Dangerous hatred in the U.S?

This weeks article focused on the idea of how in the United States of America there is a big controversy having Barack Obama as our President. Although it was a short article, there were many opinions stated about Obama that make this country seem very racist and cold. The beginning of the article started off by relating Obama’s healthcare reform proposals to a reason of why people do not like him and is being compared to Adolf Hitler because of his actions of taking over the country with proposals like this. Majority of this article were filled with quotes and opinions of citizens in the U.S. and what they think of Obama, mainly criticizing him. I found most of these quotes very disturbing to read, especially the racist opinions. The first strong “anti-Obama” quote I found was by Glenn Beck when he said on radio that “Obama is a racist with a deep-seated hatred for White people.” Tom Eisenhower compared Obama to Hitler and he said, “I’d take a gun to Washington if enough of you would go with me.” Pastor Steven Anderson from a church in Arizona even criticized Obama by saying, “Why I hate Obama, I’m going to pray that he dies and goes to hell.” All of these opinions were very disturbing to read but at the same time these people have the freedom of speech, but in my opinion the first two quotes were said by racist who don’t approve of Obama because of his skin color. When I read the quote from the pastor it made me second guesses if Obama is unsuitable for being President. The New York Times wrote in an article that “Some people just can’t believe a black man in president and will never accept it.” I thought this was a very strong quote because there are many extremist groups in the United States and also racist uninformed citizens who may not understand that having an African-American president will be different in many ways, so they choose to dislike Obama, instead of giving him a chance. Another idea that came up in this article was the idea of the South’s attitude towards having Obama as President. The African Americans are not qualified to lead this great country is the mentality of these Southern American citizens. In conclusion, I believe that all of these negative opinions are being said because of ones upbringing and that is how they judge whether or not Obama is right for the position of President of the United States. Therefore, I believe that everyone despite their personal opinion and beliefs should give Obama ad least a year before judging whether or not he is unsuitable.

Is Hate Speech in the Media Directly Affecting Our Culture?

Before reading this issue, I have already connected my research project to the idea of hate speech, or more specifically hate sites and whether or not they deserve to be protected by the First Amendment, freedom of speech. Therefore, I already have a strong opinion on hate speech and I believe that just because freedom of speech is protected under the First Amendment, does not justify if one’s cultural, religious, and personal beliefs are mocked and judged through the media. Being familiar with hate speech, I thought that after reading issue twelve it would be easy to agree with Henry Giroux, who argued that hate speech in the media is directly affecting our culture, but I found it difficult to understand him. In contrast, I found it easier to read Georgie Weatherby and Brian Scoggins research and examples focusing on the idea of how hate speech in the media is not affecting our culture. I believe that Giroux focused his research on the idea of culture cruelty and how entertainment media and information are creating violent behavior in our culture. The example that Giroux used was the beating of homeless people and how the National Coalition for the Homeless claimed that people on Youtube are posting videos with titles like “bum fight” and showing actual footage of individuals beating and mocking the homeless. I thought this was an excellent example of why hate speech (hate videos) in the media is affecting our culture in a negative way because people are judging and assuming that this is how Americans are to the homeless. The reason I found it easier to read Weatherby and Scoggins research was because they explained specifically what hate speech is in our society by using examples like hate sites of four extremist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan, the National Alliance, the Neo-Nazi, and the Aryan Nations. One of the main points that I thought was interesting that Weatherby and Scoggins brought up was the idea that these groups are trying more to inform the public about their beliefs versus recruiting them into their group. Another main point that they brought up was how the media, such as the internet allows the group to reach a wide range of people that may believe in what they do, and hopefully recruit them. Weatherby and Scoggins also mention that hate sites are not showing exactly what they want on their site because they want to appear “friendly” so individuals will join their group. In conclusion, all though Weatherbu and Scoggins brought up excellent points, I personally believe that hate speech in the media is affecting our culture, having individuals think its ok to beat a homeless person and discriminate against Jewish or Arabs.

Do Media Represent Realistic Images of Arabs?

