http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/opinion/22dowd.html?em
This op-ed was written by Maureen Dowd, in which she discusses the Twitter phenomenon that is sweeping across the country. Dowd, who makes it clear that she is not a fan of this new technology, scheduled an interview with the two masterminds behind Twitter. However, to keep the article creative and upbeat, while also playing off the short “tweets” created on the website, Dowd limits the interviewees to answer her questions within “140 characters.” I think this is a humorous aspect of Dowd’s editorial because it accomplishes the task of combining humor with her personal opinions in order to inform the public of how Twitter is overtaking our society. Personally, I think that Twitter is a fun and interesting technology, and although it is not essential to daily functioning, it can be a big part of people’s lives. I think that it’s an even faster version of emailing, all created in attempts to keep up with the fast paced American lifestyle. However, one of the best parts of the op-ed comes at the end when Dowd expresses her distaste for the technology stating that she’d rather be tied up to stakes in the Kalahari Desert, have honey poured over me and red ants eat out my eyes than open a Twitter account.” When she asks the creators for their response, they reply by saying, “Well, when you do find yourself in that position, you’re gonna want Twitter. You might want to type out the message ‘Help.’” This was a clever statement and it puts an ironic twist on the overall tone of Dowd’s article.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Monday, April 20, 2009
Hard to get Tickets Online
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/01/arts/music/01tickets.html
This article, written by NY Times columnist Ben Sisario, discusses how online ticket sales are making it more difficult for fans to see their favorite performers live in concert. Companies such as TicketMaster and LiveNation are responsible for selling concert tickets, yet online sales have paved the way for scalpers to get these tickets as quickly as possible and charge desperate fans way more than face value of the tickets. It is becoming easier for scalpers to take advantage of innocent people who just want to treat their friends/families to an enjoyable concert. In the current economic state of our country, it is also becoming increasingly difficult for families to afford the ever-rising ticket prices, with or without resorting to scalpers. A typical concert ticket now sells for $67, almost double what the price was ten years ago. Also, fan clubs offer presales, which decreases the amount of tickets available to the public. Scalpers can also invade the presales, with authorization codes being sold through ebay, and rip off even more people.I believe that people are easily taken advantage of, and this is not fair. If I want to see my favorite band perform, why must that be so difficult? Enjoyable opportunities are becoming less and less available to average citizens as many families are financially struggling, and I feel like they should have a chance to experience some of the luxuries as everyone else. I understand why ticket prices on the rise, but I feel like scalpers are making the situation worse.I think that performers also recognize the financial hardships their fans are facing, and therefore do not condone illegal ticket sales. However, I think that if these performers wanted to, they could put on more free shows, and give die-hard fans a chance to enjoy a concert without the financial burdens, but in all reality, that would be very difficult to accomplish. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I just wish everyone had equal chances to experiences perks like concerts, and I think that the entertainment industry should also try to make more efforts to ensure that all are given a fair chance to performers.
This article, written by NY Times columnist Ben Sisario, discusses how online ticket sales are making it more difficult for fans to see their favorite performers live in concert. Companies such as TicketMaster and LiveNation are responsible for selling concert tickets, yet online sales have paved the way for scalpers to get these tickets as quickly as possible and charge desperate fans way more than face value of the tickets. It is becoming easier for scalpers to take advantage of innocent people who just want to treat their friends/families to an enjoyable concert. In the current economic state of our country, it is also becoming increasingly difficult for families to afford the ever-rising ticket prices, with or without resorting to scalpers. A typical concert ticket now sells for $67, almost double what the price was ten years ago. Also, fan clubs offer presales, which decreases the amount of tickets available to the public. Scalpers can also invade the presales, with authorization codes being sold through ebay, and rip off even more people.I believe that people are easily taken advantage of, and this is not fair. If I want to see my favorite band perform, why must that be so difficult? Enjoyable opportunities are becoming less and less available to average citizens as many families are financially struggling, and I feel like they should have a chance to experience some of the luxuries as everyone else. I understand why ticket prices on the rise, but I feel like scalpers are making the situation worse.I think that performers also recognize the financial hardships their fans are facing, and therefore do not condone illegal ticket sales. However, I think that if these performers wanted to, they could put on more free shows, and give die-hard fans a chance to enjoy a concert without the financial burdens, but in all reality, that would be very difficult to accomplish. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I just wish everyone had equal chances to experiences perks like concerts, and I think that the entertainment industry should also try to make more efforts to ensure that all are given a fair chance to performers.
Friday, April 3, 2009
Walt Disney's Legacy
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/01/movies/01disn.html?_r=1&ref=arts
This article, written by NY Times columnist Brooks Barnes, discusses the museum that Walt Disney's family is currently creating to protect their father's reputation.
