Dr. King

Dr. king’s letter from Birmingham jail could be conceived as addressing various groups of people, not just the priests. He may be directing the letter towards these priests, but it could be argued that Dr. King had a larger population that he wanted to notify about his concerns. Dr. king repeatedly mentions that his followers and himself were a non-violent group of individuals, yet they are accused of being extremist. At first Dr. King was offended by this accusation, shorty after he reflected on this idea, he realized that many inspirational and revolutionary individuals including Jesus Christ were considered radicals or “extremist”. Initially Dr. King was under the impression that these priests would be supportive of the civil rights movement, because the segregation laws we immoral. Many of these so-called holly men were fearful of getting involved because they didn’t want to be scrutinized by their community. Many also ridiculed about his timing, although this individuals were not is his position. Certain things can never be conducted at a good time, but they do not have time to wait either. Dr. kings message was urgent, and his fellow brothers had been oppressed for far to long. This was not just demoralizing but flat out dehumanizing. The oppression needed to stop and Dr. King was not going to rest until he had achieved equality for all.

            Initially Dr. king could have been writing to the priests because he was appalled by their cowardly behavior. After the church had be so powerful, and influential for thousands of years, despite all the ridicule, it was natural for Dr. King to expect some support.  Although as his letter progressed he also notifies the community about the police officers disorderly conduct against large numbers of black individuals. This letter letter could have been his final attempt to reach out for the support of the church, and if all else failed he would resort to other means of action. 

Concluding Thoughts On Technology

Information technology and news media can be a topic of conversations in many forms. Personally I am still convinced that technology is benefiting societal knowledge, and individual productivity. As we conclude our discussion on technology I drew upon yet another issue, are certain devices we are using giving off forms of radiation, causing health issues? Radiation has been known to be very bad for ones health, causing cancer, and many other horrible diseases. Have we been asking the wrong questions? Not only should we be addressing whether these devices are making us dumber, but also if they are posing a health risks that could amount to cancer? Today I saw a news clip on yahoo, there is a women who has recently written a book about the radiation and electromagnetic waves that cellphones, computers, cordless phones, and all kind of other devices are giving off. It would be really interesting to do some more in-depth research on what kind of side effects have been appearing in recent years, and that experts think are related to new wireless technology. 

Information Technology

Information technology is keeping students, and young adults informed.  Whether you get it from your news feed on Facebook, or you see news highlights while you are checking your email, we are constantly having news information shoved down our throats. For those of us who have an interest in what is going on, it is even easier to get access to news information. On my iphone I have both a CNN application, and a BBC application, which I can check instantaneously, these applications are constantly updating with lives news feeds. I cannot tell you the last time I picked up a newspaper, yet I still seem to be pretty well informed. In regard to this making us more stupid, its not possible. I doubt our parents, when they were our age went to the news stand or wherever you find these “paper things” every morning to get a paper. We don’t have the choice to not be informed anymore, unless you have no internet, and live hidden in the woods. News just follows you everywhere. 

Is Google Making Us Stupid?

With any change you will always have skeptics who are convinced that these new technologies, or advances in any from, are the demise of the “old” traditional way. Yes, most of the time these individuals are radical, and try to make some crazy analogize as to why this new improvement are horrible. But, to their credit sometimes they have good points of opinion under all the crazy antics. The points and opinion of these people typically do not outweigh the tremendous improvement in technology.

I am baffled as to why they don’t come of as more sane? One would think that they would get more attention and followers with a more normal plan of action. On the other had you have outstanding innovation, such as Google. The key is to find the equilibrium. It seems slightly extravagant to say that Google is making us “drummer”. A better way to approach this is, how is Google changing cognition, and is this good, or bad. 9 times out of 10 it is both.

As mentioned earlier both sides have valid contributory points, thus you need to be aware of all aspects. As argued in the Carr article, online reading is making our attention span shorter, and making us more efficient opposed to deep thinkers. Well what if we can do both? Isn’t that the objective to new technology to make life more efficient, to improve society, and so forth. The human species are extremely adaptive, and smart, so why would we not be able to take the good aspects from the former technology, and the benefits from the new technology?  

Blogging and Journalism

I wouldn’t say that an editorial in a newspaper or magazine is credible just because of where it is published. The articles that are published in newspapers or magazines have to be reviewed and edited by others in that firm. So more times than not this information is credible. If the main author decides to go on some rant about politics that is absolutely irrelevant to the topic they are supposed to be writing, I am sure that article will not be published. On the other hand, if a blogger with no set work agenda decides to compose a rant about a political stance, they can post whatever their heart desires without having anyone even edit it. The dialog on blogs versus newspapers and magazines tends to be completely different. The frank Partsch quote is referring to the fact that the editorial is a representation of the newspaper or the magazines view as a whole, not the personal opinion of the author who wrote it. A blog on the other hand is a completely personal response, not to say that the person writing it has not done their research, but they have the choice to do so. Their job isn’t on the line. That is why the comparison of a blogger being a shout in the crowd is made. The blog is really that one person’s feelings on a given topic, and their interpretation of the matter at hand. Still, institutions are not always superior to a community of blogs. The only reasons that would make them superior are that, they comprise a group of professional writers, and they have done the research to support their evidence.