Before reading issue three, I already believed that the media does not represent realistic images of Arabs because there are so many shows like South Park and Family Guy and movies like Harold and Kumar that stereotype and make fun of Arabs. After reading about journalist Gal Beckerman’s and Jack Shaheen’s opinions and research about this question, I believed that Gal Beckerman didn’t really give enough examples to persuade me that the media represents realistic images of Arabs. Gal Beckerman’s whole argument focused on the idea of how bloggers from the Middle East are writing about their lives and sharing that with the world so others have a better understanding about their lifestyle. This showed me that all Beckerman could come up with is how blogging represents realistic images of Arabs, but doesn’t talk about how other media outlets like television shows, movies, and even newspapers represent Arabs. I also believe that while reading through the blogs by Arabs in the Middle East, each of these blogs will be different, because all of these Arabs have the same beliefs, but may have a different lifestyle. In contrast, I believed that Shaheen came up with more realistic data and examples. The focus of Shaheen’s research was the idea of how Arabs have been stereotyped for being involved in disasters such as the terrorist attack of 9/11 that misinterpreted Arabs and Muslims. This misunderstanding between Arabs and Muslims were a big focus in Shaheen’s research. He used examples like videotaped beheadings and messages from al-Qaeda and how people automatically assume that those who are performing these gruesome acts are Arabs. Shaheen also mentioned that the profiling of Arabs has made it impossible for others to believe that they are real people because they are known as the enemy and terrorists. In conclusion, my own personal opinion with the comments from Shaheen’s research I believe that the media does NOT represent realistic images of Arabs because there has been too many situations in which Arabs are mixed up with other groups like Muslims or where Arabs are looked at as terrorists because of 9/11 and the media classifies all Arabs in the same category when they shouldn’t.

Do Media Cause Individuals to Develop Negative Body Images?

Before reading issue 4, my personal opinion weighed more on the yes side when answering this question, do media cause individuals to develop negative body images because there are just so many advertisements, images, videos, etc that effects ones body image negatively. Answering yes to this question, both Shari Dworkin and Faye Wachs believe that different types of media, such as magazines, advertisements, commercials, etc are giving consumers a negative idea of themselves and their body because they show how a healthy body should look like. An example is that for advertisements, by selling their product, the business makes the consumers think that by buying their product you will look and feel like the people in their ads. Because my own opinion already agreed with the idea that negative body images are developed through the media, I found it really easy to read through Dworkin and Wachs examples, facts, research, and opinions. One of the examples that they used was the idealized body and how a body with no fat is featured on the covers of magazine ads giving the public the idea that this is how they should look like. In connection to this idea, Dworkin and Wachs mentioned that because the “fat body” is a sign of a “lazy, undisciplined, and poor member of the social body,” the ideal body becomes a fit and healthy image that is a sign of success and a good citizen. In contrast, Michael Levine and Sarah Murnen argue that the media does not cause individuals to develop negative body images because other cultural, social, and psychological issues play a much larger role in giving citizens a negative impact on their own body image. Already having strong support for the examples and research brought up by Dworkin and Wachs, I found that in the end Levine and Murnen didn’t really have evidence that showed that the “Media” doesn’t cause individuals to develop negative body images. All Levine and Murnen did through their research was state examples and facts of how things like eating disorders are caused by psychiatric issues, not an issue in the media, or how peers and people in general who have a “thin-ideal” body image influence others to diet in order to fit in with them. Overall, Levine and Murnen basically used other examples such as psychological and social issues as an influence towards the public to want to change their body image, ignoring the fact that the media is just another one of those influences. In conclusion, do media cause individuals to develop negative body images? I say yes because the media has just become so controversial through advertisements, websites, videos, etc, that only want to show the “ideal” body image of how people should look like, discouraging others lifestyle and making them feel like their body image is completely unacceptable in society.

Reading Analysis #3: Proposal for Research Project

Billie Hiraishi
Patricia Andrews
Media, Politics, & Society
November 3, 2010

Do Online ‘Hate Sites’ Deserve Protection From the First Amendment?

According to the Simon Wiesenthal Center, an international Jewish human rights organization that confronts anti-Semitism, hate and terrorism and promotes human rights and dignity reported that there are over 11,500 web sites, social network pages, chat forums, and blogs advocating hatred of extremist. The internet has become the primary media outlet most people in this generation use automatically, but anyone has the right to write their own opinion on a blog or create a website and the issue is that under certain circumstances, individuals and groups take advantage of this right. Therefore the question I came up with is, “Do Online ‘Hate Sites’ Deserve Protection From the First Amendment (Freedom of Speech)?” “Hate Sites” also known as “Hate Speech” is defined as any form of communication that “disparages” a person or group on the basis of some characteristic such as race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

Besides not reading much about online issues from the given text Taking Sides, I remember reading a short article in the Spring of this year from the New York Times entitled, “Online hate sites grow with social networks,” which helped me come up with this topic. The article’s main point was to inform the public of how online hate sites are using online social networks to inform people about their group. The main online hate sites that I will be mentioning in my survey and research include American servers such as the Ku Klux Klan, the neo-Nazis, racist skinheads, Christian Identity, Black separatist, neo-Confederate, White Conservative, and pro-Jewish (Some countries such as European countries have strict anti-hate laws, making it hard to find online hate sites).