Throughout the years, Disney was subjected to harsh criticism such is the case with biography, "Walt Disney: Hollywood's Dark Prince," which depicted him as a bigot. In attempts to restore his reputation and bring honor to his legendary name, a museum is being built in his honor.
The author of the article was successful in providing the audience with a background on Walt Disney's life and explaining why it was so important for the family to have the museum built for him.
However, from the article as a whole, one can infer that while although the author felt it was necessary for Disney to be respected for all his accomplishments, his family was pushing the limits in taking on this project.
The Disney corporation already puts efforts into offering the general public an opportunity to learn who Disney was as a person through DVD specials, fan clubs, magazines, and an exhibit at California Adventure Park.
The author's perspective can especiallybe heard through the ending quotation, "Anything my mother wants, she gets."
This shows that Walt Disney's sole living daughter is pushing the limits in attempts to restore her father's strong name, yet it may be rubbing people the wrong way, but she will do what she believes to be right, no matter the consequences.
Walt Disney was a successful man with many great accomplishments in his lifetime, and his name will last forever. I think it is important that we recognize him for his successes without getting hung up on any imperfections he may have had. Therefore, I do not think this museum is necessary but if the family feels this is the only way to inform the public of who their father was, so be it. For me, my respect for Disney grows each time I watch one of his movies or see one of his characters, and that is good enough for me.
This article, written by NY Times columnist Brooks Barnes, discusses the museum that Walt Disney's family is currently creating to protect their father's reputation.
Throughout the years, Disney was subjected to harsh criticism such is the case with biography, "Walt Disney: Hollywood's Dark Prince," which depicted him as a bigot. In attempts to restore his reputation and bring honor to his legendary name, a museum is being built in his honor.
The author of the article was successful in providing the audience with a background on Walt Disney's life and explaining why it was so important for the family to have the museum built for him.
However, from the article as a whole, one can infer that while although the author felt it was necessary for Disney to be respected for all his accomplishments, his family was pushing the limits in taking on this project.
The Disney corporation already puts efforts into offering the general public an opportunity to learn who Disney was as a person through DVD specials, fan clubs, magazines, and an exhibit at California Adventure Park.
The author's perspective can especiallybe heard through the ending quotation, "Anything my mother wants, she gets."
This shows that Walt Disney's sole living daughter is pushing the limits in attempts to restore her father's strong name, yet it may be rubbing people the wrong way, but she will do what she believes to be right, no matter the consequences.
Walt Disney was a successful man with many great accomplishments in his lifetime, and his name will last forever. I think it is important that we recognize him for his successes without getting hung up on any imperfections he may have had. Therefore, I do not think this museum is necessary but if the family feels this is the only way to inform the public of who their father was, so be it. For me, my respect for Disney grows each time I watch one of his movies or see one of his characters, and that is good enough for me.
Twitter Ecosystem
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/fashion/29twitter.html?ref=style
Twitter is the new phenomenon sweeping across the country. This social networking site allows people to "follow" each other and be alerted to where their friends are and what they are doing instantly- at any point throughout the day. However, it is not required for a Twitter subscriber to personally know the person they are following, as many people choose to be alerted to the daily ongoings in the lives of their favorite celebrities.
"The Celebrity Twitter Ecosystem" was published in the New York Times and the author, John Metcalfe, understands this newfound craze in society, and he allows his opinions on the matter to be heard loud and clear.
"Honestly, does anyone care that Martha Stewart has a blog supposedly written by her French bulldogs, Francesca and Sparky?"
This opening quotation to the article captures the fact that although Twitter is gaining popularity and becoming well-known throughout society, some of the things we are alerted through via this website are nonsensical and serve no purpose. His use of sarcasm in regards to the blogging on Martha Stewart's bulldogs shows how many Twitter followers want to be deeply immersed in the lives of celebrities. Many people will respond to Metcalfe's comment thinking, "Does Martha Stewart care about what my pets are doing? Why do I need to know this?"
The use of Twitter is an attempt to connect members throughout society using the vast technology that is available to us in modern times. I personally do not feel the need to know every minute detail about Snoop Dogg and his whereabouts, but hearing Ashton Kutcher and John Mayer discuss the possibility of opening 31 Club together is pretty interesting.
I think this website is all in efforts to connect people throughout the country. Many of us will never have the opportunity to meet our favorite celebrities in person, but if we follow them on Twitter we feel that we are a part of their lives in some way, even if they do not know who we are.
Although Twitter is interesting and exciting technology, it should not be used as a new method of stalking which, as the tone of the article suggests, Metcalfe believes this application could lead to. It is important for us to find the proper balance between daily human interaction and the perks and excitement that come along with submerging ourselves in celebrity culture a world away via the Twitter ecosystem.
