It had always raised my curiosity why news stations where so bias to one political party as opposed to another. For the longest time I had shown little or no interest in politics in general, mainly due to the fact that I would be unable to affect it being that I was under the legal age to even vote. Since that time, now I can vote and it is important for me to know this information. So I thought what better than to search for and gain a better understanding of the political world. My new found interest in politics lead me to the idea about the bias of the news stations. This seemed like a perfect introduction into the political world since most everyone uses the news networks to bet their political information.
At the beginning of the project I was a little intimidated at the fact that I would have to speak for six minutes and forty seconds, however it turned out to be easier than I thought. In order to prepare for the project I wrote out a script so say along with the slides I was presenting as I started to time myself I realized that I needed only to say about two to three sentences per slide which is not too difficult to accomplish.
I chose my slides based on the information I was presenting. I chose key words or phrase in my speech to correspond with what my audience was hearing. Some of the pictures I had chosen used word play for example in slide ten. I stated that “segments run by opinionated hosts” and the picture I posted a picture of a running woman. In addition the sponge soaking water gave the audience a picture of water being soaked up by the sponge. This image was to go along with the words, “The media is run by the bias that permeates it.” So just like water permeates a sponge, bias permeates media.
The final slide was needed to create a summation of the entire presentation. Since the final slide was needed to represent the entire presentation, it was therefore the most important of all the slides. For this picture I choose a nice friendly picture of a group of presumably businessmen and woman all shaking hands. The businessmen are representative of the cable news networks. I chose this picture due to the fact that it resembles a friendly and trustworthy attitude.
One of the major controversies at hand in America is the argument of when life begins. This issue has plagued american society for many years and the american people are very divided upon this issue. One of the many papers written about this controversy is “Life Begins at the Beginning” by Dr. Fritz Baumgartner, MD (1).
Upon searching for further information about the veracity of this article in its goal to establish that Life begins at conception, I found several articles that support the idea posted in this website. The website itself states several very heated reasons why the idea that life begins at conception is the correct view. The article itself poses a one sided and heated explanation of why Dr. Fritz Baumgartner is correct and other scientist are wrong. Based on the bias of the author it seems that the sight may not be trusted. This is because some bias and heated statements are not supported by factual evidence. This can be seen used in cases where the heated author is lacking evidence and lashes out at their opponent as a defense. However, upon further investigation of the website and its resources this is not the case. At the end of the article, Dr. Baumgartner’s education and work history is posted to add veracity to the heated author’s claims. In addition the article contains other resources that authors claims such as the article “Scientist attest to life beginning at Conception” by Randy Alcorn (2). In this article Alcorn lists off the names of prominent scientist with research history who all have shared ideas about when life begins.
The article “Life Begins at the Beginning” is support well and even though it is slightly heated the its resources are trustworthy.
The clip goes from 10:28 to 11:14 (but I highly recommend watching the whole thing, it’s a fabulous ted talk).
This ted talk explores the idea of ‘moral psychology’ and how we, or more specifically liberals and conservatives, differ in the kind of morals that are held to high esteem. The speaker, Jonathan Haidt, explains how the five foundations of morality (harm/care, fairness/reciprocity, ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity) differ between people at a fundamental level. As you probably aren’t surprised, the first two were the most important to liberals; the latter three to conservatives.
The clip that I chose to analyze features Haidt using the above image as a means for arguing why the latter three are moral. First off, the image is named “The Garden of Earthly Delight”. The name itself implies that it has something to offer on the topic of purity/sanctity, giving the painting an air of authority on the subject. While describing the image, Haidt steps through the panels, carefully explaining each as they apply to the latter three moral foundations, appealing to logic. He uses comedy very well, comparing the middle and end panels as the 60’s and 70’s respectively, making light of some of the hellish depictions in the last panel while appealing to pathos. The clip was also well organized, as the slideshow moves from panel to panel as he speaks about them so there is no mistaking what he is talking about.
The selection is a indicative of the entire talk. The speaker uses sound logic and reasoning from very credible sources, adding comedy where appropriate throughout the video.
In this editorial, the new Wikileaks Public Library of US Diplomacy (PlusD) is being released to the world to see. The library boast of holding over 2 million records of the US involvements in, and diplomatic or intelligence reporting on, every country on Earth. The library holds data from the Kissinger table, which comprises of 1.7 million documents on US diplomatic information that has been classified as ‘secret’. Assange tagged this “the single most significant body of geopolitical material ever published”. These documents are from the National Archives and Records Association (NARA), which evaluates and releases government documents to the public after 25 years. Wikileaks said that they made “a detailed analysis of individual fields” to “reverse-engineer” the PDFs and create PlusD, a database of these documents that people can actually search through.
This database relates to Assange’s principles that can be inferred from Raffi Khatchadourian’s article No Secrets. The article states that he had some altruistic motive and he acted on the belief that everyone should have access to everything. This was one of the reasons Assange started Wikileaks. With this transparency, he hoped to expose injustice to the world and the people can have an idea on the kind of data the government collects about them and also know what the government does with this data.
Compared to 2010, there has been a huge change in how the society reads Wikileaks today. In 2010, Wikileaks was a new establishment and many people especially the press doubted its credibility. Though all its sources were stated, people where just uncertain about it. It also received a lot of criticism about exposing confidential information. Most of these criticisms where made to shy Wikileaks away from exposing embarrassing information about the government. But now in 2014, Wikileaks has been embraced by the society as a very credible source of confidential information. Seeing that Wikileaks doesn’t break any legal laws, its critics have reduced though some still exist. Wikileaks has now been installed as part of the society and works as a conscience for the governments.
Apologies for the poor resolution: It’s the result of hunting for old political humor.
Resolution aside, this 40’s-era political cartoon designed by Dr. Seuss reflects the United States’ sentiments towards the tyranny of Adolf Hitler, and the events leading up to the beginning of the Second World War (and arguably, the events that occurred after the initiation of the fighting, but before America’s involvement). The picture sets a mood of indifference, perhaps even enmity, towards the Europeans, particularly the nations that were victimized by and assimilated into the Fascist regime. Simply put, Seuss implies that America cared not in the slightest for those ill-fated nations that were flattened under the Nazi steamroller–nations like Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Austria.
The ‘America First’ sweater hints at the daunting American crisis of the time–the Great Depression. With countless Americans jobless and crippled by poverty and a shattered financial institution, the focus of the U.S.’s efforts were entirely internal, to the point that the rest of the world could be lilt aflame by the Fascists before America would turn its gaze away from itself.
Additionally, the cartoon hints at the anti-foreigner convictions many Americans developed due to the influx of immigrants at Ellis Island in New York, and Angel Island in California. The Depression gave many Americans an opportunity to lash out aggressively against minority races, particularly the Eastern Europeans who had escaped the tyranny of Nazi Germany. The Americans saw these newcomers as an added threat to an already unstable economy, and they would have nothing of them.
Finally, the image may be alluding to America’s disinterest in WW2 before the events of Pearl Harbor. Apart from the government’s financial backing of Great Britain, Americans for the most part would have nothing to do with the war, a conflict taking place far overseas, and having no direct effect on the homeland, harkening back to the “But those were Foreign Children and it didn’t really matter” comment.