As I see it, the film Friday negatively portrays the African-American race as violent, uneducated, criminal minded, druggies, etc. This has a negative influence on the way the African-American community is perceived by society. 

     In the movie Friday, the plot is that a young black man, Craig, has recently moved to a ghetto neighborhood in California. The movie begins with his friend, Smokey, going to Craig’s house and offering Craig some marijuana. This is the first negative portrayal. Throughout the movie the two young men are constantly smoking or talking about drugs. This constant drug related content makes it seem like all black people sit around doing drugs all day, which is not true of course. The conflict begins when Smokey’s dealer arrives and demands he get payed back for the weed Smokey and Craig smoked, yet another reference to criminal activity. So Craig and Smokey must find a way to get the money or they will be killed. Throughout the film, they encounter many acts of violence, all performed by African Americans, they rob a house, their friend gets robbed of his jewelry, much marijuana is smoked, people attempt to kill them, etc. The whole film is about black people being violent criminals who do drugs and constantly scream and curse like uneducated fools.

     Some viewers may point out that the movie portrays these characters in this manner, not because they are black, but because they are in a position socially, by virtue of their lack of money, to act this way and not have a chance to receive a good education. I would point out this may be true, but there are no people of any other race, no matter their social position, in this movie acting this way. It is only African Americans.

     In the end, the movie Friday does a disservice to the black community by portraying them as violent, uneducated, drug-doing criminals. We should all remember this is not the way all African-Americans are in reality.

     For my example of attempted censorship, I chose an attempt by GLAAD to have Eminem’s album, The Marshall Mathers LP censored in 2003. GLAAD, which stands for Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, wanted to censor a few of Eminem’s songs off the album because they used very hateful lyrics toward homosexuals and women, and were extremely violent and vulgar. They felt the songs promoted hateful behavior against these minority groups, especially in children who are easy to influence. And to make matters worse for GLAAD, Eminem won three grammy awards for the Marshall Mathers LP. They feel giving Eminem these awards “places a stamp of approval on hateful and violent lyrics.”

     Although I, like GLAAD, do not approve of Eminem’s lyrics, I find it ridiculous for them to want to censor the lyrics. This is the U.S.A., we value freedom of speech. The first amendment guarantees all citizens freedom to express themselves any way they like, even if it may offend others. Eminem’s lyrics may offend GLAAD, but he isn’t causing them any physical harm, he is simply exercising his first amendment right. GLAAD is worried the lyrics will promote violent and hateful behavior in children, but I believe it should be the parent’s responsibility teach their kids how to be good human beings, and instill good behavior in them. Parent’s are the ones who need to prevent violent behavior, not the government. If a certain person or group finds lyrics to be offensive the solution is simple, do not listen to it. It’s that easy. No one is forcing them to listen. If GLAAD wishes the music to be censored because it elicits violence, that same argument could be used to censor movies, violent news stories, books, commercials, etc. This of course will never happen, because we live in the U.S.A., unless Palin becomes president, then we might see some bans.

    This story pertains to a study conducted by the American Heart Association which found that cholesterol lowering drugs known as statins could benefit people even without high cholesterol. It was found that people taking the drugs were 50 percent less likely to be at risk of a heart attack, as well as 50 percent less likely to suffer a stroke. The study was said to have a huge potential to help many across the country.

     First of all, unlike many drug related stories, this one did not seem too overly sensationalized. It didn’t hype it up too much, just stuck to facts and quotes from doctors. The story did praise the drug and say the study was “extremely important and potentially landmark” but this is well deserved and I feel not meant to sensationalize the coverage. This drug could help millions of people, and we’re right to be excited about it.

     Overall, the story did an adequate job in answering the questions I had about the topic, however there were a few details I needed clearing up. First of all, I am confused as to how one goes about measuring the risk of a heart attack or stroke. They reported risk of these two occurrences was cut in half, but did not clarify as to how the risk was measured. Secondly, I am wondering how it is determined that “250,000 heart attacks, strokes and vascular procedures could be prevented.” I don’t understand how they could make this estimate without having examined these people. 

    Of the sources quoted, I thought they seemed credible and reliable. All the quotes were from high ranking doctors who were directors of large departments and who were part of prestigious establishment. They even quoted doctors who were not a part of the study, which should indicate that these people had no reason to hold a bias.

     The first thing that came to mind upon entering the site was that this is an insult to my intelligence. For the makers of this website to think they can get me to have a different opinion about or desire milk from seeing some middle aged man in an unflattering white suit perform a series of ridiculous acts is utterly insulting. I do not understand why anyone would let this influence their decision the next time they are at the market, pondering which beverage to buy. Would anyone really think, “Hmm, that sunny delight looks good, but after seeing that guy crawl around on the ground like a deranged psychopath, I think I’d better buy this milk.” I would like to think people pick a drink based on its taste and nutritional value. It is these type of people who are responsible for the prevalence of these intellectually insulting adds, which I cannot stand. If anything, the next time I consider the question of whether to buy milk or not, I will cease from completing the purchase because of the anger and confusion this site produced in me. The site is, however, quite engaging and full of activities one can do. I could probably spend hours doing these random little games and activities, but of course I will not, because my life is not that empty. The site’s “rock” theme seems to me like a feeble attempt to be “cool” and appeal to the younger audience. They use words like “chill-atorium” to appeal to younger viewers as well. This all insults my intelligence, and I hope my colleagues are smart enough to not be fooled by this marketing scheme. Plus, all these different pages take years to load and I cannot see why anyone would waste the time waiting, just to watch this man jump around in tights. In conclusion, this website is a waste of my time and the epitome of bull-shit marketing. It is this kind of marketing that I, and I know a great deal of others, can see right through. More people must become aware and realize they are being fooled by these ridiculous adds.