Twitter is the new phenomenon sweeping across the country. This social networking site allows people to "follow" each other and be alerted to where their friends are and what they are doing instantly- at any point throughout the day. However, it is not required for a Twitter subscriber to personally know the person they are following, as many people choose to be alerted to the daily ongoings in the lives of their favorite celebrities.
"The Celebrity Twitter Ecosystem" was published in the New York Times and the author, John Metcalfe, understands this newfound craze in society, and he allows his opinions on the matter to be heard loud and clear.
"Honestly, does anyone care that Martha Stewart has a blog supposedly written by her French bulldogs, Francesca and Sparky?"
This opening quotation to the article captures the fact that although Twitter is gaining popularity and becoming well-known throughout society, some of the things we are alerted through via this website are nonsensical and serve no purpose. His use of sarcasm in regards to the blogging on Martha Stewart's bulldogs shows how many Twitter followers want to be deeply immersed in the lives of celebrities. Many people will respond to Metcalfe's comment thinking, "Does Martha Stewart care about what my pets are doing? Why do I need to know this?"
The use of Twitter is an attempt to connect members throughout society using the vast technology that is available to us in modern times. I personally do not feel the need to know every minute detail about Snoop Dogg and his whereabouts, but hearing Ashton Kutcher and John Mayer discuss the possibility of opening 31 Club together is pretty interesting.
I think this website is all in efforts to connect people throughout the country. Many of us will never have the opportunity to meet our favorite celebrities in person, but if we follow them on Twitter we feel that we are a part of their lives in some way, even if they do not know who we are.
Although Twitter is interesting and exciting technology, it should not be used as a new method of stalking which, as the tone of the article suggests, Metcalfe believes this application could lead to. It is important for us to find the proper balance between daily human interaction and the perks and excitement that come along with submerging ourselves in celebrity culture a world away via the Twitter ecosystem.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Standing Behind Chris Brown
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/fashion/19brown.html?pagewanted=2&ref=style
Chris Brown has been under harsh public scrutiny after an incident back in February which resulted in sever injuries to his girlfriend, Rihanna. However, even though the incident portrayed what is termed "dating violence and abuse," many teenage girls are coming to Brown's defense and unwilling to understand the serious consequences his actions had.
The author of this article, Jan Hoffman, interviewed a wide group of teenage girls and got their opinions on the issue. Many girls idolize Brown, and therefore will not allow themselves to believe that he did anything wrong. This issue has become so publicized, and created much online drama between teens throughout the country, and the event has even been discussed on Oprah.
From the tone of this article, one can infer that the author believes what Brown did was wrong and that he should be reprimanded for his actions. I personally agree with that opinion. Even though I am a fan of Brown's music, his actions cannot be justified. It was morally wrong and showed that he is not the person I thought he was. Even though troubles in his past contributed to his acting out, he needs to publicly address the issue, accept the consequences of his actions, and get help. If Brown faces this ordeal head-on in the public eye, I think he will inspire many of his fans and send the message that dating violence is NOT acceptable. Hopefully, he can help others in similar situations.
Chris Brown has been under harsh public scrutiny after an incident back in February which resulted in sever injuries to his girlfriend, Rihanna. However, even though the incident portrayed what is termed "dating violence and abuse," many teenage girls are coming to Brown's defense and unwilling to understand the serious consequences his actions had.
The author of this article, Jan Hoffman, interviewed a wide group of teenage girls and got their opinions on the issue. Many girls idolize Brown, and therefore will not allow themselves to believe that he did anything wrong. This issue has become so publicized, and created much online drama between teens throughout the country, and the event has even been discussed on Oprah.
From the tone of this article, one can infer that the author believes what Brown did was wrong and that he should be reprimanded for his actions. I personally agree with that opinion. Even though I am a fan of Brown's music, his actions cannot be justified. It was morally wrong and showed that he is not the person I thought he was. Even though troubles in his past contributed to his acting out, he needs to publicly address the issue, accept the consequences of his actions, and get help. If Brown faces this ordeal head-on in the public eye, I think he will inspire many of his fans and send the message that dating violence is NOT acceptable. Hopefully, he can help others in similar situations.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Progress in Embryonic Stem Cell Research
On Monday March 9, 2009 President Obama lifted the strict limitations the Bush administration had placed on embryonic stem cell research, stating that his administration will, "make decisions based on facts, not ideology." For years, the issue of embryonic stem cell research has been a controversial divide within our country, but Obama is taking a step that will allow us to move forward in our research and progress in the scientific community.
