Sports and Show Business

Just like how Ronald Reagan said "politics is like show business", so is sport. Of course, sport has to be entertaining and thats the main part of the game. Football, however, has much more to just entertainment. Fans have a huge impact on football, who tend to get emotional when their supporting team loses out. But I just read about the sacking of Chris Hughton, who just recently managed Newcastle United. Hughton, who has proven to create impressive results against top teams like Chelsea, Arsenal, and Tottenham, was sacked on Sunday. According to the Daily Mirror and Eurosport, Chris Hughton was sacked because he failed to bring a team that would produce "show business". After the 5-1 victory over Sunderland, he was "milking the crowd" or getting the crowds attention, but that was only once. The owner of the club, Mike Ashley, said he was disappointed with the performances and were "boring". Despite coming back up from the second division, Hughton's team have performed well enough to get a ranking in the mid table.

Is Julian Assange a Terrorist?

Much has been said in the past two years about the WikiLeaks, which is an non-profit media organization created by Julian Assange in 2006. These documents have been harmful to families and individuals across the world, threatening the lives of several. Today, some consider Assange as a terrorist. I was asked in my International Relations class not too long ago a similar question. Mrs. Shapira asked me, "Falak, do you think Assange is a terrorist, or a freedom fighter?" We were actually learning about what the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is, and Assange just came up. We spoke about Assange with a guest speaker in the International Relations class. People are scared of him because he has caused trouble with many people. However, I won't agree. I think Assange is a freedom fighter, or a normal human being. So what if he leaked those documents? Yes, they revealed secrets. But we live in a democratic world, and I think the media should be exposed to the truth and what is really going on in the world. Lets take for example that attack by the US forces in Iraq. I saw it on an interview of Assange that was posted on Aadesh's blog and on Moodle. The video footage that was leaked showed US forces attacking from helicopters, not knowing who exactly the targets are. Thinking that they were terrorists or anti-Americans, the went for the blow. However, several international journalists and Iraqi boys were killed. Innocent people's lives were taken away. How can Assange be considered a terrorist for showing the truth? Don't you all agree that whatever action you take, you must be ready for its consequences? Assange is a true democrat, and I completely think that there should be no secret kept away from the media.

And take a look at this video. It talks about the reactions of the Iraqi public after the documents on the US attacks on innocent people were exposed.

Al Jazeera Reports on Iraqi Reaction

Is Politics Really Entertainment?

When Ronald Reagan was quoted, "Politics is just like show business" in the Postman's book Amusing Ourselves to Death, I was quite surprised. I won't completely disagree with what Postman said in that particular chapter, because it is partially true. It is true that politicians use TV commercials as part of their campaign methods, and it is true that they are considered as celebrities in some societies. But I don't think politics can be termed as "entertainment". Politics is still serious today. I mean you do see Obama and James Cameron taking trips every month to visit other countries and improve foreign relations. You do know about the important meetings between world leaders. You do have the UN as well, no? I remember watching the news in India where one of the celebrities, John Abraham, was being interviewed about the elections. Abraham was expressing his anger towards those who weren't voting, mainly the poor, because he said that "it is their leader who will be making their laws!". Quite disturbed he was.

But that's one example. Look at he past US history presidents. Postman says that people vote based on appearance. Sure, Obama, Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, and Nixon were all slim and good looking men. But if you look back into history Mr. Postman, you'll see that this doesn't happen all the time. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was rather big and buff. He wasn't obese, but he was definitely bigger than all the presidents I just listed. He was arguably the best president the United States has ever had. Clearly, Postman didn't have all his facts right. Maybe it is because today's generation is easier to manipulate from all the commercials. Maybe Roosevelt was lucky (he wasn't). What my main argument here is that though Postman has a point, its not always like that.

The Importance of a Name?

When you see laws or acts being passed by the legislature, you will either understand the act or be confused about it all by the name. Now lets just take the Emancipation Proclamation.

Names of Group Members: I was in India for my cousins wedding, so I am working on this alone. 

