Blogging Around

I chose to first comment on Sam's blog which connected Heart of Darkness to the way we should view issues. She talked about how the multiple points of view and levels of storytelling made the novel so great. We should analyze other issues and make decisions in a similar way. I responded with the following:

"Sam,
Wow, I like the connection here and I fully agree with you. I'm influenced by what I read or learn. I don't know if that's necessarily a good thing for me personally. Whatever I read, I usually end up supporting that view if the claims are logical. However, when I read an opposing claim that's justified with good explanations, I also want to believe that as well. Then, it becomes an internal struggle for what I should believe. In some ways, it's almost like whatever comes to me first influences me best. Take religion for example. I was introduced to it as a child, without knowing anything else, and it has stuck with me ever since. I wonder sometimes if, for example, I grew up being influenced that religion is false. Would I stick with that view, or would I eventually convert to religious faith once I learned of it later on in my life. Is our belief predetermined by fate or is it something that is a result of what we're influenced by first?

Seeing the other side is very important. I try to think about this as much as possible, especially when reading about current news. When I'm perusing a newspaper, I am struck with surprising facts. However, I wonder "What's the other side that I'm not getting.?" I see this most relevant in news about wars or conflicts in other countries. You only get the side of the country reporting to you or from the side of the reporter who's telling you the news. Often information is lopsided in a view. This is why I value information (newspapers, books, articles, etc.) that encompass multiple points of view.

Nice job in relating this to Heart of Darkness and globally. I support that we should take in all aspects when analyzing issues that come before us because so much of the world's problems is just a lack of understanding of the opposite view. I also support, that taking in all the views is important in reading literature because it helps you to understand characters deeply and the overall plot like in Heart of Darkness."

Next, I responded to Bill's post on how the media likes bad stories. He describes how negative stories and "trash" fuel the media because it gives the people what they want and thus makes the media more successful. I commented with the following:

"Bill,
This post is interesting and I often think the same. I agree that the media loves "bad" stories, but I also believe that there are exceptions where the media has a keen interest in "good" stories. I think the media loves good stories and thrives on them when they're "historic." For example, similarly in the Olympics, the media thrived on Michael Phelp's quest for a record breaking number of 8 gold medals. I would argue that this "good" story "outweighed" a "bad" story of the Olympics or even of Phelps himself. Even after Phelps's marijuana controversy, people are still going to remember him most by his positives in his success at the Summer Olympics. This is what will be historic. This is why the media focused and broadcasted this longer than his controversy with drugs.

Somewhere in the middle of the media "loving stories" are runs in sports. In the 2007, NFL season, the New England Patriots finished the regular season 16-0 but lost to the New York Giants in the Superbowl. On one side, the media emphasized throughout the entire run the "good" news on how they can go for the perfect season and that would arguably classify them as maybe THE best team in history. However, once they lost, the media again exploded on the "bad" news on their defeat, or maybe it's "good" news in favor of the underdogs. Same goes with the University of Connecticut's woman's basketball team. As of now, they're on a 72 game win streak. There's controversy in the media on whether this is good or bad for womens' basketball. Does a dominant team make things boring for the media or does it make things more exciting to follow their run?

Like I said, I still agree with you. Some sort of "bad" struggle makes things more exciting for the media. Whether it's Michael Jordan's "flu game" in the 1997 playoffs, gossip about a celebrity's personal life, or other things that provide obstacles in someone's life, it makes the media's narrative more interesting. They don't want to present information describing the perfect life. Globally, the media presents "bad things" because that's the only way to get attention. They show tons of images of disasters and conflict in other regions because that's the only way to bring aid.

I think I'm walking both paths here. Although I agree with you, I think the media just likes "bigger" things. If that ends up being "bad", then so be it, but it isn't always."