Hate sites have always been an issue as the internet developed into an advanced resource for information and has started many debates in questioning the First Amendment; therefore, the questions I will ask on my survey will focus on ones belief in the First Amendment and their personal opinion on hate sites. I plan on surveying a variety of students on campus using the format of traditional hard copy questioning, including yes or no and multiple choice questions. An idea that I have is to include a few personal questions at the top of the survey such as; What is your major? What ethnic group do you classify yourself as? If any, what religion do you practice? The reason I want to incorporate this into my survey is so I can get a better understanding of the surveyee and how their personal information may affect their answers to the survey questions. I haven’t come up with the questions for the official survey that I am going to use for my research, but I have ideas of how I want them to be.

When answering the question, do Online ‘Hate Sites’ Deserve Protection From the First Amendment? I believe people would automatically answer yes agreeing that online hate sites have the right to write whatever they believe because of their right to freedom of speech, allowing those hate sites to express information, opinions, and ideas free of government restrictions. In my opinion in relation to my survey, this is a very intense subject to research and when people take the survey they will be emotionally distracted of the kinds of disturbing information they have access to on these hate sites. Therefore, my hypothesis is that although hate sites are already protected under the First Amendment of freedom of speech, people will answer no because of their personal and emotional beliefs when coming across an extremely racist and judgmental hate site.

Do Video Games Encourage Violent Behavior?

After reading Issue five of Hanson’s Taking Sides, both Craig Anderson and Henry Jenkins presented excellent examples either answering yes or no to the question, do video games encourage violent behavior. Craig Anderson’s main point was that video games make young people more aggressive and violent than other media outlets. Henry Jenkins’s focused on specific examples arguing that video games do NOT encourage violent behavior. While reading the introduction I found a few interesting facts. First, I came across a long lasting controversy of how some parents and critics believe that because some video games, such as, “Grand Theft Auto” contain nudity, which encourage behavior that is unsuitable for young people. Second, I found it interesting that Jenkins believed that the “fantasies of children’s culture are an important arena to understand how we as a culture are constructing our future.” I thought this was interesting because it shows that violence is obviously a big issue in our communities and by not informing children about this issue, they won’t have the correct knowledge about violence in the future. After reading both sides of this question and using my own personal thoughts on whether video games encourage violent behavior or not, I would have to agree more with Jenkins facts and examples. I believe that Jenkins had more specific and factual examples and research, but I found two interesting ideas that Anderson brought up. First, Anderson mentioned that some video games “Reward” players for killing subjects such as police, prostitutes, etc, using many weapons such as guns, knives, swords, baseball bats, etc. Having been raised with being familiar with video games, I always thought that video games revolved around killing a certain opponent, every man for themselves, using the best weapons, etc. Although some children may play video games involving killing and brutal weapons, they won’t all if any at all become extremely violent in the future, because I as well as my two siblings grew up playing video games and we are no where near violent. Second, Anderson had an idea that violent video games are connected to the increased aggressive behavior, thoughts, and affects people have after playing them. I would have to partly agree with this idea because video games in general give one the freedom and space to do whatever they want, and I believe that its that persons mental stability whether or not they can control themselves by keeping the violent actions and thoughts they have in the video game and not bring it into their own lives. As I said before, Jenkins had many interesting and factual examples supporting the idea that video games do not encourage violent behavior. His first idea was introduced as a research that involved people serving time for violent crimes and how they consumed fewer media before committing their crimes. This research obviously supports Jenkins opinion because its shows those prisoners aren’t very familiar with media sources because they don’t use them. Second, Jenkins used statistics from a 2001 U.S. Surgeon General’s report research and found that school crimes centered on mental stability and their home life, not media exposure. I thought this was interesting because school is a young person’s main community for the beginning of their life and knowing that the child’s home life and mental stability is their main resource for why they act or don’t act violent makes sense. Third, Jenkins used an example involving the Federal Trade Commission and how they researched found that 83 percent of people who purchases video games are parents or parents who are with their children. This showed me that either parents (adults) or parents (adults) with their children enjoy playing video games or support their children playing those games. Fourth, Jenkins brought up a very interesting opinion on females who play video games. Jenkins mentioned that female characters are usually portrayed as “powerful and independent” individuals, which can build their self confidence and their challenges in their lives. Fifth, Jenkins wrote about past research that proved that video games can enhance learning abilities, and I remembered from issue 18, “Are people better informed in the information society,” Linda Jackson did a research and found that video games improve visual intelligence skills. Sixth, Jenkins added Federal Court of Appeals Judge Richard Posner’s opinion on this issue and he believed that violence will always be a huge issue in our communities, but leaving children unequipped about this issue by not having violence in video games or even movies will miss guide them for future purposes. Lastly, Jenkins made an excellent point of how video games are a great way to socialize, from playing video games with family and friends in your own living room to playing video games with friends and even strangers around the world via internet. In conclusion, do video games encourage violent behavior? No because their will always be other influences such as movies or other media outlets, school, home lifestyle, and people that would affect ones violent behavior more than a video game that is basically used for entertainment.