Grade Proposition Infographic

Osama Bin Laden's Death discussion

For the last class of the semester, I was sadly not able to attend due to health reasons. I spent the day Monday in urgent care, had a fever among other systems and was just not well enough to attend on Tuesday.

It certainly saddened me, as this class has been of that I've enjoyed: the topic, the readings, my classmates, our discussions and the many things I've learned.

Enough about me, I wanted to try and chime in on the discussion that I missed on Tuesday. According to many of my classmates, the death of Osama bin Laden is what dominated the conversation.

I think his death is a significant, yet symbolic, achievement for the United States. It gives a reinvigorated morale boost to our military. I also think it helps ease the mind of the many people who have been adamantly against the wars we've been fighting.

I go word from NBC News that they would be broadcasting a Special Report around 10:45 on Sunday. The plan was to go live to the White House and have President Obama's address. The president did not take to the podium in the East Room until about 11:15.

The first place I discovered the topic of the president's address was on Twitter. Immediately, people took to the Twitter airwaves to announce the news, then react to the news. Osama and OBL quickly became trending topics.

I think it's interesting how many of the details we learned Sunday were incorrect. You wonder how information can leave the White House and not be correct.

The most interesting part of the incident are some of the surveillance details. The United States reportedly knew of bin Laden's location for more than six months. It came to precise timing as to when the military made the raid. It is also interesting how Pakistan government officials were not involved in the raid nor did they know about it. Also, Osama was hiding within 100 miles of a massive city, not in cave as many suspected.

In the age of information in which we live, how is it possible that someone like bin Laden stay hidden? It is obvious communication had to leave that house, as he is a major leader in the terrorist operation. Also, he was the most wanted man in the world. With Facebook and Twitter, the least wanted person in the U.S. could be identified within minutes.

What are your thoughts?

Deep Thought: Better now or later?

Congratulations, classmates. I firmly believe today's class discussion was our strongest yet this semester. I think it seems most people did most of the reading, or briefed themselves in the appropriate topic. Also, everyone seemed to have something to say and no weak points were really let go. This shows how far we've come this semester in the class.

I think the most interesting tension discussed today regarding Nicholas Carr's book is the one between "slowing down" and ignoring distractions. Carr implies that he thinks today's brain make-up is designed for a too quick environment. John's driving example is a great analogy here.

My point comes from the idea that sometimes people are more efficient by going quickly, because it helps eliminating the noise or the distractions. In the scenic driving analogy, if you see a Robin (bird) once, do you really need to focus on the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh... I think you get my point.

I'm playing around with the concept that technology may remove the effort in the early stages of the thinking process. Why waste hours in the library looking for information in books, when you can do a Google search and be offered hundreds of thousands of results (this is not supposed to start another argument about Google, by the way).

The trick is to use the help offered by technology and let it lead to deeper thought in the more elaborate points of one's intellectual process. Because you got to that point quicker, one might have more time and energy to develop more significant ideas.

This reminded me of the Jaron Larnier's argument on noise. I'm going to reread that portion of his book to see if I can elaborate on this idea.

How do you think I'm doing?

This could be dangerous for any person, to open themselves up to their peers for criticism.

I think Professor Dean and you, my classmates, would agree that sometimes I'm overly celebrant of things like Twitter and Facebook, and their positive affects. You all have respectfully scolded me for ignoring the many negative affects these services may have, including the safety aspect of Facebook or Google.

The biggest skill I have learned from this class is to analytically criticize more accurately than I have in the past. I discovered that I am improving this skill, especially as I wrote my paper. Basically, I argued that Facebook and Twitter can't be entirely given credit for a revitalization of democracy.

What are your thoughts on how you've developed in this class? What do you think of my arguments over the past semester? Do you think I've improved in critically analyzing digital media?

If you're wondering I think that Mark Andrejevic got through to me those most of any of the readings. Also, in hindsight, Jaron Lanier's argument is more convincing to me now.

#Revolution?

Yes, I meant the # in the title. That's to the affect of how Twitter and Facebook are being credited with political revolutions in the Middle East.

How significant do you think social media is at making these revolutions happen? Would they have happened without social media?

As I discussed in my paper, social media is important recently of starting these events, but it's not the end all. You need the physical passion and tension in order for any revolution to occur. The radical rhetoric has to leave the digital space and spill out into the streets for any activism to come of it.

Egypt is an example. Sure, social media gets credit. But THOUSANDS still poured out into the streets of Tahrir Square to protest. Look at the violence, that couldn't have happened without tension in the streets between actual human beings.

Andrejevic says, “The technological capacity of interactivity will not, on its own, dismantle social, political, and economic hierarchies. It will not on its own foster a version of democracy based on collective control over the sharpening of political goals" (49).

WikiLeaks Good or Bad?

I think the debate on WikiLeak's affect on journalism is very interesting, as being a member of the industry.

First of all, when it comes to looking for government documents as sources, it's a significant resource. Again, as discussed in class, the legitimacy of the documents might have to be taken into question. That is especially essential in traditional journalism. Lovink and Riemens define old fashioned journalism as unearthing facts, crosschecking these and backgrounding them into an understandable discourse. 


So if the "old" style of journalism wants to use the "new" style as a source, they better make sure it's accurate.


Of course, traditional journalism is criticized for gate-keeping, and keeping stories private due to influence from outside sources. WikiLeaks helps ease this, as it is a flaw in a true democratic process. On the other side of the argument, news organizations may need to withhold information when it comes to a matter of national security or international diplomacy. 


Some argue that the decline in investigative journalism due to budget cuts is what makes WikiLeaks important. Where WikiLeaks fails is putting it into context when presented to the public. It is important that the public knows why something is important or what it means, and WikiLeaks does not do that.


WikiLeaks also has the benefit of no moral code or journalistic policy, so it does not have to consider ramifications of the what it presents. That easily makes them at risk for inaccurate information.


Of course, I am a proponent of traditional journalism, so I am working hard to see both parts. 

Bifo and ADHD

I think Bernardi's discussion regarding ADHD and other disorders is interesting. I'm not fully convinced that the dense amount of technology that affect children can give them a disorder.

I do think it's important to realize that habits children grow up with affect their education. Teachers now need to make their lessons more interactive and less-information dense, so it satisfies the short attention spans of the younger generation. That can be very dangerous.

Is there science that says ADHD is developed after birth or is it a genetic disorder?