It is all too common that people take what is reported by the news and media at face value and fail to believe that it could be bias or twisted in a way as to present the situation in a manner that is untrue or not covering the whole story. It is concerning to see the media, even credible news stations, present information and stories so skewed and full of hidden agendas and see people take it for what it is and not second guess it at all.
Typically, the media will convey a story in a manner that captures people's attention, it will be dramatized and presented to the public in a way to get a specific response out of them. They will report what will get the people talking, whether it isn't completely true or one sided.
I saw this in the recent coverage of the video of South Carolina police officer forcefully removing a student from the classroom. This post is not about the right and wrong of what happened and whether or not any of these actions were justified, it is about how one sided the media can be.
I looked up this same story on many different sites and noticed the same thing, it was all told from the side of the girl in the video. No one took the time to get the police officer's side and let him defend himself. Very few articles on this issue mention how students reported that the girl in the video also got violent with the officer at one point. I've seen so many individuals post their opinions on what happened based on opinions they made from very one sided articles that only tell one person's side of the story. It is important to remember that the entire incident didn't take place in the less than one minute video. There are events that happened before that camera started to record and after it stopped and it is very important that people realize that because they take to what they see people post online about certain situations.
This is true about everything reported to the public, and there is bias in everything. People need to learn to be skeptical and not form a hard opinion on something until they do their research because what is reported in the news is commonly misleading.
See the video and read about what happened here:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34644336
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/27/us/south-carolina-school-arrest-video/
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/10/27/video-surfaces-showing-south-carolina-school-officer-tossing-student-onto/
Tuesday, October 27, 2015
Wednesday, October 21, 2015
What is Going On With All the Violence?
Modern day media has changed the way information travels all
around the world and in a big way too. Before the days of Facebook, Twitter and
online news media, people found out about what is going on in the country the
old fashioned way: the newspapers. There could only be so much printed on a
newspaper so not only did it limit the details that could be provided on
certain stories, it also limited what stories could be published. Publishers
had to choose what would be most important/gain the most attention from the
masses and go with that. In today’s world, they have it much easier. There is
no space limit on the internet, and as many stories as desired can be published
and more easily accessed by a large number of people. Anyone could go to
FOXNews or CNN online, news Facebook pages or twitter to see what is going on
not only in the United States, but around the whole world. Actually, people don’t
even have to pursue news topics anymore, people can retweet and share information
on social media and stories will show up on individual’s timelines for them to
see.
Being that the news is now more accessible to people, people
know more about what is going on in the country they live in. The first thing I
noticed this morning when it was reading the news online: violence. Actually,
the first three stories I saw were all around violence, First was and NYPD
officer was fatally shot, the second was a 4 year old girl was killed in New
Mexico and then there was an update on Detroit emergency workers that were
stabbed. I could probably go on for days about all the stories in the media
about violence and it paints a scary picture of the world we live in. More
often than not, you will see unsettling, sad and disturbing stories in the news
before you see one happy one. It seems like there is some tragic happening
almost every day and makes the country we live in today seem as unsafe as ever.
We have terrorists like ISIS to worry about but sometimes it seems like the
biggest threat could be the person right next to us.
Thinking about all the media coverage of violence has me
thinking one thing: Is violence really on the rise right now, or does it just seem that
way because we now have easy access to hear about what is really going on around
the country?
Is the violence in modern day just as bad as it was say
twenty or thirty years ago? It is easy to assume that there is a spike in
violence around the country because we see it everywhere. We can’t go online
without hearing about an innocent person being killed, a school shooting, or a
cop being killed on duty. However, is it possible that all of these occurrences
happened just as much in the past, but because of the lack of social media and
internet usage, it just wasn’t as widely broadcasted?
What do you think bloggers? Is violence on the rise or does
increased media access just make it appear that way?
Read the major stories on these news sites to see more:
Heres a video on one of the stories mentioned above: http://video.foxnews.com/v/4570034279001/four-year-old-girl-killed-in-alleged-road-rage-incident-/
Friday, October 16, 2015
Is Hillary Clinton's Email Scandal as Low Key as Portrayed on the Democratic Debate?
After numerous GOB debates, people were interested to
finally see a debate between the Democratic candidates earlier this week. These
debates have been beneficial in revealing many candidates goals,
accomplishments and views on many crucial topics. Both Democrats and
Republicans have been asked important questions on the issues surrounding our country
today helping the public form an opinion about the candidates, one of whom will
be our next President. Within both parties, there are candidates who are the
center of scandal and attention and it was intriguing to the public to see how
such matters would be addressed during the debate. Trump made light of the
accusations to him about not treating women well and not being a “full
republican. Clinton defended herself when accused of flip flopping on certain
political matters but in regards to her infamous email scandal…she was quick to
dodge the question and make it seem so unimportant compared to other things
that could be talked about. Even Senator Bernie Sanders belittled the email
scandal by saying “That is that the American people are sick and tired of
hearing about your damn emails.” My first thought was, “wow, they are really
making a big deal of these emails when there are other important things to talk
about and focus on in the world”. This email situation was made to seem silly
and over exaggerated especially since other candidates on the stage seemed to
think so as well, not just Hillary.
But is the nature of these emails really not that important?
Here is a background of the issue: While service in the office
of Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton used her personal instead of her official
government email account that is maintained on secure Federal Government
servers to conduct official business. While she claimed there was no classified
material discussed using her personal email, the FBI found an incredible about
of emails that contained classified information. This is dangerous because
there servers were not protected, they could have easily been hacked revealing
such classified information to potentially the wrong people. Federal rules
prohibit the sharing of classified information on personal systems.
