For this post I went with the off the record situation. When I did so I went with option B both times. I did so because that was the truthful way of doing things. The mayor out of all people should know by the time he gets elected that if he wants something off the record he should say so at the beginning, not at the end when if he says something wrong he could try to fix it by saying he wants it off the record at the end. Even I myself know that if I want something off the record I need t say so before I start talking, and that is without me having to be in journalism. It is my duty to talk over this with my boss that way we can see if the choice I was going with was the right way, even though it would do harm to the mayor.
The picture that I picked for this post is one that was taken recently after two suicide bombers blew up a church in Pakistan during the month of September this year. I feel as though this picture could be made public because it does not show a close up of the dead people that are in it. Also it does not show much graphic things, such as a broken off arm or leg.
In the end I think that there is a chance there may be some harm emotionally done by showing this photo. We have talked about photos giving family members of loved ones that died trama by the photo begin made public. The members and friends of the people killed and portrayed in this photo will not want of have to look back at their loved ones in the form of death.
The political ad I picked was one on Mitt Romney. It talks about how he is a so called “flip flopper”. They start off by showing a clip of something that he is either for or against, and then it will show him talking up the opposite of what he just said. An example they use is he says he is for abortion, but then in another clip it shows that he is pro-life.
The usefulness of this ad I think is a good one depending on where you stand with politics. If you do not like Romney than you will like this ad, but if you are for Romney you will not find it useful.
The ad is nt sufficient enough for me. I think that it does not go deep enough in each part of the clip. What I mean by that is when he says he is for abortion then goes and says he is pro-life he could very well in one of those clips be talking about whomever he is running against. I feel they cut each part where they did to confuse some people, and to get others mad.
This ad is not trustworthy in my eyes. Someone will not contradict everything he says especially when he or she is trying to win votes of the people to become the president.
The audience of this ad is mainly going to be the people who are undecided about who they will be voting for in the election. Although it could help push someone who is for Romney to turn against him if they think that everything they see is true.
Overall this ad can be a bit confusing if you do not have all of the facts. I for one do not see that it has all of the facts that should be in an ad.
6. When they say that revolution will not be televised has been thrown out the window now a days. In our modern world if there is a revolution going on it will get put on the air. Maybe not all the way on the air, but video footage about the revolution will be put on screen to show viewers what is going on in the world.
The news media can weaken and strengthen a revolution. One way that it may strengthen a revolution is if when coverage gets played on the air maybe it focuses on how bad a leader is of a certain group of people somewhere. Other countries may have need feel to help out that particular palce so they may do what they can to support the country to help get rid of the person in power to get a new good leader.
On the other hand it can weaken a revolution if people in the world do not agree on why the certain place is going through a revolution. Lets say a place does not like how the government is making new laws. If people in the world do not think that the laws are bad or harmful to the place they will not be supportive so the revolution will not be very successful.
7. I feel as though the less people in America read printed material the less we gain from it. That can mean the less knowledge we get, the less truth we get from the world, or the less we can intake in our minds. Kids and teens now a days rely to much on the internet and where from the internet they get their information. Facebook is a site where many things can seem like they are true but in actuality they are completely false.
People are also reading less and less books today. That is a bad thing because books can increase our knowledge of thing and also improve our critical thinking skills. An example is mystery books can help improve critical thinking by making us solve a case throughout the book. That could help us in our everyday lives.
The internet is an easy way to take something and turn it around. What I mean by that is it is easy to take truth and turn it around into a false statement. An example is if the president says he is for something but against another thing the website YouTube someone can make a video of that and turn it against the president and make it seem like he wants something bad. If we read the same story in an article in a newspaper they people in the newspaper know they can’t lie to how they feel about the topic so they have to give us the straight truth.
The big picture is nto only do we lose knowledge from reading less and less printed material but we also lose truth as well. Truth goes a long way and knowing the truth can stop people from assuming something that is not truthful one bit.
I feel that Anheuser Busch used the time of the year to their advantage to get a lot more profit than they normally would. Although I would have made the colors of just the baseball playoff teams that way the underage college students would not think much about trying to get the beer. They did play it smart by not marking anywhere on the cans what school was getting represented, because some of those colors are general colors that run good together. An example is black and gold. I’m surprised to see that Anheuser did drop the promotion with not issue for those schools that requested it.
I decided to go with a Gatorade commercial where the two different basketball players on different teams have a different outcome based on how they train with Gatorade. I do think that it might not pass the TARES test. One area where I would not agree with is the equity category because not everyone is on the same level as the professional athletes. The pros work real hard to train as much as they can so that impacts how they perform. Another area is the truthfulness category because the ad shows the pros using Gatorade a lot, even after a game and in training. Well too much of one thing is a bad thing. Using Gatorade too much can hurt your body. The other areas of the TARES test do pass with this ad. The ad shows that the creators of Gatorade do respect the public by showing them if they use the product they can be like the pros. Gatorade is socially acceptable in our lives. By using that product you are not losing any respect.
Here is a link to the commercial http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNjQishYOy0
The main difference between the two photos is that this one we can not see the actual face of the man falling to his death, while in the photo from chapter 1 we could see the face of the falling girl. Another difference is this one may have more negative feelings toward it since it was an act of terror on the US.
A similarity between them is that the loved ones of each person knows who is falling. Another similarity is they both can bring up the same kind of controversy. Did the photographers cross any lines when it came to taking the pictures?
I feel that for the picture of the girl falling from the fire the photographer should have used a different photo that resembled what was going on better. For this photo the photographer used a photo of an important cause due to the fact that the buildings got hit and they could not escape any other way. I mean would you rather die a fast and instant death by jumping out a window or have the possibility of dying a slow death after being crushed by a falling building.