The Thin Line between Journalism and Entertainment

This post was originally going to discuss the recent recent retraction of a This American Life, and how it affected our class discussion of the Mike Daisy's performance. However, Mr. O'Conner beat me to the punch, and posted is own on our American Studies blog, here.
So, in order to keep things different, I wanted to talk about the difference between entertainment and journalism, or more importantly, when we should call into question the differences.

As we saw in the incident with Mike Daisy's performance, he altered and changed facts about his experiences, which in an effort to provide a more compelling story. Only within the confines of theater and entertainment would most people consider this an OK practice. Bloomberg News reports Daisy's own opinion of merging fact with fiction, “’This American Life’ is essentially a journalistic ­- not a theatrical ­- enterprise, and as such it operates under a different set of rules and expectations,” Daisey wrote. “For this reason, I regret that I allowed ’This American Life’ to air an excerpt from my monologue. What I do is not journalism.”

Yet, even with Daisy's statement, I am left with doubts of his intentions. In the picture to the right, Daisy's desk has a shocking similarity to that of a news anchor's desk. This may just be me looking to far into it, but perhaps we are seeing an under-layer of journalism being hid in all works of fiction. And maybe even the other way around.


It is common knowledge that even the most reputable news sites and shows sometimes exaggerate or give leading statements that hyperbolize and issue. Even Don Dellilo in his book  White Noise talks about the phenomenon of news broadcasts giving reports without actual information. In the book, before being called The Airborne Toxic Event, the news were labeling the cloud as first a "feathery plume" and then a "black billowing cloud." Both terms seem ominous, and probably used to incite certain emotions from viewers and listeners. Maybe Delillo was the first to catch on to the blurred lines between storytelling and news, entertainment and journalism.


 What do you think? Is this barrier between fact and fiction really this frail? Has it always been so?

Looking for Alternatives

 Somewhat recently in class we watched a video about the Prison Industrial Complex, and how the current prison system is not working right, or at least not ideally. The actual arguments made in the video are not as important as what my first reaction was to the video, and the reaction to my reaction.

Because while I may have agreed with some of the points the video brought up, the first question I asked was, "what is their alternative?" Seems logical enough to me, right? But as soon as the question was asked, another classmate immediately followed up with the question, "Why was his first question for an alternative? Do we need an alternative?"

This point made me consider what I had said more carefully. Why do we care about alternatives, and should we?


I look first to the world we live in today, a world fueled by deeming whether or not something is practical. we live in a practical society. Here is where alternatives come into play. While we can step back and criticize and existing fact or concept, as a society, we do not see that as worth it. What is the point to complaining about something if there is no other more practical solution.

So here is where I stand. I think that, as a society, it is important, if not necessary, to be looking for alternatives. We cannot simply sit back and talk poorly about things if we do not have a better solution. It is both not fair, and, I have to say it, not practical.

What do you think? Should we be worried  about alternatives?

Meta Blog Post

 While looking back at my posts, I can very easily now separate my blogs into two categories, those which were making an offensive argument, and those that were simply discussing an interesting topics. One of the easiest way to tell the two apart is by whether or not the posts ended in an question. For example, my posts Chemical Castration, Oakland: the next Wild, WIld West?, and A need for iZoning Committees?, were all post where I did not necessarily have much of my own opinion stressed in the writing, but was more so bringing up the various subjects for the purpose of discussion. These posts also all ended in questions, such as, "What do you think about this bill? Would it pass? Should it pass?"(Chemical Castration) Perhaps the only exception to this is the two part post on the ethicality of violent sports like UFC, which did not end in a question (Part 1, Part 2). On the converse, as expected, the posts that did not end in a question all had a clear claim that was trying to be proven. For instance, my very first post started with a very specific claim, "speed can corrupt our otherwise good judgement." This intro was very to the point, and while that could be a good thing, it did not leave much room for interpretation of the following video. Blog posts are supposed to be about connecting ideas and furthering thought, but such a straightforward post could not do such a thing.

Speaking of connecting ideas, this was a problem many of the posts had. Were we tasked at the beginning of the year to try to connect our blogs with a preexisting text in order to give some context. However, linking my post to a text with come context was sometimes under-emphasized in the posts. For instances, one of my more profound posts, misdirection in haze. talked about the Ground Zero 'monument.' When reviewing such a touchy subject, I would have hoped to include a more solid link than just including some pictures.