What policy or Act were you assigned? Emancipation Proclamation

What did it say? Basically emancipated all of those who were working under forced labor from the rebellious states. In other words, it freed all black slaves from the rebellious states.  

When was it passed or proposed? It was passed in 1863.  

What were the important events going on when it was passed or proposed? Well it was the Civil War. The North had an abolition movement that the South really disliked, so they seceded. President Lincoln finally admitted that the Civil War was being fought for the end of slavery. 

Who favored it and why? The North would obviously favor it because they were the side that wanted to have the abolishment of slavery in the South. Also African Americans would be in favor of this because they would be free. 

Who opposed it and why? The south with its farmers and plantation owners. They would want these slaves because the slaves would help them grow crops that would be sold in the market. All the profit they earn would be the theirs. Slaves wouldn't even get a penny. 

List any special impact that it had on particular demographic groups:

 Northerners

Abolitionists 

African Americans 

Is the current title truthful, or does it mask the content of your policy or act?

 The current title is truthful. It is a proclamation of emancipation, or freedom. Its freeing all the African Americans. Also considering the time period, it is easy to tell that the act was talking about freeing slaves. 

Which target audiences are likely to see the title as accurate?

 I'm sure the African American's and the slaves would have seen this title as accurate, as it was something they really wished and dreamed for. 

Which target audiences are likely to see the title as misleading?

 The southern plantation owners. They really feared of this. 

Which group(s) of people would favor keeping the name as is and why?

I think the abolitionists and the slaves in the south because they would obviously want it to be an important document that freed them. In fact, I think everyone TODAY would like the name to be kept the way it is because the name is truthful. 

Which group(s) of people would want to change the name and why? What more accurate phrase or title might they use instead? (Use the back, if needed). 

Well, I really think that the slaves from the NON rebellious states would want the change in the name. You see, not all slave states joined the Confederacy in the Civil War. And the Emancipation Proclamation didn't free the slaves in the slave states that were part of the  Union. So I think they would want the name to change, because it may confuse several slaves. 

News Analysis 2

To Be Corrected once approval from Mrs. Benozilio

So I was watching BBC, which is British Broadcasting Corporation. Its a worldwide news channel and its one of my favorite news channels. I think its really because of the way they present themselves and how clear they are when they speak. There were three main stories presented when I watched BBC tonight. The first main story was about the protests against French President Sarkozy's reform. It was very informative and it showed both sides of the story. It actually went into depth and was very informative as many people today are protesting against Nicholas Sarkozy's new reforms. It showed footages of families that went against Sarkozy and a footage of Sarkozy defending himself. The next story was about the withdrawal of the families in Ghajar, a village that lies on the border of Lebanon and Israel. The issue is that the northern part of the village is in Lebanon territory, and due to security reasons, military forces have pushed people from the village out. However, many of the people from the village refuse to leave the village because its their home and where they have grown up. The next and last story was about the development of the television. TV began as a heavy box. But today you see flat screens in every room in the house! What is next though? According to BBC, the next thing is going to be Google TV and Apple TV where you can play video games, watch TV, use the internet, rent DVD's, all on the TV. The news was primarily focusing on the development of the television.

Informative vs Superficial--Definitely informative. The stories talked a lot about what was going on and had lots of quotes as well. The story on Sarkozy was the best because it talked about what people thought of his reforms, what arguments could be made, what will happen in the upcoming elections, and can Sarkozy win?
Accurate and Truthful vs False and Deceptive--Most definitely truthful. I know that there is an issue in France because people are going against Sarkozy's new law that decreased the retirement age to 60. I also know about the village of Ghajar and the fact that people are being evacuated because the internet also says so and I have been listening in my International Relations Class. And TV? Well, I think everyone knows about that.
Pluralistic vs. Insular Viewpoint--Pluralistic. Each one of these stories had quotes from different sides and many people were part of these stories. The stories also talk about the future of Sarkozy and his possibility for re election.
Objective vs Biased--Cannot be Biased. It has to be objective. This is because it has so many different point of views given out that it would be impossible to call the news from BBC "biased".
Balanced vs. weighted side--Its Balanced. This is because the news from BBC gives out different sides and different opinions equally.

