists are Dirty Heads, Led Zeppelin, Mumford and Sons, Cody Jinks, Phantogram, and In This Moment. To this day, my parents would not agree with my music choices, but as an adult, that is my decision.
Thursday, August 17, 2017
MAGAZINES
Magazines, just like books, are just not something I have time to read. I know, it sounds horrible, but it is true. Since I do not read magazines, never really have, I will be composing this post completely hypothetical.
If I were to read three magazines, I would most likely be interested in Backpacker, Survival, and Pacific Standard. I believe what you take in psychologically can speak greatly about your interests. Backpacker and Survival magazines show that I am very interested in the outdoors. Not just walking outside, but surviving in the mountains with a limited supply of equipment. I believe it shows that I am an independent person. My interest in Pacific Standard magazine displays my interest in national news, problems our country faces, and how to solve those problems.
I would definitely be looking for survival techniques in Survival magazine. New ideas and different ways of doing tasks are always changing. This magazine helps with learning how to survive, not just for beginners, but for people of all knowledge levels. Pacific Standard magazine interests me because it addresses serious issues that currently exist. This magazines makes you think from different perspectives, and suggests ways to solve these problems. Although the first two magazines are very insightful, my favorite would be Backpacker magazine! It covers a wide range of information for anyone who enjoys backpacking. There's information on survival, gear, events, stories, and even tips on photography.
I do not read magazines, like I stated before. Not even while sitting in a doctors' office. I typically tinker around on my phone! I have no information to provide as to what type of advertising is displayed. In survival, I can imagine there would be ads for military surplus items, freeze dried food, and canning jars, etc.. In Backpacker, I would expect to find ads from Patagonia, Kelty, and Marmot. Undoubtedly you would find advertisement for backpacks, sleeping bags, head lamps and flashlights. As far as Pacific Standard goes, I honestly don't have any idea!
I checked out the web page for all three magazines. There is really nothing to report as far as what is advertised online. With these new age advertising antics, the only items that are advertised on any page at all are items, and similar items, to which I have recently Google searched or shopped for.
All in all, what you put into your mind can say a lot about you and your interests. Advertisements in print are based off the interests portrayed in the magazine. And online, well, we all know how advertising is based off our online interests.
If I were to read three magazines, I would most likely be interested in Backpacker, Survival, and Pacific Standard. I believe what you take in psychologically can speak greatly about your interests. Backpacker and Survival magazines show that I am very interested in the outdoors. Not just walking outside, but surviving in the mountains with a limited supply of equipment. I believe it shows that I am an independent person. My interest in Pacific Standard magazine displays my interest in national news, problems our country faces, and how to solve those problems.
I would definitely be looking for survival techniques in Survival magazine. New ideas and different ways of doing tasks are always changing. This magazine helps with learning how to survive, not just for beginners, but for people of all knowledge levels. Pacific Standard magazine interests me because it addresses serious issues that currently exist. This magazines makes you think from different perspectives, and suggests ways to solve these problems. Although the first two magazines are very insightful, my favorite would be Backpacker magazine! It covers a wide range of information for anyone who enjoys backpacking. There's information on survival, gear, events, stories, and even tips on photography.
I do not read magazines, like I stated before. Not even while sitting in a doctors' office. I typically tinker around on my phone! I have no information to provide as to what type of advertising is displayed. In survival, I can imagine there would be ads for military surplus items, freeze dried food, and canning jars, etc.. In Backpacker, I would expect to find ads from Patagonia, Kelty, and Marmot. Undoubtedly you would find advertisement for backpacks, sleeping bags, head lamps and flashlights. As far as Pacific Standard goes, I honestly don't have any idea!
I checked out the web page for all three magazines. There is really nothing to report as far as what is advertised online. With these new age advertising antics, the only items that are advertised on any page at all are items, and similar items, to which I have recently Google searched or shopped for.
All in all, what you put into your mind can say a lot about you and your interests. Advertisements in print are based off the interests portrayed in the magazine. And online, well, we all know how advertising is based off our online interests.
BANNED BOOKS
When I look at the ALA list of banned books, I see several that I have, at the very least heard of, or saw the movie. I was quite surprised by some of them being on the list, and the reason why they have been banned in our schools.