Good morning, afternoon, or evening, blog readers. I would like to thank you for taking time out of your ever-busy schedules to read my blog. This week, my assignment was to research a medium and it’s negative effects on society. I chose to research violent video games because I am a gamer myself, and for me I know the games don’t influence me to shoot up a mall or going on rampant killing sprees. But, some claim games like Grand Theft Auto or Saints Row cause kids to perform violent acts, so I desired to do some research and see what really is going on. I will be using Toulmin’s Model to format my argument.

Claims and Qualifiers

After conducting some research, It seems to me that violent video games may have some negative effect on children, but I feel this issue should not even matter. For one, research is inconclusive, and for two, it should be parent’s jobs to make sure their children do not perform violent acts. We cannot place the blame on outside sources. This is a free country, violent media should not be regulated.

Grounds

It is a fact that violent video games have an effect on aggression and displays of violence in children. According to a study by the American Psychology Association, Playing violent video games like Doom, Wolfenstein 3D or Mortal Kombat can increase a person’s aggressive thoughts, feelings and behavior both in laboratory settings and in actual life. The first study involved 227 college students. Each student completed a measure of trait aggressiveness and divulged their actual aggressive behaviors (delinquency) in the recent past. They also reported their how often, and what kind of video games they played. “We found that students who reported playing more violent video games in junior and high school engaged in more aggressive behavior,” said lead author Anderson, of Iowa State University. They also found that the amount of time spent playing video games in the past usually led to worse academic grades in college. In a second study, 210 students played either a violent video game or a non violent one, then it was found a short time after that the ones who played the violent game punished their opponent for a longer time than the non violent players.

Warrant

As the research shows, violent video games lead to increased aggression. However, it is not the responsibility of the government to regulate such matters. This is the U.S.A., people should be free to influence their mind in whatever way they see fit. If this was the country’s mentality, then why not disallow showing war in the news? Why not disallow cigarette adds, alcohol adds, or anything else that promotes unhealthy behavior? Why? Because this is the U.S.A. and people are free to make there own decisions. This topic should be DROPPED!

Rebuttal

The counter argument to mine is obvious: Violent games promote unhealthy behavior, therefore should be stopped. Well, I already discussed my opinion on this topic.

References: 

“VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES CAN INCREASE AGGRESSION” American Psychology Association. Apr. 23, 2000. Oct 29, 2008. <http://www.apa.org/releases/videogames.html>

     After reviewing five stories, or even one story from each source, the differences immediately become apparent. The first difference I noticed is the overall themes of the stories. In FOX news, almost every story had a negative overtone. For example some of the headlines were: Sex Scandal Rep. Hit With Divorce, Video Game Yanked for Being Offensive to Muslims, Mass. Man Charged With DUI Twice in Same Day, Obama Praised “Searing and Timely” Book by Ayers, Jury Convicts Southern California Man in Yacht Killings, etc. All of these stories have predominantly negative messages. My guess is they have these negative stories like this because it is intriguing to the public, luring in more viewers and therefore maximizing profit, which is the goal of these greedy corporate news stations. In contrast, the alternative media source, Wiretap contained mainly positive stories. Some of Wiretap’s headlines were: Rallying the Vote, Fighting Poverty With a Green Economy, Going Green, Holiday Reflection, etc.  All of these stories had positive messages encouraging people to improve there lifestyles in some way.

     Another notable difference is the political leaning of each source. I found FOX News to undoubtedly live up to its reputation to leaning towards the right side of the political spectrum. Most of there stories having to do with the election were either anti-Obama-Biden or pro-McCain-Palin. On the other hand, Wiretap seemed to be much less inclined to either way, rather it was encouraging voting in general, activism, and the environment. Most of the stories are geared toward youth, which could mean leaning a bit more liberal, because most of today’s youth are left-leaners. I didn’t find many pro or anti campaign stories. 

     As for reporters being at the scene of the stories they cover, I read online articles, so this doesn’t really apply. But for the few videos I did watch, reporters from both sources were on site.

    Regarding opinion vs. objective reporting, I found that FOX News had a great deal more reporting than opinion pieces, although the reporting didn’t exactly seem objective. As for Wiretap, there was about an equal balance of opinion and reporting. Wiretap had an abundance of blogs from regular people like me, which I found very intriguing.

     I thought both sources did a fine job in the category of interviews. Both sources interviewed a good mix of expert and normal people for each story. There was also an equal distribution of the gender of the interviewees. 

     For some reason, I could not figure out how to access different languages for either source. This implies that either neither source is considerate enough of different ethnic groups to provide language options, or I am a technologically deficient cretin who has no business writing an online blog. Something tells me it’s the latter…

-Phil