The debate that we had on Thursday was exciting. Batting ideas back and forth stimulated my brain. I had some trouble with speaking my thoughts, but I always have trouble speaking so thats nothing new. We got so into particular arguments that we got sidetracked from what we were really arguing. Debates are interesting because you have to have a clear focus on the topic or else get lost along the way. I probably shouldn't bring this up, since we're not debating the topic anymore but I just can't resist. The final arguments were completly screwed up. The negative team (my team) just kept repeating the same arguments over again like a broken record. And, while the affirmative gave some pretty interesting resolutions to the argument they were no longer arguing their position.
One resolution was something along the lines of : If we are ignorant of what is happening around the world it is our own fault (which is probably true) we can always look up the information on the internet. I thought that this was disheartening. The media obviously isn't doing its job of informing people if we have to search for it. The internet is a public domain and only a small percentage of website fall under the power of media conglomerates. Most information online is provided by individuals. If important news is not presented by a media conglomerate isn't that a form of censorship. They decide just to edit it out. News organizations are not supposed to pick and choose what they are willing to show us. Someone else stated that media conglomerates are not political. I can only imagine she was thinking that the conglomerates are not running for election, nor do they have seats in the senate. But media conglomerates are political. Conglomerates have platforms by the fact that they support certain beliefs and values. In itself a conglomerate is a political organization. Control of the media is the basis behind controlling the populous, it is a giant political machine and there are many historical examples to support this like book burnings in Nazi Germany, the good old USA and also in Qing China.
One resolution was something along the lines of : If we are ignorant of what is happening around the world it is our own fault (which is probably true) we can always look up the information on the internet. I thought that this was disheartening. The media obviously isn't doing its job of informing people if we have to search for it. The internet is a public domain and only a small percentage of website fall under the power of media conglomerates. Most information online is provided by individuals. If important news is not presented by a media conglomerate isn't that a form of censorship. They decide just to edit it out. News organizations are not supposed to pick and choose what they are willing to show us. Someone else stated that media conglomerates are not political. I can only imagine she was thinking that the conglomerates are not running for election, nor do they have seats in the senate. But media conglomerates are political. Conglomerates have platforms by the fact that they support certain beliefs and values. In itself a conglomerate is a political organization. Control of the media is the basis behind controlling the populous, it is a giant political machine and there are many historical examples to support this like book burnings in Nazi Germany, the good old USA and also in Qing China.
No comments:
Post a Comment