The number one book that I was not expecting to see on the ALA list was the Holy Bible, due to it being religious. I completely understand not making this book a requirement to read, however, I do not understand in the slightest why this can not be allowed in the school library. It seems to me that, anymore, adults are so concerned with youth being able to find their own way. This is shown in the transgender debate. Let a child be who they decide to be seems to be the main argument. So why would we not allow them to choose their religion, or give them access to information that assists in choosing a religion? Shouldn't we allow them that freedom, especially since we give them the freedom to decide their gender?
To see the book Fifty Shades of Grey on the banned book list was of no surprise. I have not read the book to know how graphic of details it expresses, but I have watched the movie. I would not want my child watching the movie, so I highly doubt I would want them to read the book. Fifty Shades of Grey primarily focuses on sex. Although kids are taught about sex, they don't need to learn the details of different ways to perform it.
It also appears that a lot of reasons for books to be banned is because of racism, and along with it, offensive language. A perfect example of this is the book To Kill A Mockingbird. This book I have read, and the movie I have seen. Yes, racist words are used. Yes, it portrays racism. There is no debate about that. However, how can history be taught without teaching about racism? This movie portrays perfectly what I have been told that piece of history was like. I don't see a point in sugar coating history.
If someone visited my home and looked on my book shelf, they would not find many books. I love to read novels, but I just don't have the time. My almost nonexistent collection consists of the Holy Bible, the Pacific Northwest, and a study Bible. The conclusions they could come to about my interests are that I am a Christian and religious. They most likely would also believe that I love the outdoors. Who else has a book on the different flora, fauna, wild life, and so on?
I am a firm believer that yes, some books just aren't suitable for children. I do believe, also, that we need not be so picky and sensitive on what books should be banned and why. We don't have to require our children to read all of these books, but we should at least give them the opportunity to if they so choose. Once again, I'm not saying that all books on the ALS banned books list should not be banned.
The number one book that I was not expecting to see on the ALA list was the Holy Bible, due to it being religious. I completely understand not making this book a requirement to read, however, I do not understand in the slightest why this can not be allowed in the school library. It seems to me that, anymore, adults are so concerned with youth being able to find their own way. This is shown in the transgender debate. Let a child be who they decide to be seems to be the main argument. So why would we not allow them to choose their religion, or give them access to information that assists in choosing a religion? Shouldn't we allow them that freedom, especially since we give them the freedom to decide their gender?
To see the book Fifty Shades of Grey on the banned book list was of no surprise. I have not read the book to know how graphic of details it expresses, but I have watched the movie. I would not want my child watching the movie, so I highly doubt I would want them to read the book. Fifty Shades of Grey primarily focuses on sex. Although kids are taught about sex, they don't need to learn the details of different ways to perform it.
It also appears that a lot of reasons for books to be banned is because of racism, and along with it, offensive language. A perfect example of this is the book To Kill A Mockingbird. This book I have read, and the movie I have seen. Yes, racist words are used. Yes, it portrays racism. There is no debate about that. However, how can history be taught without teaching about racism? This movie portrays perfectly what I have been told that piece of history was like. I don't see a point in sugar coating history.
If someone visited my home and looked on my book shelf, they would not find many books. I love to read novels, but I just don't have the time. My almost nonexistent collection consists of the Holy Bible, the Pacific Northwest, and a study Bible. The conclusions they could come to about my interests are that I am a Christian and religious. They most likely would also believe that I love the outdoors. Who else has a book on the different flora, fauna, wild life, and so on?
I am a firm believer that yes, some books just aren't suitable for children. I do believe, also, that we need not be so picky and sensitive on what books should be banned and why. We don't have to require our children to read all of these books, but we should at least give them the opportunity to if they so choose. Once again, I'm not saying that all books on the ALS banned books list should not be banned.
Thursday, August 10, 2017
BLOG PROJECT #2: TELEVISION SHOW "THE SINNER"
I'm definitely not one for watching much television. If you tried to make small talk with me in regards to the most recent episode of whatever show aired last night, I would have absolutely no idea what you were talking about. Every once in a while, though, I hear about a show that creates controversy. That controversy never fails to spark my interest. Thus, my discovery of The Sinner.
