Friday, September 19, 2008
Paper Proposal!
For my paper I am wanting to do a feature story on this weekends celebrations in the huge town of Sherman Illinois. This weekend the 150 year celebration of the town Sherman is taking place at the rail golf course and other various locations through out Sherman. I want to do a feature story on this event because not only is it close by and something that I am able to attend while bringing my son along, but also because not too many people really know anything about the town and all the great things that come from it. They are having a car show, bands, children activities, a parade, historical sites are now going to be open to the town members for the first time to tour them, and many other events. I think this would be a great opportunity to give the rest of the world a little in-site on the small town of Sherman that many have worked so hard to get where it is today.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Discussion Questions- comm 337
1. What does Don Murray mean by "Surprise" What do you mean by it?
I think that Murray means look for the story that isn't expected when he talks about surprise. He talks about how there are different angles you can go when writing about a story and you don't have to just write the same thing over and over again. If you use your sense it is easier to find these new angels and not just see what is there but you can also see what isn't there and what should be there.
I have the same feelings toward "surprise" after reading this chapter. Usually when one is reading a story on a accident they are expecting to read the events and details on how the accident took place. However, why not write a story on perhaps the doctors or police officers who took care of the accident on the scene and add a different twist. Surprise your audience by something different.
2. The element of suprise has a lot to do with writing. Like I had previously said, the reader expects something from the story due to the head line, but if you deliver something new and suprise them, you then in turn stand out as a writer. Perhaps its just what you may need to get your start in the writing career.
3. I agree with Murray with the relationship between reporting and writing. You need to go into both events using your ten senses, these senses help you see what is there, what could be there, and what should be there. Its that extra "something" that helps get the element of "Surprise" to your audiance.
4. "Delight in what they do not expect to find. They come to the story with a foucs, an expectation, but they treasure the contradiction, the traitor fact, the quotation that goes agains the grain, the unexpected that reveals.
I think that Murray means look for the story that isn't expected when he talks about surprise. He talks about how there are different angles you can go when writing about a story and you don't have to just write the same thing over and over again. If you use your sense it is easier to find these new angels and not just see what is there but you can also see what isn't there and what should be there.
I have the same feelings toward "surprise" after reading this chapter. Usually when one is reading a story on a accident they are expecting to read the events and details on how the accident took place. However, why not write a story on perhaps the doctors or police officers who took care of the accident on the scene and add a different twist. Surprise your audience by something different.
2. The element of suprise has a lot to do with writing. Like I had previously said, the reader expects something from the story due to the head line, but if you deliver something new and suprise them, you then in turn stand out as a writer. Perhaps its just what you may need to get your start in the writing career.
3. I agree with Murray with the relationship between reporting and writing. You need to go into both events using your ten senses, these senses help you see what is there, what could be there, and what should be there. Its that extra "something" that helps get the element of "Surprise" to your audiance.
4. "Delight in what they do not expect to find. They come to the story with a foucs, an expectation, but they treasure the contradiction, the traitor fact, the quotation that goes agains the grain, the unexpected that reveals.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
317 BONG HiTS 4 JESUS
According to Wikipedia "Aristotle considered ethics to be a practical science, i.e., one mastered by doing rather than merely reasoning. Further, Aristotle believed that ethical knowledge is not certain knowledge (like metaphysics and epistemology) but is general knowledge. He wrote several treatises on ethics, including most notably, Nichomachean Ethics, in which he outlines what is commonly called virtue ethics.
Aristotle taught that virtue has to do with the proper function of a thing. An eye is only a good eye in so much as it can see, because the proper function of an eye is sight. Aristotle reasoned that man must have a function uncommon to anything else, and that this function must be an activity of the soul. Aristotle identified the best activity of the soul as eudaimonia: a happiness or joy that pervades the good life. Aristotle taught that to achieve the good life, one must live a balanced life and avoid excess. This balance, he taught, varies among different persons and situations, and exists as a golden mean between two vices - one an excess and one a deficiency".
With Aristotle's views on ethics I believe that he would be against the student holding a sign across from the school reading BONG Hits 4 JESUS. according to our book Media Ethics Aristotle feels that it is ethical to "act according to high standards". Holding a sign a sign reading BONG Hits 4 JESUS can be taken many different ways, as we have seen in this debate, and since it can be seen in both negative and positive ways it is not an act of high standards.
Acording to Wikipedia Immanuel Kant "is known for his theory that there is a single moral obligation, which he called the "Categorical Imperative", and is derived from the concept of duty. Kant defines the demands of the moral law as "categorical imperatives." Categorical imperatives are principles that are intrinsically valid; they are good in and of themselves; they must be obeyed in all situations and circumstances if our behavior is to observe the moral law. It is from the Categorical Imperative that all other moral obligations are generated, and by which all moral obligations can be tested".
I believe that also with Immanuel Kant he would rule on the side of the student in this case. He could argue that a sign reading BONG HiTS 4 JESUS was performed from duty. One type of duty that Kant believed in was meritorious duties. One of these meritorious aids is to show gratitude. Who is to say that this student wasn't holding this sign this sign as to show his gratitude towards Jesus? Kant feels that an action is morally justified because it was performed from duty. In this case because the sign does read .. 4 JESUS, this could be taken as gratitude for his acts.
