March 2010 Archives

I thought this Frontline documentary was extremely eye opening. The ironic thing I noticed is during the documentary when the researcher was studying multi-tasking, I myself was multi-tasking. I was listening to the documentary while checking Facebook and texting. The truth is, I had to watch the documentary again because my attention wasn't solely on the documentary, and I missed out on some valuable information. It's interesting to see the personal relationships that developed as a result of World of Warcraft, the popular video game. I think questioning our generation's digital knowledge is extremely important. We rely on the Internet and the idea of "staying connected" throughout our daily lives.

What I found most interesting was how South Korea is recognizing some cases of overusing the internet as an addiction. I believe this to be true with anything. Too much of a anything can be toxic. I'm not sure if sending kids to a two week intervention camp would really be the answer, because what happens after the two weeks is over? However, I do think instilling internet manners is a good idea at a young age. If kids are taught how to use the Internet properly, and not destructively there's no reason why this digital era can't be productive. There is a vast array of insightful knowledge that we consume on the Internet. I think it's a great tool to facilitate ideas and connections.

However, I think the digital revolution we're currently in can be self-destructive. In terms of relationships, we might not really be there when we're sitting at dinner with our friends or family. We might might be immersed in a texting conversation or a video game. I think the digital revolution has the power to destroy relationships as a result of not paying enough attention to our surroundings and neglecting those around us. The Frontline program really did a great job at illustrating all sides of the issue.

Star Tribune Story

New York Times Story

The Star Tribune (Associated Press) lead was the following: WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama urged Congress Wednesday to vote "up or down" on sweeping health care legislation in the next few weeks, endorsing a plan that denies Senate Republicans the right to kill the bill by stalling with a filibuster.

I felt like this lead was extremely effective in illustrating the tension that might result due to this vote "up or down" idea President Obama is urging. I also think the use of a direct quote from Obama works well in the context of this lead. This lead illustrates the dichotomy between the Democrats and Republicans on the health care legislation.

The lead for the New York Times article was: WASHINGTON -- President Obama, making his final push for a health care overhaul, called Wednesday for Congress to set aside political gamesmanship and allow an "up-or-down-vote" on the measure, so that Democrats can pass the legislation and he can sign it into law, after nearly a year of debate.

I don't really like this lead. I feel like it's somewhat confusing in the order. It also doesn't captivate me as a reader. The overall lead is pretty confusing and doesn't give me a clear idea of what the article is about. It also doesn't really illustrate the tension like the first lead did.

"I don't see how another year of negotiations would help. Moreover, the insurance companies aren't starting over," the president said, referring to a recent round of announced premium increases affecting millions who purchase individual coverage.

This excerpt from the Star Tribune provides a good explanation after the quote. I also think the second paragraph of the New York Times article was effective in opening the subject of the article:
"I believe the United States Congress owes the American people a final vote on health care reform," Mr. Obama said in a 20-minute speech in the East Room of the White House.

I think the Star Tribune's use of the quote "At stake right now is not just our ability to solve this problem, but our ability to solve any problem," from Obama was an interesting quote to use in this article. It illustrates the country's problems as a whole. Obama is indirectly saying that the way we solve this problem reflects how we will solve other problems. I think it effectively connects the speech to a wider range of issues the U.S. is dealing with. We constantly are immersed in this health care battle, and sometimes we don't realize there are other battles we need to fight besides health care. I feel like the Star Tribune has a negative attitude toward the health care plan. I wouldn't quite call it a bias, but I would say it's thought provoking. Contrastingly, The New York Times article seems like a bunch of quotes thrown together with no rhyme or reason. That might be exaggerating slightly. The Star Tribune article has a way of explaining the quote they chose to the straight and to the point. It has a reason and order to how the quotes are presented. I wouldn't say The New York Times article is a poor article, but if I had to choose a better written article it would definitely be the Star Tribune.