Obama was very careful in addresssing this issue, as many people are morally opposed to it while others see it as the only opportunity to progress in science and learn more about diseases that can afflict people through life. Obama was successful in the fact that even though his views on this issue are very liberal and open, he still wants to respect the viewpoints of the more conservative citizens.
I think the author of this article, Sheryl Gay Stolberg, accurately represented both liberals and conservatives, as she was very objective and did not let her own personal biases affect her article. Stolberg quoted both people supporting Obama's decision and people against it, and the article presented Obama in a light which all citizens can respect.
Obama believes in human embryonic stem cell research, but only for essential scientific purposes, as he draws the line at human cloning, believing in has no part in our society, or any other society for that matter.
Obama passing legislation to support this issue represents a huge change from the previous policies put in place by the Bush administration; a change that many people have been waiting years to see.
Obama was very careful in addresssing this issue, as many people are morally opposed to it while others see it as the only opportunity to progress in science and learn more about diseases that can afflict people through life. Obama was successful in the fact that even though his views on this issue are very liberal and open, he still wants to respect the viewpoints of the more conservative citizens.
I think the author of this article, Sheryl Gay Stolberg, accurately represented both liberals and conservatives, as she was very objective and did not let her own personal biases affect her article. Stolberg quoted both people supporting Obama's decision and people against it, and the article presented Obama in a light which all citizens can respect.
Obama believes in human embryonic stem cell research, but only for essential scientific purposes, as he draws the line at human cloning, believing in has no part in our society, or any other society for that matter.
Obama passing legislation to support this issue represents a huge change from the previous policies put in place by the Bush administration; a change that many people have been waiting years to see.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Where does taxpayers' money really go?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/25/opinion/25dowd.html?_r=1&em
Maureen Dowd, an op-ed columnist for The New York Times, recently wrote an article in which she expresses her frustration at the fact that, while the American economy is struggling, business officials are off spending our money at their lavish events.
The article begins with the Northern Trust of Chicago. In a posting on TMZ.com, the website stated that shortly after receiving $1.5 billion in bailout money, the company sent employees to Los Angeles where they were treated to "posh hotels, salmon and fillet mignon dinners, music concerts..." and a variety of other luxurious perks. Choosing to include this example in the front of the article underscored Dowd's opinion that these businesses were sly and sneaky. Readers could then identify with a solid example of this deceit and wonder: Did they really need the $1.5 billion bailout? Shouldn't that taxpayer money be put to good use? Why am I paying for luxurious "business trips" for other people?
Dowd continued to emphasize her belief as she referred to the Northern Trust as "Northern No Trust" and "Northern Untrustworthy" at various places throughout the article. This element was successful in presenting her beliefs to the public as she offered the readers not-so-subtle clues that this company was deceitful; just bad!
I agree with what Dowd is saying because it seems like companies oftentimes participate in luxurious "meetings" such as these, but are they really necessary? In a time when many Americans are out of work or struggling financially to make ends meet, is it fair and morally right that these other employees are living such a glamorous and luxurious life? In my opinion, companies such as Northern Trust need to cut back on this type of spending because that is not where taxpayers want to see their money going. I think these big companies need to make some sacrifices so more jobs can be made available in society and more Americans can obtain financial stability.
Maureen Dowd, an op-ed columnist for The New York Times, recently wrote an article in which she expresses her frustration at the fact that, while the American economy is struggling, business officials are off spending our money at their lavish events.
The article begins with the Northern Trust of Chicago. In a posting on TMZ.com, the website stated that shortly after receiving $1.5 billion in bailout money, the company sent employees to Los Angeles where they were treated to "posh hotels, salmon and fillet mignon dinners, music concerts..." and a variety of other luxurious perks. Choosing to include this example in the front of the article underscored Dowd's opinion that these businesses were sly and sneaky. Readers could then identify with a solid example of this deceit and wonder: Did they really need the $1.5 billion bailout? Shouldn't that taxpayer money be put to good use? Why am I paying for luxurious "business trips" for other people?
Dowd continued to emphasize her belief as she referred to the Northern Trust as "Northern No Trust" and "Northern Untrustworthy" at various places throughout the article. This element was successful in presenting her beliefs to the public as she offered the readers not-so-subtle clues that this company was deceitful; just bad!
I agree with what Dowd is saying because it seems like companies oftentimes participate in luxurious "meetings" such as these, but are they really necessary? In a time when many Americans are out of work or struggling financially to make ends meet, is it fair and morally right that these other employees are living such a glamorous and luxurious life? In my opinion, companies such as Northern Trust need to cut back on this type of spending because that is not where taxpayers want to see their money going. I think these big companies need to make some sacrifices so more jobs can be made available in society and more Americans can obtain financial stability.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)