The Sinner is the newest murder-mystery drama to hit television. Based on the novel by Petra Hammesfahr, The Sinner is an 8 episode, close-ended series that premiered August 2, 2017, with a new episode airing every Wednesday during prime time on the USA network.
Starring Jessica Biel as Corra Tannetti, a young mother and wife who, while spending the day at the beach with her family, randomly attacks and kills a man she has never seen before that day. Why? She simply does not know. When her motives are questioned by Detective Harry Ambrose, played by Bill Pullman, her unknowing motive intrigues him to investigate further.
If any of you remember Jessica Biel in the hit series 7th Heaven, I'm sure you have fallen in love with the girl next door. She has had roles in many T.V. shows and movies, and won numerous awards. But these last few years she has been out of the mainstream spotlight. Where did Jessica Biel go??? Starting in 2013, she has switched from big roles to independent films. The Sinner is a perfect example of this. The Sinner first premiered during the TriBeCa Film Festival.
Jessica Biel also did a change of pace for this series. Instead of her typical roles, she went with a more real world character. Cora Tannetti portrays a realistic mother, one that appears to be stressed with everyday life tasks. This is evident in the trailer that can be watched at YouTube. I believe this catches the attention of the intended audience, every day mothers. Hollywoodreporter.com describes the show as "the story of Cora (Jessica Biel), a young other having troubles sleeping and generally ill at ease with the world around her."
If you paid attention to the ads during the show, you will see products from Subaru, Tide, Walmart , and Dove. It is justifiable to come to the conclusion that the every day mom is who is targeted as an audience.
As stated by Vulture.com, "In a TV era increasingly definde by trauma and violence, The Sinner still stands out." (The full review can be read at vulture.com.) I believe it stands out so well because of the aspect used by the writer. This show portrays a whydunit question instead of a whodunit like the typical murder mysteries. The audience is not kept in suspense as to who committed the murder, due to the confession in the very first episode. Instead, we are left wondering why.
As you can see, this young mother is clearly stressed. Background information into the upbringing of Cora is also provided for the audience. Clearly the childhood of this woman was a peculiar one, and one that may give insight into a possible mental illness of the young mother. A present mental illness might lead viewers into stereotyping all people with a mental illness. It would portray a mentally ill person as unstable, able to snap at any moment. One might also conclude that even the most unexpected, every day people can unknowingly bear these types of medical problems.
None the less, the show portrays many strengths. I believe it brings a new spin on murder mysteries, therefore intriguing audiences and leaving people wanting to know more. It also examines a subject that doesn't seem to be well portrayed, which is the stresses of every day women. With the strengths comes weaknesses. It's gruesome act of violence has left people in awe. One review, given by Thrillest.com states, "Calling The Sinner uncomfortable is an understatement," along with stating the murder scene as "downright disturbing." Not just the violent murder scene is under scrutiny. Some critics are saying that Jessica Biel's mystery is "too flawed." However, I believe that right when you think you can predict what is going to happen, the show takes a turn.
All in all, I'm definitely a fan of this new style of TV show. It's perspective is definitely something I haven't seen before. It is also very easy to relate to, no matter how scary that may seem! As far as the gruesome murder, what TV show, or even movie, doesn't display graphic scenes? Check it out for yourself and either be on the edge of your seat waiting for next weeks' episode, or be horrified.
Thursday, August 3, 2017
FAKE NEWS
What is the definition of "fake news?" Is there one, or is it all just a matter of opinion? The Merriam-Webster article titled "The Real Story of Fake News" reads "Fake news is frequently used to describe a political story which is seen as damaging to an agency, entity, or person." If that is true, there's a ton of news stories that can be considered "fake news." If you look into the definition of "fake news" at Webopedia.com, they state the definition as "Fake news, or hoax news, refers to false information or propaganda published under the guise of being authentic news." With that being said, there's clearly some confusion among the population.
I consider "fake news" to be that to which is not true, or a hoax. Either way, the information provided is not accurate. Whether it be from bad reporting or a complete lie, is not terribly relevant.
