Bias: Pro or Con
It is impossible to relay any information whether in conversation or through the media without it being tainted by bias. Bias is inevitable so why don't we embrace it. Mediums such as Newspapers and Newscasts whose single most important goal is to spew information about the community and the world that affects and interests the masses, should, in an idealistic world, have no bias as they are only relay a story not picking sides. However, we all know that this does not occur and different newspapers and newscasts are known to be left winged or right winged and therefore taint their news based on their political opinion. This isn't a good thing, however as I've already stated, bias is unavoidable and so we should use it for our benefit instead. These mediums should advertise their biases so that the general masses know how to compensate for the slanted news reports. Also if these mediums allow the people to know what their biases are, people can watch two opposing news reports and then compare the two and try to filter the bias from the factual information. Bias can teach people to -as the cliche goes- "not listen to everything everyone tells you". Maybe, with news reports being upfront about their biases, people will listen or read the news, however also analyse the information and decide for themselves what their opinions are on the subject. News reports would become more of an interactive morning or evening exercise with the readers, instead of getting the news, taking it for what is being presented and then flipping the page or channel.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/12/newt-gingrich-complains-fox-news
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias_in_the_United_States#Bias_in_entertainment_media

Motivated Youth?

                                Motivated Youth?                                              
            A few days ago Mr. O'Connor was talking about the media theory tests that we wrote and He was debating with some students about the reason why many of us did so poorly. Anyways, He said that we should get angry and want to prove him wrong and do well on the next test or project. When I heard him say this I couldn't help wondering why he had used this method as motivation for us to work harder. Is it not obvious that we are a generation that are used to having everything at our fingertips, that we have never had to work hard to get any of your necessities and so really have no concept of what working hard is or what it will get us. From what I have observed we are also a generation that will settle. By this I don't mean we don't strive to have the next best technology because we definitely do that, voraciously. I mean that when people (mostly parents and teachers) imply or blatantly tell us that we can't do something, my observation is that most of us are willing to accept that and respond by not caring in the least. Therefore this means of "motivation" actually back-fires with our generation. We are not, in fact we are drastically different, from our parents generation who could stop wars because they cared enough to protest and demand that things change. They were angry and because of this many issues were addressed and progress occurred. We simply don't care enough to get angry or try harder. Why? I don't know. Maybe it is media and technology that have made us used to getting what we want easily and so if what we want requires some (heaven forbid)...work it must not be worth it. Right?