However, one key matter in the posts if being able to link our ideas to an American theme. I can safely say that throughout my post, there was a reference or discussion of some American value. What I fear is lacking, is the direct approach to these values. This means that while yes, I did have some connection to an American theme, I was not including empathy for the reader by showing where and how to make the connection. In some ways you could call it lazy writing.


Speaking of lazy, the last thing, and perhaps simplest issue, was punctuality. Functional Theories consist of far fewer posts than I would like to admit, and the distancing between them were increasing throughout the semester. Fortunately, being the writer of said blog, it didn't take me long to realize why. Despite how easy it was for ideas to flow onto the screen from my head once I starting writing (and this I like very much about blogging), it would take me an incredibly long time to find a topic that seemed interesting enough for me to write about. Sure, I could have always taken advantage of those times in class when Bolos or O'Conner would  say, "that would make for an interesting blog post," but to me that seemed too non-unique, and blog post are supposed to be unique, or at least that is how I see it. Thus, finding a topic that included a piece of textual evidence or a base with which I could connect a post to took much longer than both you, the reader, and I probably would have expected. On the positive side, habits do change over time, and I, for one, am hoping that the frequency of content being posted on Functional Theories will increase of the next semester.


Now, with all of that being said, I would like to say that I am still quite proud of my ideas and my writing when I did eventually get around to writing it all down, and for those of you in my American Studies class, I wish you the best of luck on the finals.








P.S. In keeping with the spirit of delayed publishing in Functional Theories,notice the time of the particular post's publish time.

That's media with a little-'t' truth

While this is quite a bit after the fact, I remember a discussion we had  in class about Truth vs. truth. we decided that Truth would be real, undeniable fact. In many situations this would be considered inclusive of evidence. We also determined that truth was much more along the lines of varying interpretation, much more personal; for the sake of simplicity, it makes more sense if replaced by the  word 'meaning', or what something or event means to someone.

But what is perhaps more interesting about the varying interpretations or the word 'truth' in a subject area that is supposed to be known for its usage of 'Truth', the news and non-social media. However, what we often find is that these outlets do not frequently use 'Truth' and instead they portray an often-times oversimplified 'truth' or meaning to a certain event of document.

 Let's use a piece of legislature that we also discussed in class, the National Defense Authorization Act, or Bill S.1867. We watched a video in class of Anonymous, the hacking organization, reporting that this '"new" bill was violating the bill of rights, and brings a battlefield to citizens of the United States. However, they did not ever actually quote or cite the bill itself, but instead went to Wired magazine, a technology magazine, to repeat exactly what they had just said. If you couldn't have guessed it, Wired also didn't cite the Bill S.1867.

This is a clear representation of 'truth' being used, inappropriately, I might add, instead a perhaps more respectable evidence, or 'Truth', oriented presentation. Fore example, the video failed to present a quote like this one, "Nothing in this section (AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE). shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States." This would be the 'Truth', and if used a little bit more in the media, would perhaps make the would a saner place.

The actual bill can be seen here, and the section referenced is SEC. 1031

The Wisdom of Bill Watterson

I was going through some of my old Calvin and Hobbes comic books, and I was amazed that as I have developed with more and deeper ways of looking at things, I was able to see more and more genius in the work of Bill Watterson. Today, I would like to focus on one strip I recently read. While I cannot find an image, nor scan it, I hope a simple transcript will suffice.

Hobbes: I can't believe there's a magazine for gum chewers.
Calvin: Heck, there must be a dozen such magazines.
Calvin: Each appeals to a different faction. "Chewing" is a high-gloss, literate and sophisticated. "Gum Action" goes for the gonzo chewers. "Chewers Illustrated" aim at vintage gum collectors, and so on!
Calvin: Each one encourages you to think that you belong to an elite clique, so advertisers can appeal to your ego and get you to cultivate an image that sets you apart from the crowd. It's the divide and conquer trick.
Hobbes: I wonder whatever happened to the melting pot.
Calvin: There's no money in it.