The Structure: The Structure of all three of the stories was led by both, an anchor and an interviewer. There was also a correspondent in each one of the stories. In the story in Ghajar, there was a correspondent who was explaining the whole situation when he was also in the location. However, each one of the stories did not include any such visuals like a graph. It primarily just went into the scene of the issue, where it actually is happening. With Sarkozy's problems in being re elected, BBC sent correspondents and interviewers to France to find out what people thought. They interviewed families in order to what they thought of the new retirement age law passed by the president. Then there was also an interview on those who supported Sarkozy's new laws, and finally a footage of Sarkozy defending his actions. With the issue in Ghajar, it was the same thing as well. BBC interviewers and correspondents went to the village that is bordered with Syria, Ghajar, and asked people of what they thought on the issue. Clearly, the structure of the news shown was primarily based on primary sources. Since much of the information is collected from interviews and opinions, you could pretty much believe the news that is being presented.

The Style: Well, first thing I see in the news was that the anchors either sit straight or lean towards the camera. When they lean towards the camera, it really looks intimidating. At least to me. Another thing I realized was that the camera angles were always showing the interviewer and nothing more. Sometimes the camera was a bit ahead so the correspondent would walk towards the camera, talking about the issue surrounding him. This happened when the news reporter from BBC was in Ghajar, who was explaining what the villagers wanted and what the Israeli Military wanted.

The news would be important to young people. Its obviously important because its an issue that's located in our world, so everybody should be concerned about it. For me, it was useful because it would only help develop my knowledge on country policies, thus creating a wider knowledge on International Relations.

OutFoxed Reaction Essay

Last class, we watched OutFoxed, a documentary based on Richard Murdoch and his Fox corporation. The documentary first discussed about  how much of the stories Murdoch and his Fox News presented to the society were not very much based on what was happening around the world, but more about what his life was about. The stories presented were at first related to him! The news was also based on what he thought. He never liked President Kennedy and Senator Kennedy, and he also avoided talking about world epidemics like AID's. He thought that the world news channels put too much importance on AID's. Murdoch put his own views on television, criticizing the Kennedy's and not talking much about AID's. This obviously influenced the society because there are many viewers. People would not ever even know about AID's and people would not appreciate the Kennedy's because of Murdoch's corporation. Another fact I realized in OutFoxed was that when it comes to political issues, Fox has the power to influence anyone. Fox is known to be Republican, so obviously during the time of elections they would convey more about the Republican Party and less about the Democratic Party. This would push society to become Republican and eventually vote for the Republican Party. Fox obviously proved to be a false news channel. They always showed what Murdoch thought and not what the real story is.

"Now....This" Reaction

To be honest, my first reaction to Postman's Chapter 7 "Now....This" in his book Amusing Ourselves to Death was being surprised. I didn't realize that most anchors today are being selected based on their looks and how they are able to talk on TV. Men can't be bald, Women have to look pretty, they can't have big noses, their eyes can't be to close to each other. They also have to be young. I said to myself "no way!" because at first I thought it was true. But Mr. Postman have you seen CNN's anchor and correspondent Christianne Amanpour. She's famous for all her talks with world leaders. She's one of the better journalists and anchors of the world to be honest. But she's also 52 years old. She seem's a bit overweight. She is not attractive. What about Richard Guest? I am sure everyone has seen him on TV. The guy with glasses? Slim Body? Yeah he is 48, he is not a great looking person. But the thing about these two anchors is that they both know how to talk on TV and interact with viewers. That is what I think CNN do. They choose those who can interact with the viewers, not basing them on their looks.

I was also shocked with Postman's criticism towards the news channels itself. Postman criticizes news broadcasts because they give useless information and are never too elaborate on it. He said that 90% of America doesn't know the religion of Iran. He said 90% of America doesn't know who Khamenei is. Mr. Postman can't blame that on the news channels--the news channels share information about what is going on in the world, or at least what they know of. It's not their fault that much of America views national news channels and not international channels. And Mr. Postman CANNOT just point the finger at the News Channels like CNN, blame the education system.