When I hear President Trump label news companies or news stories as "fake news" I don't pay much attention. Mostly because the term "fake news" is not clearly defined. Besides the definition, everyone has their own opinion. I do believe it is more damaging for an influential leader to be stating such accusations without proof though, Do I believe stories are intentionally reported inaccurately? No I do not. Reporters are humans, and they, too, make mistakes. Unfortunately with limited resources and limited time, stories are shortened and not all the information is broadcast.
Regardless of what the true meaning of "fake news" I do believe that President Trump is not helping the country with his opinions. I believe this because he is not doing it in a professional manner. I also believe that, just because he disagrees with what is being broadcast that it should be retracted. That is doing a disservice to Americans and the freedom of speech. With that being said, he is an American citizen and has every right to his own opinion, no matter how unprofessional he portrays it.
I consider "fake news" to be that to which is not true, or a hoax. Either way, the information provided is not accurate. Whether it be from bad reporting or a complete lie, is not terribly relevant.
When I hear President Trump label news companies or news stories as "fake news" I don't pay much attention. Mostly because the term "fake news" is not clearly defined. Besides the definition, everyone has their own opinion. I do believe it is more damaging for an influential leader to be stating such accusations without proof though, Do I believe stories are intentionally reported inaccurately? No I do not. Reporters are humans, and they, too, make mistakes. Unfortunately with limited resources and limited time, stories are shortened and not all the information is broadcast.
Regardless of what the true meaning of "fake news" I do believe that President Trump is not helping the country with his opinions. I believe this because he is not doing it in a professional manner. I also believe that, just because he disagrees with what is being broadcast that it should be retracted. That is doing a disservice to Americans and the freedom of speech. With that being said, he is an American citizen and has every right to his own opinion, no matter how unprofessional he portrays it.
NEWS
I've never really thought about where I get my news. I guess I don't follow too much of the news, whether it be local, national, or world news. With scandals that range from CNN to FoxNews, it's very difficult to trust any news station or the information that they relay. I do like to hear about the news, though. I just don't always believe what I hear. It's sad, really, but that's just the world we live in nowadays.
When I do like to look into what's going on locally, I usually see information on Facebook. Of course, I don't necessarily believe what I read, so I always check the internet for multiple sources. I pay attention to the details, and if the details from multiple sources match up. If they do, I will believe it. If they don't, I just won't believe the differing facts. Another source of news that I do trust is my parents. They are even more skeptical of what they hear or read then I am, so if they are informing me of something, I know they have done their research. Local news is interesting, but not really important to me. It usually is just about car accidents and crime, and I rather focus on more positive aspects of life.
As the newspaper business is having more and more difficulty competing with shared online information, they have began to utilize paywalls and online subscriptions. Although I do not disagree with this, I choose not to participate. At best, I will answer a survey for a local newspaper to read an article from time to time. Even that becomes annoying real fast. I just prefer not to pay or answer surveys when I can get the news for free via the internet.
Due to my lack of trust in the news sources and the refusal to pay for what I can obtain for free, I would have to say that I'm not too terribly informed on the news. On a scale from 1 to 5 (5 being the most informed), I would say I'm a 2 or 3. I like to know what's going on worldwide politically, but I don't care much for crime stories or things of the such. It don't find it too terribly important to stay up to date locally (maybe because I live in a smaller town where not a whole lot happens...?) but I do think it's important to know what's going on with our government. Political news is very important for everyone to know. Especially when there's such high tension between our country and others.
When I do like to look into what's going on locally, I usually see information on Facebook. Of course, I don't necessarily believe what I read, so I always check the internet for multiple sources. I pay attention to the details, and if the details from multiple sources match up. If they do, I will believe it. If they don't, I just won't believe the differing facts. Another source of news that I do trust is my parents. They are even more skeptical of what they hear or read then I am, so if they are informing me of something, I know they have done their research. Local news is interesting, but not really important to me. It usually is just about car accidents and crime, and I rather focus on more positive aspects of life.
As the newspaper business is having more and more difficulty competing with shared online information, they have began to utilize paywalls and online subscriptions. Although I do not disagree with this, I choose not to participate. At best, I will answer a survey for a local newspaper to read an article from time to time. Even that becomes annoying real fast. I just prefer not to pay or answer surveys when I can get the news for free via the internet.