There isn't much I can say about Watterson' genius in this strip, let alone his entire works. Everything works in this dialogue. He has the reference to another "magazine" as an intro. He has Calvin give an excellent description of how marketing and sales works in America in regards to his magazine. He then even makes a connection to an overarching idea of how America has, one could say, deteriorated ethically.So, I guess you can say ol' Bill has done all of my work for me.

What I do want to do is expand on some of the crucial questions that were brought up in the cartoon. Has financial incentives become the driving force of the American market? Or, perhaps more appropriately, hasn't it always been? While it may seem rudimentary to point out that marketing  is founded upon sales, but it seems to me that American's tend to  ignore or pass over the brute fact that marketing is a strategic game, in which the players will use any means necessary to win.

A need for iZoning Committees?

I was scanning headlines on the BBC's website when I came across this article. I am rather interested in the education system, and after being around the lab school on our excellent field trip to Chicago, I couldn't help but read the article. The article summarizes, for those of you too lazy to open a link, a new broad concept for adapting schools, in this instance New York's, for both advancing technology and also individual needs in school. With a French teacher in a public school for a mother, I have a good idea of how difficult a class can be without adequate time in the library or with computers, or if their is a special needs kid in the class. All of these factors people want to be addressed, and this new iZone idea is some sort of solution for these problems in New York public schools. But really, it would be best if you just read the article. Go on. Open the link. Good job.

Now that that's settled, I wanted to focus on one of the issues the plan is supposed to solve, that of individual needs. Brooke Jackson, a NYC lab school principle and promoter of the iZone, talked about the varying needs of different students.
 "We have students who are ready for graduate level work now - and we have students who will not make progress unless they're in a three to one staff situation."
It is this type of grouping, one based on learning styles, that will really help students.  But it is more than that. Arthur Vanderdeen, former head of innovation for New York's Department of Educcation, put it best by saying,
 "It's a wholesale rethinking of a school and its cultural mindset."
A rethinking designed to maximize student potential, without pushing them to far or providing openings for underachievement.

Of course, as with every new concept plan, there are some flaws in forms of practical implementation on a city scale. Standing out first, as always, is cost. It is pretty common knowledge that the more teachers a school has to hire, the more financial strain is put on that community. On an inner-city family, that strain might be too much, especially when Jackson calls a possible need for a 3-to-1 student teacher ratio. Also, the iZone concept calls for much more attention to technology use, which is one of the most expensive ways to put material into a student's hands. With maintenance, program purchases, etc., this would most definitely add up in cost.

In all,  I think the ideas brought to the table by the iZone idea are really neat and useful, but so far, it seems to me a practical and efficient method of using these  ideas has been developed yet. What do you think? Are these concepts good ones? Should the iZone concept be carried out?

Oakland: the next Wild, WIld West?

The Occupy Wall Street movement was the first to reach media publicity, and after that other 'Occupy' protests and marches followed.

For us in the Chicagoland area know the of the Occupy Chicago protest, one which held the same basic values of the Occupy Wall Street, and kept the same non-violence as its predecessor. Up until now, I have no problem with this kind of act. It is for the most part legal, people voicing their oppinion, and while I personally think that their demands and intentions are very hazy and poorly operated, I must still respect their actions. However, recent Occupy Oakland events have me startle. As I read in this BBC Article , what started as a fairly peaceful 'Occupy' initiative turned into what I would consider a full on riot.

As the article reports, "Protests on Wednesday were largely peaceful until around midnight local time, when some of the protesters reportedly set a barricade on fire."

However, the protesters did not stop there, BBC quoted reports  the police saying they gave the order to fire tear gas and bean bags "following repeated orders for the crowd to disperse" and in the face of "continued assaults by rocks, lit flares, roman candles and bottles" While no formal number was provided, the primary damage estimates were valued to be around one million. Also, human damages were also listed-around five protesters were hospitalized-including an Iraq War veteran.

While many public officials were upset with the protest-turned-riot in Oakland, other members of the 99% movement said they, too, were disapointed. Comments like, "I think it will allow detractors to criticise the movement," and, "It's messing with our movement," are not far from earshot.

I'm all for freedom to assemble and right to free speech, but when people take and abuse these priviledges and use them to incite harm and violence, no matter what they are saying, I'm not sure if I could ever support something like this incident. What do you think? Is there any justification for these actions? Did they take it too far?