Norris 5 News Story and Analysis

Husband, in-laws acquitted of dowry death charges


When I read this, I was surprised by the headlines. Seriously? This still happens in my country? I was so surprised at this article, that at first I thought it was false and just made up. Things did change afterwards though. The article talks about how a husband and his parents murdered his wife due to financial issues. But according the Delhi's courts, the husband (Pankaj Raj) had spent excessively for the honeymoon. Some would obviously say that this story is weird. 
Husband, in-laws acquitted of dowry death charge
Informative or Superlative: Considering the fact that the article includes the who's, what's, where's, and why's, I would say this is an informative article. It includes the names of the people in the story and it elaborates on the story to a good extent. I'd definitely say that this article is informative. In fact, the story also talks about what happened after the death, and the witnesses as well. 
Accurate and Truthful vs False and Deceptive-- My first insight was that when there is a story of dowry's death, its false, especially in an urban city in India. But looking at it again, I think this article is truthful because these issues have happened everywhere in the world. It's a surprising story to me, but it's quite common to see a man murdering his wife because of financial reasons. I do think that there must be more of a reason to the murder though. 
Objective vs Biased--I think its biased. It doesn't mention about the husbands story. It mainly talks about the incident and why the husband murdered his wife. It also talks about the charges the husband and his family faces. But never talks about the husband or his family's view. The husband's side also doesn't have many quotes, but the court were told that the wife committed suicide. 
Pluralistic vs insular viewpoint--It was definitely insular. It only talks about the wife's story, and not much about the husbands story. 
Balanced vs weighted side--I think its on a weighted side. The article included much more about the wife's story, criticizing the husband.  The husband's story is not really shown in this article, and that's why I feel that the article is rather weighted and not balanced. 

The Mentos Ad

Mentos is a huge consumer product in India, where its widespread sales have led to massive Mentos production within the country. But the way Mentos has exposed themselves in society has NOTHING to do with their real product. The company has created advertisements where after eating a Mentos, you will become smarter. There was one particular advertisement in India where a man/ape was working for a Donkey. After eating that Mentos, the man/ape runs away and eventually comes back to make the Donkey work for him! Now its a catchy advertisement and I always laughed to it, but the last line in the ad says "Dimag Ki Batti Jala De" which in English means "Use Your Brains".

What does "using your brains" have anything to do with the Mentos? Obviously the company is using the ad to lure people into buying their product, but the advertisement has nothing to do with the Mentos itself. Mentos is meant to eat for pleasure and clearing your breath, not meant to make you smarter.

Here is the video: Mentos Advertisement

Content Analysis

Content Analysis

Name of Program: How I Met Your Mother

Medium: Television

Genre of Program: Comedy

Name of Character Viewed	Ted Mosby	Robin Scherbatsky	Lily Aldrin (Lily Eriksen)	Marshall Eriksen	Barney Stinson
Male or Female	Male	Female	Female	Male	Male
Main Character?	Yes	No	No	No	No
Occupation	Architect, Architect Professor	News Reporter at Metro News at 4 am	Kindergarten Teacher	Lawyer	Works at GNB Bank
Level of Education	College	Not Sure	College	College	College
Race	White	White	White	White	White
Marital Status	Single(had relationships with Robin, Stella, Victoria)	Single (had relationships with Ted, Barney, Don)	Married (to Marshall Eriksen)	Married (to Lily Eriksen)	Single (had a relationship with Robin, but he is a womanizer)
Age	32 years old	30 years old	32 years old	32 years old	34 years old
Number of Children	0	0	0 (none yet, but planning on having them)	0 (planning on having them)	0
Appearance	Average	Attractive by Traditional Standards	Glamorous	Average by traditional Standards	Glamorous
Body Type	Average	Average	Slender	Heavy, Above Average Weight, Athletic	Slim
Personal Characteristics	Intelligent, emotional (cries at times, sensitive), nurturing, humorous	Flirtatious, Humorous, Sexual, Physically affectionate, Emotional—cries.	Emotional—cries, yells. Slow witted, sexual, physically affectionate, In control of situation	Temper, Aggressive, Straightforward, Self-Reliant, Yells, becomes violent	Flirtatious, Sarcastic, Womanizer, Humorous, Sexual, Physically affectionate.
Role of Character in Narrative	Romantic Character, Hero	Romantic Figure	Romantic Figure, Helpful role model	Supporting Character	Comedic Character
Impact of character in Narrative	Positive affects outcome	Positive Affects Outcome	Positive Outcome	Positive Outcome	Positive Outcome

