Friday, February 26, 2010

Net Neutrality

Net Neutrality is defined as "the guiding principle that preserves the free and open internet", and it also means that "...internet service providers may not discriminate between different kinds of content and applications online, and it guarantees a level playing field for all Web sites and internet technologies"(savetheinternet.com)
Some questions surrounding net neutrality is why and how larger companies want to maintain and control which data is seen more by being able to control their streaming strength and capacity. These big companies also want to control how their data is stremed to people, and they also want to block other companies services and programs so as to benefit themselves and profits. Is it fair that companies would be allowed to do this? This would definitely affect us, as customers, and as researchers who use the internet because these companies would potentially be controlling what we see without us having a say in it.
The people who are for net neutrality are people who want to keep the internet free and for people who want to reform the media and how it is used. President Obama is a huge supporter or net neutrality and has pledge to support it and its fight in Congress. Small business owners also support net neutrality because it allows them to compete in a market, without having to pay a fee to compete on the internet for space, band width and speed of their cable/dsl. The people or groups who are against it are the large companies such as Comcast--because they want to be able to control a lot of what we view and more importantly would like to block other companies from having customers see their products. Companies, such as Comcast, do not want net neutrality because by enabling the internet to be free smaller companies have access without paying fees. Larger companies have been trying to pressure Congress to restrict net neutrality with paying them millions of dollars so they can eventually own the internet and its capabilities of serving customers.
I feel that net neutrality is good for our economy and for the service providers because it doesn't allow large companies to take advantage of smaller business owners and their capabilities but it does allow for us as consumers to be able to search the web, without knowing that others messages and websites are being blocked by big companies so that we may only be allowed to see one specific companies products. I also this net neutrality is a good idea because it enables small business owners to get in on the competition without having to pay an entry fee for the use of the internet and the service.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRh4sJAhL3I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-mW1qccn8k

http://techcrunch.com/2008/08/31/the-net-neutrality-debate-all-on-one-page/

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Forced Fed Words

http://www.truthout.org/article/jeff-cohen-inside-tv-news-we-were-silenced-drums-war
-I chose this article because the author seemed relatively concerned with how the government handles the information they give to the public. Cohen is also saying that he believed the shows and analysts that were on tv were merely propped there to talk about the war, even though they were ex-government officials. They were shown to the American people as experts, not advocates or people with opinions. He also believes that those who are commenting on the war are being told to say and thus telling lies to the American people. This is wrong! What type of government do we have when we're constantly told lies and fallacies in order to go about our daily lives? Cohens other main point was that most TV time is now taken up by updates from Iraq from these analysts, when in the fact they stories they get are most of the time factual and played up to make something heroic happen. Heroism is something the American people feed off of and love to watch, so if they can get stories like that then obviously the tv ratings are going to soar.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10204.html
I chose this article because it discussed how a 7,600 word article in the New York Times sent war analysts running from their seats due to an investigation relating to their propoganda program at the Pentagon. Shortly after the article was printed and the investigation had begun, more and more news stations kept taking their analysts off the air from their programs since they too did not want to be criticized for their lack of responsibility in knowing about the deals between war and government officials.

http://windsofchange.net/images/TOON_CoxnForkum_2006-02-16_Cartoon_Jihad_Flimflammable.gif
I chose this political cartoon because I think this cartoon makes a really good point about how the media controls what we see and how they think showing one thing instead of another is actually better for the public peace of mind. In the cartoon particularly it shows a news reporter holding up a picture of Mohammed and in his other hand Abu Garaib photos. Instead of showing the mohammed cartoons, the media chose to show photos and videos and interviews of the Abu Garaib place and investigation. In the cartoon, the news reporter is saying "Showing the Mohammed cartoons would have only ADDED fuel to the fire, but on the other hand...", this meaning that the media chooses to pick controversial things to show no matter what, and we as the public are seeing what they choose for us. It is important for the public to determine for themselves what they believe to be the truth and fiction.

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/I/n/1/iraq_report_do.jpg
I thought this cartoon was hilarious, and summed up the majority of the articles read for this assignment. The cartoon is George Bush holding a leash for a dog dresses in a government military uniform. Bush says "speak" and the dog says" the surge is working". This symbolizes how the government force feeds information to the ex-military officials, which in turn they expect the officials to say these words when they go on tv to the public.The dog in the cartoon is portrayed as the government official because they are trained, like dogs, to speak only on command--only when the government needs them to reassure the public they are doing "their job correctly".

I hate politics to begin with, but especially with the Iraq War I am somewhat biased. My cousin recently came back from his tour in Iraq and he said it nothing like they report on the television. He was a driver for one of the tanks but he said they rarely saw any action over there. However, my problem with this whole war is that the United States took it upon themselves to invade another country--I thought we went to war with the Middle EAst because of 9/11, and now we're trying to persuade people over there to accept our government. I think this is wrong, because everyone has the right to live their way as long as it is not harming anyone else. I feel that the United States think they are so superior to every other country so they take it upon themselves to "do good deeds" and help other countries out. This is similar to the doctors going to Haiti and then reporting on the sick people they have helped on CNN just to look good and get good ratings. In similar terms, the U.S. has gone into another country to take over the government because they feel this is necessary in order to create peace in the world. It makes me sick to think that the government would lie to Americans and the general public about the war. If you are doing nothing wrong, then why would you lie about something? It is better to tell the whole truth about a situation. I think its terribly wrong that the public is not told what is REALLY going on over in Iraq, and I honestly believe there is more than 1 reason why we are over there in the first place. The government needs to stop persuading americans with little white lies that everything is ok, and that only 5 people die everyday. Thats 5 more deaths that arent necessary. The government needs to take a step back and look at what theyre really portraying to the public because a society cannot work properly when the government is inconsistent and dishonest.