Aristotle taught that virtue has to do with the proper function of a thing. An eye is only a good eye in so much as it can see, because the proper function of an eye is sight. Aristotle reasoned that man must have a function uncommon to anything else, and that this function must be an activity of the soul. Aristotle identified the best activity of the soul as eudaimonia: a happiness or joy that pervades the good life. Aristotle taught that to achieve the good life, one must live a balanced life and avoid excess. This balance, he taught, varies among different persons and situations, and exists as a golden mean between two vices - one an excess and one a deficiency".
With Aristotle's views on ethics I believe that he would be against the student holding a sign across from the school reading BONG Hits 4 JESUS. according to our book Media Ethics Aristotle feels that it is ethical to "act according to high standards". Holding a sign a sign reading BONG Hits 4 JESUS can be taken many different ways, as we have seen in this debate, and since it can be seen in both negative and positive ways it is not an act of high standards.
Acording to Wikipedia Immanuel Kant "is known for his theory that there is a single moral obligation, which he called the "Categorical Imperative", and is derived from the concept of duty. Kant defines the demands of the moral law as "categorical imperatives." Categorical imperatives are principles that are intrinsically valid; they are good in and of themselves; they must be obeyed in all situations and circumstances if our behavior is to observe the moral law. It is from the Categorical Imperative that all other moral obligations are generated, and by which all moral obligations can be tested".
I believe that also with Immanuel Kant he would rule on the side of the student in this case. He could argue that a sign reading BONG HiTS 4 JESUS was performed from duty. One type of duty that Kant believed in was meritorious duties. One of these meritorious aids is to show gratitude. Who is to say that this student wasn't holding this sign this sign as to show his gratitude towards Jesus? Kant feels that an action is morally justified because it was performed from duty. In this case because the sign does read .. 4 JESUS, this could be taken as gratitude for his acts.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Comm 317 2/26/08
The facts of the case are that Obama is being accused of using his friend Patrick's words because he did not site where he got his words from.
The ethical principles that are involved would be more so dealing with Hilary Clinton and her accusing Obama to gain voters.
I think that Hilary accusing Obama of plagiarism is awful. These words that he supposedly stole were borrowed from his friend Patrick. These words were never written or documented they were used in his speech which are usually written by the hired writers. In this case the man who writes Obamas speeches also at one point wrote for Patrick as well. So if anyone is to accuse Obama of plagiarism then it should be Patrick, however he is not, making it hard to claim that these words were stolen from him. Patrick has obviously approved of this borrowing of the words. So why is it that Hilary has to make such a big deal of the situation, they were not her words that he borrowed (and I am sure he is glad he hasn't borrowed her words). Hillary herself has created a crime much more closer to plagiarism then Obama when she accuse him of his plagiarism and then uses the word "Xerox", which is a word that has a copyright on it. This is a lame attack from Hilary Clinton. She should work on her own speeches and making sure that she is not plagiarising as well before she is quick to point the finger at someone else. This is not a paper that Obama wrote or a published piece of work, this is simply a message that both Obama and Patrick felt was an important topic to be voiced to the world. He did not steal his words he simply helped voice them, but maybe next time to avoid Hilary's childish tactics to take away votes from Obama he should reference Patricks words to avoid this whole ordeal. Obamas acts were not against the law in anyway, however some of those with STRICT ethics might see this simple act as wrong. But for most it is seen as a harmless act of a friend taking help from another friend and voicing a message. Congratulations Hilary, you tried to make Obama look bad and in return you looked foolish yourself.
The ethical principles that are involved would be more so dealing with Hilary Clinton and her accusing Obama to gain voters.
I think that Hilary accusing Obama of plagiarism is awful. These words that he supposedly stole were borrowed from his friend Patrick. These words were never written or documented they were used in his speech which are usually written by the hired writers. In this case the man who writes Obamas speeches also at one point wrote for Patrick as well. So if anyone is to accuse Obama of plagiarism then it should be Patrick, however he is not, making it hard to claim that these words were stolen from him. Patrick has obviously approved of this borrowing of the words. So why is it that Hilary has to make such a big deal of the situation, they were not her words that he borrowed (and I am sure he is glad he hasn't borrowed her words). Hillary herself has created a crime much more closer to plagiarism then Obama when she accuse him of his plagiarism and then uses the word "Xerox", which is a word that has a copyright on it. This is a lame attack from Hilary Clinton. She should work on her own speeches and making sure that she is not plagiarising as well before she is quick to point the finger at someone else. This is not a paper that Obama wrote or a published piece of work, this is simply a message that both Obama and Patrick felt was an important topic to be voiced to the world. He did not steal his words he simply helped voice them, but maybe next time to avoid Hilary's childish tactics to take away votes from Obama he should reference Patricks words to avoid this whole ordeal. Obamas acts were not against the law in anyway, however some of those with STRICT ethics might see this simple act as wrong. But for most it is seen as a harmless act of a friend taking help from another friend and voicing a message. Congratulations Hilary, you tried to make Obama look bad and in return you looked foolish yourself.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Make No Law Questions 317
2. What specific things did people say about 18th-century politicians that got them prosecuted under the Alien and Sedition Acts? How do they compare to political discourse today? Were they harsher, milder or about the same? How many current statements about U.S. presidents and former presidents -- and presidential candidates -- can you list that could be prosecuted if the Alien and Sedition Acts were still in force?