          


      Isn’t How I Met Your Mother just “Awesome” and “legen---wait for it---wait for it---DARY”? It indeed is, and I don’t think I have ever seen a better character than Ted Mosby and Barney Stinson. Their continuous jokes and style has made me laugh with tears. With Robin having her early morning news reports just makes me ask myself, “who would bother waking up at four in the morning to watch ROBIN talk?” Oh and then of course, there is Marshall and Lily, desperate to have a baby. That just turns out funnier because you see how Marshall listens to his fathers advice on how he should eat pickles before sex in order to have a boy, and how Lily wears a gown to have a girl. But look at the analysis now. What I see is that this show is obviously a comedic and sexual show where all the characters, apart from Barney, are trying to find their real love. But I also see stereotypes. Recognize how all the main characters are white. In fact, there are hardly any black people. As far as what I can recall, there was only one African American in the show, and he was a security guard for a club. He was a physically aggressive man who seems like he went to military school. Why is it like that? Why are African Americans portrayed as buff men? The answer is simple—media. Its what our media thinks and its completely stereotypical. We see white men heavy, average, and slim, in this show. We barely even see African Americans in the show, and when we do, we see them as buff and strong men who will beat anyone up. Another issue I realized from this analysis is the occupations. Notice how all males in this show have an impressive career while all the women have careers where you don’t earn as much. Okay you might argue that Robin has a great job as she is a news reporter, but realize the fact that she is purposefully on air early in the morning, where people won’t watch as much. She is paid less for this, and clearly this shows how her job isn’t as great as a lawyer or architect. Oh and Lily. Well she is a kindergarten teacher. Most of her expenses come from Marshall’s bank accounts. By the way, Lily is known for being a shopoholic. Clearly, the men are earning more in this show. How I Met Your Mother may be a hilarious show, but you all should recognize the stereotypes against females and African Americans. 

Dove Campaign

First of all, I love Dove. Not because of this campaign. Simply because I use the soap bar twice every day :). Now I just saw the Dove Campaign. I like the idea of how Dove is trying to increase the self esteem of insecure girls. I love the idea of how they are trying to make everyone confident. In fact, they even said "Imagine a world where the beauty is the source of confidence". Isn't that amazing? WAIT. Beauty? That's what irritated me. Dove here is not only trying to make the females of the world more confident, but they are also trying to sell their product because Dove can make women prettier. But the fact that they talk about beauty makes the viewers think that if you are beautiful, you will have more confidence. Now, I know many pretty friends who have self esteem issues. Your self esteem won't increase if you look prettier. I personally think a girl should have character, personality, and caring in order to be confident.

Then the girl says that she hates her dimples because people make fun of it, causing her self esteem to go down. Sure thing, if someone makes fun of my eyes (my eyes aren't weird, I'm just going to give an example :P, my eyes are rather sexy), I'm obviously going to be down and have less confidence. After that girl explained her issue with dimples, the other girl said that "I like your dimples and it makes you look beautiful". That is a compliment that is helping the low self esteemed girl to gain confidence. So if the world can just compliment each other, why do we need a Dove Movement??

