Post by Mutanatia on Feb 19, 2012 11:46:17 GMT -5
Politics Pseudo Class
Welcome to my Politics Pseudo Class. This is a very special class for me. It’s a bit personal, so please, PM me to get the story. What I require is one paragraph per discussion and homework question per week. That’s it.
Syllabus (if there are numbers missing, it’s because of the number of weeks we spend on it):
1) Media Misrepresentation – International (Non-US Issues) (Syria, 1 other)
3) Media Misrepresentation – Domestic (US Issues) (Haley Barbour’s Pardons)
4) Current Politics of the Middle East (Iran, Egypt, Libya)
7) Current Politics of China
9)- ongoing The U.S. Election (To be covered throughout from the end of the primary onwards)
9a) The Tea Party
9b) Occupy Wall Street Movement
9c) The US’s role in international affairs
So, hop right on in. The first lesson is below! ☺
-----
Media Misinterpretation
This next unit is going to last about two weeks, mainly because it probably should have been a lesson way before the one I just did. This is about the dangers that may be inherent in looking at one source. This is an example that happened to me, giving me an “AHA!” moment today actually. Here is a clip of the podcast I get from CNN:
ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/09/video-activist-food-medicine-low-in-homs/?hpt=ac_bn6
Until now, all I have gotten was information similar to this on a 10-minute podcast with clips similar to this in re: Syria. So the picture I was getting was that Syria was firing on completely unarmed civilians. Basically, I was under the impression that Syria was shelling a town for no reason pretty much. However, this does not tell the exact picture.
Today, I was reading The Economist (here is the link: www.economist.com/node/21543538 )
What jumped out at me was this: “After several days of fighting by daring but lightly ARMED opposition forces…”
So now my understand has gone from Syria shelling a city because of harmless protests to “Okay, there’s at least a reason behind it.” Now, arguments for actions against human rights aside (That’s opinion and up for the participants here to discuss…), I now have a dramatically different picture of the situation.
Here are the homework questions: What is CNN’s main portrayal of events in Syria? What piece of information does the Economist give that further contributes to the understanding of this event?
Discussion question: Find and article and write your opinion on how that medium (Your source that is) portrays what is happening in Syria. Without the other sources I have provided (and others), how might your opinion of your event have been shaped? Finally, when you take your source, the others given, and my own, what is the larger picture you get when trying to understand Syria?
Bonus: Find a story (if applicable) that YOU have been somewhat led astray on as you were looking at just the one source. Explain how an understanding of the whole story from multiple sources COULD have changed your opinion of the situation.
Welcome to my Politics Pseudo Class. This is a very special class for me. It’s a bit personal, so please, PM me to get the story. What I require is one paragraph per discussion and homework question per week. That’s it.
Syllabus (if there are numbers missing, it’s because of the number of weeks we spend on it):
1) Media Misrepresentation – International (Non-US Issues) (Syria, 1 other)
3) Media Misrepresentation – Domestic (US Issues) (Haley Barbour’s Pardons)
4) Current Politics of the Middle East (Iran, Egypt, Libya)
7) Current Politics of China
9)- ongoing The U.S. Election (To be covered throughout from the end of the primary onwards)
9a) The Tea Party
9b) Occupy Wall Street Movement
9c) The US’s role in international affairs
So, hop right on in. The first lesson is below! ☺
-----
Media Misinterpretation
This next unit is going to last about two weeks, mainly because it probably should have been a lesson way before the one I just did. This is about the dangers that may be inherent in looking at one source. This is an example that happened to me, giving me an “AHA!” moment today actually. Here is a clip of the podcast I get from CNN:
ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/09/video-activist-food-medicine-low-in-homs/?hpt=ac_bn6
Until now, all I have gotten was information similar to this on a 10-minute podcast with clips similar to this in re: Syria. So the picture I was getting was that Syria was firing on completely unarmed civilians. Basically, I was under the impression that Syria was shelling a town for no reason pretty much. However, this does not tell the exact picture.
Today, I was reading The Economist (here is the link: www.economist.com/node/21543538 )
What jumped out at me was this: “After several days of fighting by daring but lightly ARMED opposition forces…”
So now my understand has gone from Syria shelling a city because of harmless protests to “Okay, there’s at least a reason behind it.” Now, arguments for actions against human rights aside (That’s opinion and up for the participants here to discuss…), I now have a dramatically different picture of the situation.
Here are the homework questions: What is CNN’s main portrayal of events in Syria? What piece of information does the Economist give that further contributes to the understanding of this event?
Discussion question: Find and article and write your opinion on how that medium (Your source that is) portrays what is happening in Syria. Without the other sources I have provided (and others), how might your opinion of your event have been shaped? Finally, when you take your source, the others given, and my own, what is the larger picture you get when trying to understand Syria?
Bonus: Find a story (if applicable) that YOU have been somewhat led astray on as you were looking at just the one source. Explain how an understanding of the whole story from multiple sources COULD have changed your opinion of the situation.
)
(NPR and Fox)