Kan we or Kant we download illegal music, I'M A REGULAR COMEDIAN AREN'T I!!!

Illegally downloading music: to many it seems like second nature. If one hears a song and likes it, they download it illegally. Of course any act with the word ‘illegal’ in it probably has it there for a good reason. Hard drugs are illegal, human trafficking is illegal, but for some reason many people do not take illegal downloading of music as serious as others mentioned and rightly so. Many people often probably say, “I am not hurting anyone, how is this bad?” “I just want this one song, I don’t want the whole album,” and of course the most famous of them all, “They (music artists) are already rich enough, I’m poor (in some sense) why should I give them any more money?” Note the one word that is brought up in every one of those questions: I.

Perhaps what people who say these types of phrases need to do is to make the phrases plural and think about the consequences then. “We are not hurting anyone, how is this bad?” “We just want one song, we don’t want the whole album,” “They are already rich enough, we’re poor why should we give them any more money.” This is what Kant asks us to think about whilst looking through the lenses of his philosophical idea called the Categorical Imperative.

In short, the Categorical Imperative asks us to make a decision about an action based upon the idea of what if everybody did the action we are considering to do.The truth is, especially when it comes to illegally downloading music, everyone has to look at this topic through the categorical imperative because that is what almost happening: almost. Many people have, and continue to download music illegally, but not everybody; Kant asks if everybody does it. Would anyone win? I believe the answer is no. No because if everybody stole artist’s music, they would not be able to continue making their music, nor would they able to begin making quality sounding music because they would not be able to afford the cost of recording and re-recording music, or at least the artists who are trying to make it big. For that matter, if artist’s music was stolen by everybody, no artists would be able to make it big, and the number of people making quality music would go down substantially.

Therefore, it is not good to illegally download music, even if it is from an extremely wealthy artist, because in the end it will affect the individual who illegally downloads music because they are hacking away at the very big trunk of the music industry tree, cutting off the green nutrients which feed the artists ability to make music and one day, maybe, this tree could fall.

Three News Outlets Reports on Syria

In my Mass Communications class, I have been assigned the task of finding out how different news outlets report on the same news; seeing if there is a political bias, as well as similarities and differences in the reports. I decided to look at three different news outlets: U.S. cable news channel CNN, independent broadcaster Al Jazeera, and international broadcaster Deutsche Welle to see how they have all reported on the recent violence in Syria, specifically in the city of Homs.

Upon first look at CNN’s report of violence in Homs, it was apparent that they were more that successful in getting the message across that something atrocious is happening in the city of Homs. CNN takes the reader down into the situation by describing how parents keep their children from attending school, common supplies like food and heat resources are scarce, and how doctors and activists deliver what little they have, house to house, under cover of darkness.  They do not seem to insert bits of political bias into their report; rather, they lay out quotes from activists who have family still in Syria that describe the daily life within the city. While CNN shows the destruction from the conflict, Al Jazeera shows the conflict from a different angle.

With the exception of a small snippet on sectarian violence between neighborhoods, Al Jazeera’s report focuses mostly on the battle itself. It describes the conflict more from the eyes of the Revolutionary Council and opposition fighters. Filled with quotes from opposition leaders, Al Jazeera’s report describes the current condition of the Opposition Force in Syria as well as their gains and losses. Again, I don’t see political bias in their report. While Al Jazeera’s report differs from CNN’s, Deutsche Welle’s report doesn’t differ as much from CNN’s report.

Deutsche Welle’s article seems to run similar to that of CNN’s report on Homs because they have quotes from Syrian activists. However, Deutsche Welle’s report on Homs seems to stick with listing out numbers of casualties from the conflict. Even though it doesn’t have as much of a personal feel to it, it still puts into perspective what devastation this conflict is having on the people of Homs.

Deutsche Welle, however, does bring a political bias into their article on the recent violence in Homs. Near the end of their article, they include how Russia and China vetoed a UN Security Council resolution, which would condemn the violence carried out by the Syrian government. Of all the three articles, all three of them provide good content but unfortunately do not answer one question: Why isn’t anyone aiding the Syrian people?

http://www.dw.de/dw/article/0,,15734260,00.html

http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/10/world/meast/syria-everyday-life/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/02/20122101097421319.html

Hello everyone! So in my Mass Communications class, we have been discussing the role of mass media, how media are stories or presentations used to entertain/inform us, and how media can affect everyone's ideas and perceptions on who they are as a person, and how it can affect how someone perceives what is desirable or undesirable. In this post, I will be looking at the TV series The Big Bang Theory and consider how much of it, I feel, can be seen as real or not real, and what I feel is positive that could be taken away from the show and what is not.

Ok so first off, I'm going consider some of the parts of the show that could be considered realistic and that which is not so realistic. A physicist living in Pasadena; realistic. Two physicists/coworkers living together in the same apartment is possible, however, seems uncommon. Penny, a waitress at The Cheesecake Factory, living in the room across the hall from two physicists, again, is possible, but given the difference in salary, I doubt a Cheesecake Factory waitress could afford the same type of apartment as a physicist, let alone two. And the fact that she is a struggling actress from Omaha just seems a little cliché. Nevertheless, I still watch it; shocking how media has this effect on me and I hadn’t even realized it until I was given this assignment. And since when do neighbors have time to hang out on a weekly basis and eat take-out together. Again, I feel this is possible but unlikely.

Despite all that I’ve ranted about in the previous paragraph, there is one part of the show, however, which I do like. That which I like the most about the show is how it promotes the idea to just remember to be yourself. It doesn’t matter which sweater vest you prefer, or if you think Superman is better than Batman and vice versa, as long as you rock who you really are, you will always be cool no matter what anyone thinks of you. So how do you feel about the TV series The Big Bang Theory? Please comment below.

To better understand the media around me.