March 2010 Archives

Denial, Denial, Denial

| 1 Comment

Watching this report by Frontline I realized a few things. First of all the digital world has expanded an amazing amount in a small amount of time. Also kids these days spend a ridiculous amount of time on all things digital. Lastly my generation is in denial of this. Although this new digital world definitely has its benefits and people can connect and learn all sorts of things that they would never have been to before. This report does a good job of addressing both the positive and negative effects of the "digital nation". I think its a good work of broadcast journalism. It does a very in-depth report of the digital world and highlights very important points, as well as getting good information from good sources. I also think it does a pretty good job representing my generation. Although not all kids in my generation are addicted to digital things, there are a good percentage that have adapted and showed that digital media is a high priority of my generation. This also brings out the point that my generation thinks its completely normal to be so involved with the digital world and I believe is in denial of their use. This is highlighted by a quote from the report. "I think it takes people a while for reality to hit them in the face," said Dr. Gary Small from UCLA.
I also think that people need to look more into their use of digital media. I don't think that technology is bad or that it should slow down, but I think that the way and time that people use digital media should be more closely evaluated. I am very much on the border when it comes to technology and media. On one hand the use of technology is exciting and can make things easier and progress culture. But on the other hand are the old ways that bad? And what will we lose if we continue to go in the direction that we are going in. Does it make people less communicative with each other in person?

A Dose of Reality, a Bid to Restore Magic

I chose to compare a story by Peter Baker of the New York times and a story by Johanna Neuman of the LA Times. Both articles are very different. They both have very different leads and even cover different aspects of the State of the Union address. The content is very different in a few ways.
The way that they are different is that the content of both is not the same and take an angle about the address that is different than the other. I didn't chose articles that really summed up the speech even though both used quotes from the president.
Also The quotes that they use are very different and that is to be expected because they are going for a different angle and therefore use different quotes for their purposes.
I think that the New York times article is a better analysis type, but the LA Times is more fun and a lighter article.
Both articles are well written and both the articles are relevant and use good quotes and leads for their articles.

About this Archive

This page is an archive of entries from March 2010 listed from newest to oldest.

February 2010 is the previous archive.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.