Seditious Libel Comm 317
"Seditious libel is a criminal offence under English common law. Sedition is the offence of speaking seditious words with seditious intent: if the statement is in writing or some other permanent form it is seditious libel. A statement is seditious if it "brings into hatred or contempt" the Queen or her heirs, or the government and constitution, or either House of Parliament, or the administration of justice, or if it incites people to attempt to change any matter of Church or State established by law (except by lawful means), or if it promotes discontent among or hostility between British subjects. A person is only guilty of the offence if they intend any of the above outcomes. Proving that the statement is true is not a defence. It is punishable with life imprisonment". (thanks to our friend Wikipedia)
So how can we have free and open elections if we could still be prosecuted for seditious libel?
I dont think that it would be very like wise that we could hold free and open elections while still being able to be prosecuted for seditious libel. Even if the candidates were to tell the truth in their elections it could still be seen as seditious libel. Anything that could cause a discord agasint the government is seen as seditious libel, and in elections when one is running aginst another there is often times when their arguments could cause discord.
So how can we have free and open elections if we could still be prosecuted for seditious libel?
I dont think that it would be very like wise that we could hold free and open elections while still being able to be prosecuted for seditious libel. Even if the candidates were to tell the truth in their elections it could still be seen as seditious libel. Anything that could cause a discord agasint the government is seen as seditious libel, and in elections when one is running aginst another there is often times when their arguments could cause discord.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Live blogging on His Girl Friday
Yup you guessed it.. Yet another fun filled day watching His Girl Friday! I know you viewers are just as excited to read my blog as I am to write it for you!
And where do we begin? Well we had last left off with Bruce’s mother coming into the news room yelling about getting money to get her son out of jail.
One thing that I found quite strange was when Molly, Earls girlfriend, falls from the window and seems to be dead, the news room staff rushes to the window and then quickly goes back to writing their stories.
Hildy seems to be right back into the news business, as if she never wanted to leave. She continuously writes her story not letting anything get in her way. She even let Bruce leave on the 9 o'clock train and didn't pay attention to notice that he wasn't coming back. The only thing that seems to pull her away from the story is when she finds out that her mother in-law was in a horrible accident and she feels that she is responsible for it.
Sherif Hartwell threatens to fine the post a whole $10,000. Today that amount of money just seems like a slap on the wrist.
Hildys mother-in-law bust in the room claiming Walter as a kidnapper, luckily for her the cops are already in the news room. Mrs. Baldwin not only accuses Walter of kidnapping her, she then goes on to tell the cops that they were hiding the murder in the newsroom. What a typical mother-in-law, always making things difficult.
Finally the sheriff and mayor are busted for trying to hang a man just to win the upcoming election. It seems like now Hildy and Walter have the story they need for the post.
Typical! After this whole time of Walter trying to get Hildy back, he just sends her on her way into the arms of Bruce! But what do you know.. Hildy doesn’t really understand why. It’s as if she wants Walter to continue to fight for her. But hey isn't that how most of us girls are?
OH WAIT! It looks as though Walter's plans had all worked out! He got his girl back! They plan to get remarried and go on the honeymoon they never had, Niagara Falls.
And where do we begin? Well we had last left off with Bruce’s mother coming into the news room yelling about getting money to get her son out of jail.
One thing that I found quite strange was when Molly, Earls girlfriend, falls from the window and seems to be dead, the news room staff rushes to the window and then quickly goes back to writing their stories.
Hildy seems to be right back into the news business, as if she never wanted to leave. She continuously writes her story not letting anything get in her way. She even let Bruce leave on the 9 o'clock train and didn't pay attention to notice that he wasn't coming back. The only thing that seems to pull her away from the story is when she finds out that her mother in-law was in a horrible accident and she feels that she is responsible for it.
Sherif Hartwell threatens to fine the post a whole $10,000. Today that amount of money just seems like a slap on the wrist.
Hildys mother-in-law bust in the room claiming Walter as a kidnapper, luckily for her the cops are already in the news room. Mrs. Baldwin not only accuses Walter of kidnapping her, she then goes on to tell the cops that they were hiding the murder in the newsroom. What a typical mother-in-law, always making things difficult.
Finally the sheriff and mayor are busted for trying to hang a man just to win the upcoming election. It seems like now Hildy and Walter have the story they need for the post.
Typical! After this whole time of Walter trying to get Hildy back, he just sends her on her way into the arms of Bruce! But what do you know.. Hildy doesn’t really understand why. It’s as if she wants Walter to continue to fight for her. But hey isn't that how most of us girls are?
OH WAIT! It looks as though Walter's plans had all worked out! He got his girl back! They plan to get remarried and go on the honeymoon they never had, Niagara Falls.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)