Due to my lack of trust in the news sources and the refusal to pay for what I can obtain for free, I would have to say that I'm not too terribly informed on the news. On a scale from 1 to 5 (5 being the most informed), I would say I'm a 2 or 3. I like to know what's going on worldwide politically, but I don't care much for crime stories or things of the such. It don't find it too terribly important to stay up to date locally (maybe because I live in a smaller town where not a whole lot happens...?) but I do think it's important to know what's going on with our government. Political news is very important for everyone to know. Especially when there's such high tension between our country and others.
WIKILEAKS
Freedom of speech... A concept that seems so simple. However, with the advancements in technology and the widespread of information, it has become such a complicated topic. Especially when it comes to politics. What should the general population have access to in regards to government documents? Is it in the people's best interest to know what the government is doing? Wikileaks believes everyone has the right to know the truth.
My personal opinion is that yes, we do deserve to know what is happening. Sure, this might cause panic among the people. Panic is inevitable. Natural disaster? Panic! Terrorist attack? Panic! There is absolutely no way to prevent panic in every single scenario, so why should we receive filtered information for the sake of preventing panic?
Unfiltered news is also very crucial when it comes to governing our governments. If our leaders are hiding information, it's time to ask ourselves why. Yes, I believe there's obviously information that needs to be kept classified for national security purposes. This type of information is not what I'm referring to. If we do not govern our leaders, if we do not know certain facts to make our own decisions, then how do we know we are being led in a moral direction? Examine the facts of WW2 and the genocide of the Jews. They did not question what their leaders decisions, they just did as they were told. If they had stopped and observed the facts, if they had stopped to examine why they were being told to do the things they were, they might have fought back and saved unimaginable numbers of people.
Another common issue we see with freedom of speech is the use of other people's work. Or using other people's creations to create a piece of art of your own. This is a huge issue legally. What is allowed? Why is it or is it not? Why? Have we not been using other's creations to create our own all throughout history? The invention of the steam engine is a perfect example. It started with Heron. From there, Papin made some modifications. Then Torricelli, Newcomen, and finally Watt. They all took the idea before them and improved it. Did anybody complain about theft of information? Nope.
I see no issue with taking something and modifying it into our own creation. You are transforming it into something new. Another reason I believe this is because we use other's information to create research papers, blogs, etc. As long as we cite our sources, there's no issue. Why can we not do this for everything we create? Make a mashup, cite the artist. Quote someone, cite the author. They are still getting credit for their work. Or is it all about the money?
In the end, what is the point of sharing information if we cannot use that information?
My personal opinion is that yes, we do deserve to know what is happening. Sure, this might cause panic among the people. Panic is inevitable. Natural disaster? Panic! Terrorist attack? Panic! There is absolutely no way to prevent panic in every single scenario, so why should we receive filtered information for the sake of preventing panic?
Unfiltered news is also very crucial when it comes to governing our governments. If our leaders are hiding information, it's time to ask ourselves why. Yes, I believe there's obviously information that needs to be kept classified for national security purposes. This type of information is not what I'm referring to. If we do not govern our leaders, if we do not know certain facts to make our own decisions, then how do we know we are being led in a moral direction? Examine the facts of WW2 and the genocide of the Jews. They did not question what their leaders decisions, they just did as they were told. If they had stopped and observed the facts, if they had stopped to examine why they were being told to do the things they were, they might have fought back and saved unimaginable numbers of people.
Another common issue we see with freedom of speech is the use of other people's work. Or using other people's creations to create a piece of art of your own. This is a huge issue legally. What is allowed? Why is it or is it not? Why? Have we not been using other's creations to create our own all throughout history? The invention of the steam engine is a perfect example. It started with Heron. From there, Papin made some modifications. Then Torricelli, Newcomen, and finally Watt. They all took the idea before them and improved it. Did anybody complain about theft of information? Nope.
I see no issue with taking something and modifying it into our own creation. You are transforming it into something new. Another reason I believe this is because we use other's information to create research papers, blogs, etc. As long as we cite our sources, there's no issue. Why can we not do this for everything we create? Make a mashup, cite the artist. Quote someone, cite the author. They are still getting credit for their work. Or is it all about the money?
In the end, what is the point of sharing information if we cannot use that information?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)