While looking into many sources about this issue, it seems
like it is something that is very important, so important in fact that she has
been encouraged to hire a criminal defense lawyer. She could be facing charges
because of violations of the Espionage Act for “gross negligence”. It has even
been reported the Secretary of State is one of the most targeted from intelligence
agencies to get classified information from. The FBI has been able to uncover
emails that have been deleted proving more and more classified information has
been shared under that person email account.
In other cases, other political officials have received
quite the punishment in regards to the law and dealing with classified
information. Sentences have not been lenient on others who have let classified
information get into the hands of people it was never intended for.
During the Democratic debate, many candidates discussed this
issue as being almost silly and light hearted and completely undermining the
severity of the situation. If I wouldn’t have looking into to other additional
sources for information about this situation I too, would have thought it as
not being a big deal. However, when it comes dealing with classified and sensitive
Federal government information being negligent is always a serious matter.
What do you think about this situation bloggers?
Read more about Hillary Clinton’s email scandal here:
Thursday, October 8, 2015
Removal of Ten Commandments in Oklahoma
The United States is known worldwide as the ‘land of
opportunity’ and the place people seek to gain citizenship to enjoy the vast
amount of different freedoms that often, as Americans, we take for granted. We
have freedom of speech, where as in other countries you could be prosecuted or
murdered for speaking out against government officials. We have freedom of
religion, where as in other countries it is considered a crime against the
government to practice certain religions and it could lead to jail time or even
death. When the states separated from England after the Revolutionary War to
gain its independence, the goal was to have more freedoms and to not be
entirely ruled and dictated by the government.
Separation of church and state was a main foundation when
the constitution was being written and the Supreme Court often attests to that
by maintaining what was written in the first amendment. This is why there is no
established church or religion for the United States or religious qualification
for office. However, this is still a subject of heated debates in numerous different
circumstances. Lately, the controversy has been targeted towards Oklahoma’s
state capitol and their monument of the Ten Commandments.
The amount of people who are against the removal of the
monument seem to heavily outweigh the people getting attention for the support
of the removal of the monument. The Supreme Court (7-2) ordered for the monument
to be removed from this area since it is in violation of the state Constitution
separation of church and state which states “not
have a display on state property that supports "any sect, church,
denomination or system of religion.". People have not held back
their unhappy feelings about this, some lawmakers even want to amend the state
Constitution to allow the monument. The Governor of Oklahoma commented on this
issue saying “…We felt it was a good place to be able to display it properly to
people could see it.” There are many people in the community who felt it was
wrong for it to be removed from this area. But was it?
Let us all take a look at the other side of this. I think
many people’s feelings and emotions are swayed because even though there is no
establish religion of the United States, the number of people identifying
themselves as Christians heavily outweighs other religions. This country is very
open to other religions and spiritual practices and that is what this country intended
to be when it was founded and established as an independent country. People can
choose to practice whatever religion they choose, if any at all. Because of
this, it is important to separate church and state because not everyone has the
same church, belief and values and we cannot rule people according to beliefs
not everyone has. Imagine if the tables were turned and there was a statue of
Buddha or the Five Pillars of Islam? People would be unhappy with that as well because
not everyone follows religious or spiritual beliefs associated with those
monuments. I think it is important to remember that this isn’t an act against
Christianity, this is an act to follow the Constitution and separate state and
ALL religion. Even a Baptist minister said “Frankly, I’m glad we finally got
the governor and attorney general to agree to let the monument be moved to
private property, which is where I believe it is most appropriate. I’m not
opposed to the Ten Commandment. The first sermon I ever preaches was on the Ten
Commandments. I’m just opposed to it being on public property”.
What do you think bloggers, was this removal of the statue
something you agree with or disagree with?
Read more about it at these sites:
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/oklahoma-removes-ten-commandments-monument-under-court-order-n439806
Monday, October 5, 2015
Gun Control: Helpful or Harmful?
In wake of the recent tragedy of the mass school shooting at
Oregon, there is a heavy support of gun control that is now being presented in
the media. Consistently, you will see how people blame what happened on lack on
control and will state how they are for stricter gun regulations and more
in-depth background checks for those who want to purchase a gun. The
politicians who are for gun control appeal to their emotionally distraught
audiences by telling them this is what is needed to stop school shootings and
this will prevent them from happening again. They believe having these stricter
gun control laws, that it will prevent guns from being sold to criminals and
people who pose a threat. Even President Obama advocated for stricter gun
control after this incident. Is gun
control the real issue here? Will increased gun control really solve the issues
with university shootings?
Did you know they the majority of individuals who cause
school shootings do no use guns that are their own? A vast majority did not
legally obtain a gun so putting stricter gun regulations will not prevent
criminals from getting a gun, just average citizens. It is hard to say if
access to guns being too easy is the problem because what if it is just the
opposite? What if the shooter target schools because they know they are gun
free-zones and will be less likely to encounter someone who will be able to
fight back at an equal level? Universities are widely known as being a gun-free
zone, so to a criminal it makes sense: Attack those who are unarmed and cannot
fight back. You don’t commonly hear of mass shootings in places that people are
permitted to carry guns because then the shooter doesn’t have the upper hand.
They often target those who are unable to fight back and are seemingly
defenseless. A criminal is a criminal and will still engage in criminal
activities no matter how strict the gun laws are because criminals don’t obey
the law. There have been many articles published in response to all of the
anti-gun messages everywhere, and the consensus is that taking away guns will
just put a target on more people.
What do you think bloggers? Will the issue of school
shootings decrease if there is more control put on the regulation of guns? Or
will gun regulation not have a positive impact on this situation at all?
See a video of President Obama's address of this issue below:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)