National Conversation

I just read an article by Sut Jhally. The article was published online and it was called The National Conversation in the Wake of Littleton is Missing the Mark. Its fantastic. I understood so much out of it. Take a look at the article:
National Conversation

What I learned from this is that the killings in the high school in Littleton were not just caused by those two boys, but also the environment they are around. Indirectly, movies, tv shows, and culture was the cause of the killings. Its our culture that tells us that "men have to be aggressive, physical, and violent". Hegemonic masculinity, which is part of what our society believes, is that men have to be tough, have power, and take authority. Now, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, the two seniors that conducted the massacre, may have been acting out of what our media brings us. They weren't physically big, which might be a reason to why they didn't fit in, but they had weapons. Weapons are deadly, weapons are dangerous, and weapons give authority and power. When you see Sylvester Stallone shooting around in Rambo and Bruce Willis well built in Die Hard, every boy wants to be like them. And then with the culture saying that men have to be strong and powerful, guys take that as pressure and actually act like that in order to fit in. Maybe that is what the two boys were doing. Trying to fit in. 

Changing the View of the Islamic Faith

Further questions to contemplate for additional posting opportunities: 
-Should amateurs like Ardekani be encouraged to dispense advice about religion and morality to troubled adolescents? In my opinion, people like Ardekani should be encouraged to spread the truth of Islam and how it has nothing to do with terrorists. If people have a an absurd view on the religion of Islam, it is the job of Muslims to change that view. I think its absolutely acceptable to see Ardekani be encouraged to dispense the advice about religion.
-Some people assert that all stereotypes are based on some measure of truth. Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not? I completely agree. When someone says something against someone's race or gender, most of the time they say it as a stereotypical generalization. In other words, they are not just attacking an individual, but also who the individual is. In our world, people stereotype against others because they think that the only peoples that can be accepted is their type of people.
-What language do you hear in school halls or at school events that reinforce stereotypes? What can you do about this? Many times I hear words like "B**ch" or "N**ger" around my campus. Sometimes I hear words like "hoe" or "whore" towards women. I can see that people are obviously treating others who are different to them as if they are not equal to them. In other words, people degrade others. People treat women differently, and obviously we see females fight back. But what I am trying to say is that when people say stereotypical words towards people, it shows how they are degrading people. I don't know what can be done about this to be honest. The fact that we are in an International School helps us a lot, because outside of our school its probably much worse. The best thing we can really do is encourage people to control themselves from using those harmful words.
-Why do stereotypes exist? What purpose do they serve? Stereotypes exist because it helps people know who others are. This allows them to feel comfortable of themselves because they think that they are above the other stereotypes. 

-What organizations are you aware of that promote stereotypes? Why do you think they thrive?  Several organizations like the UEFA, which is pretty much European Football, has had stereotypes towards African's. It's not against African's, and its does allow black players to play in their competitions, but racism has always been a part of the crowds when they see a player like Samuel Eto'o or Didier Drogba join the pitch (they are two famous African footballers). UEFA simply hasn't done enough to counter these racist chants.
-How has the Internet helped or hurt groups that are often targeted? Think about it. What does the internet help people do?... It helps people connect. Something you post on to the web, millions of viewers from across the world can read it. If you say something, people can the wrong message and obviously problems would occur. 

So there was something I could relate to. I just finished an International Relations project and I was working on the book by Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of the Civilizations. Huntington's claim was that conflicts in the future would not be because of economic or ideological reasons, but because of cultural and religious differences. Clearly, he was trying to show the stereotypical issues. He had one quote in his book that Kevin and I went across:

"We know who we are only when we know who we are not, and often only when we know we are against."

The meaning of this quote is that when one see's another race, gender, or sex, they only know who they are because they feel "bigger" than them. The sense of identity is found when one is separated from another. When one’s race is different from another, they know who they are. When one sees a difference in another, they know who they are. In fact, we know who we are when we know who are enemies are. The quote by Samuel Huntington shows the stereotypical influence from each culture, as stereotypes are used to differentiate one another. If a culture separates from another culture, one would know that the only reason they separated is because they can only progress around their own kind, which is a very prejudice and racist act.