On Friday, November 9, some iSchool students had the unique opportunity to attend this year's National Association for Media Literacy Education Week Event at Reuters in Manhattan. Because it was so close to midterm elections here in the US, the event was focused on unpacking media's impact on the midterm elections.
Nearly a week later, students are still talking about the panel of young, first-time voters, moderated by NAMLE's executive director, Michelle Ciulla Lipkin. "Listening to the 18 year old first-time voters, especially Sarah Baum was really amazing. Since they’re so close to our age, it was really nice to hear their POV and it didn’t seem like they were just lecturing.," said iSchool junior Charlotte Seifert. Charlotte and Abbe Schulties, another junior, were particular impressed by first-time voter Sarah Emily Baum, a Hofstra freshman and activist. "She's a very eloquent and relatable speaker," Abbe said, adding that "I liked hearing what the 18-year-olds had to say. They speak our language." Adriany Abreu, a freshman, went into the event unsure about her feelings about voting. "They switched my opinion on that," she said, referring specifically to a story shared by student panelist Isabella Elena Gonzalez, a high school senior who voted for the first time. One of Gonzalez's friends could not yet vote, and begged others to do so for her. "You should use your chance to vote because others want it and don’t have it. That really stood out to me," Adriany added. The panel of working media professionals was also memorable. "Stephanie Brumsey had dipped her foot into so many subjects," said freshman Nicholas Kloor. In speaking on the importance of a free and objective press to the cause of democracy, Nicholas was intrigued when Brumsey explained that people of all political stripes often realize the necessity of the press when they actually speak to an objective journalist. Freshman Zachary Kaplan was also impressed by Brumsey. "She had so much on the ground journalistic experience. She went to Trump's inauguration, both of Obama's inaugurations, the DNC, the RNC..." "I liked that there was diversity on the panel [of media professionals]-- they were not all from one publication, background, age or gender. I liked that someone was from the Wall Street Journal, someone was from Reuters, there was a journalism teacher that was working with young voters. It was really helpful to making it a well-rounded conversation." Katy Byron, Editor & Program Manager of the Poynter Institute's MediaWise program, led a fun interactive presentation-- we voted on whether sites were real or fake and created media literacy memes. "It's like we did in class," junior Loulou Westlake observed during the event. An aspiring journalist himself, Zach loved the opportunity to network with professionals, and took full advantage of the time to mix-and-mingle. We look forward to more NAMLE events in the future!
0 Comments
Overview
The topic I chose is about the SHSAT and whether it should be removed or kept in place. People who think it should be removed, including Mayor Bill de Blasio who proposed another system be put in place, think that it causes racial segregation in specialized high schools. On the other hand, those who do not want the test removed say that it is an objective measure of who will do well at specialized high schools. They also say that it keeps these high schools elite. One Viewpoint People who think that the SHSAT should be kept in place say that the test is working, so it should not be removed. Students who attend specialized high schools tend to get accepted and go to elite colleges and become very successful. They say that this is proof that the test is effective at selecting students who will succeed at specialized high schools. They also claim that the test is an unbiased way to tell who will be successful at specialized high schools. In their opinion, the test offers a “level playing field” for everyone and “ensures that one’s ethnicity and economic background are not factors in the admissions process.” People with this viewpoint also claim that the system that was suggested by Mayor Bill de Blasio would not significantly affect the diversity of specialized high schools. There is also to mindset that rules are rules and the test seems to be working at the moment, so why change it. Another Viewpoint The alternative opinion is that the SHSAT be removed and replaced by another system. For example, just using state test grades and class rankings to determine who gets an offer from a specialized high school. People with this point of view think that the test is unfair and biased, and that is why there is such a lack of diversity in the “elite” high schools. They think that the SHSAT is a bad way to select those who will get an offer. In fact, no one actually knows for a fact what the SHSAT is measuring. It has never been vetted like the ACT, SAT or other major college admissions tests. The SHSAT has never undergone testing to see if it is actually measuring what it claims to be measuring. Many experts say that using state test scores and class rankings based on grades would be a much less biased than taking the SHSAT to see if you get an offer. My Informed Opinion I agree with the second opinion. I think that since the SHSAT has not been proven to measure who will succeed at specialized high schools, it is not a good way to select students who will get offers. I believe that any test will be biased because any test similar to this requires test prep. Depending on your economic background, you may not have access to good test prep or any test prep. Overview: Football is a widely known sport that is watched and played by many. It is heavily debated, though, whether or not football is too dangerous to play. The sport actually comes with many health benefits. The strength and conditioning it requires is considered a very good form of exercise and is great for cardiovascular health, and the mental focus required improves mental skills such as concentration and leadership. However, there are also risks that come with football. Injuries are common, especially injuries like concussions that can be fatal on occasion. There is also a risk of underlying injuries, such as an enlarged heart, going undetected in a routine medical exam and then becoming fatal after people play football. Football is a sport that is loved and played by many, but it is still up for debate whether or not the risk outweighs the reward. One Viewpoint: Many people feel that football is too dangerous to be played. The CNN article, “Football's dangers, illustrated by one young man's brain” details the story of Michael Keck, a college football player who died of cardiac arrest in 2013 and was diagnosed post-mortem with CTE, and furthermore explains the risks that come with playing football. CTE, Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy, is a degenerative brain disease that is typically found in people with repetitive brain trauma, such as athletes, which essentially spreads and kills brain cells. The article explains research in which CTE was discovered “in the brains of 44 out of 55 college football players.” Diseases like CTE are a large factor in many people’s opinions that football is too dangerous of a sport to play. Diseases like CTE are often undiagnosable until after death, which leaves a great risk of football players developing it without knowing. By this logic, many people see football as a sport with the potential to be fatal, whether precautions are taken or not, thus viewing it as too dangerous to be played. Another Viewpoint: Contrastingly, some people believe that while football does include some risk, it is generally safe enough as long as proper precautions are taken. The Forbes article, “The Reasons Not To Ban Contact Sports For Children: An Answer To 'Concussion’” addresses the concept of banning contact sports for children, dissecting that concept in an effort to prove why banning them is unproductive. The article argues that banning contact sports for children would be ineffective as children would either find a way around the legislation, or find a new form of risk taking as a replacement. The author explains that taking more safety precautions in contact sports and addressing injuries more effectively would likely be more beneficial than banning them all together. The ideas presented in this article are ones that are commonly held amongst those who believe football is not too dangerous. Football can be dangerous, as many studies have proved, but working to make the game safer is, in the eyes of many, more impactful than banning the game at any level. My Informed Opinion: When I began this research process, I was conflicted when it came to my personal opinion. As an avid football fan, I didn’t want to write the game off as too dangerous. However, as someone who prides themselves in staying well informed, I knew that there were dangers that I couldn’t ignore. I believe that while football definitely holds risk, increasing safety precautions and taking measures to decrease the risk is more important than simply deeming it too dangerous and/or banning it through legislation or otherwise. I believe that if adequate precautions are not taken, football can be too dangerous. However, I think that if the right measures are taken, there’s no reason for it to be considered too unsafe to play. There was definitely information from multiple perspectives of the issue that were convincing to me. The research about CTE and how it affects athletes really impacted me and did sway my opinion to a degree, because my understanding of the risks involved in football had been limited before my research. However, the solutions that “anti-football” articles presented felt unconvincing to me. The proposed solutions of banning the sport with legislation or stopping people from watching the sport felt impractical. However, the argument of proposing safety regulations felt more convincing, as it was seemingly more feasible. Overview:
The topic I am focused on is Drug Usage/Abuse in America. Drugs have been a problem in America for a very long time. Back then, it wasn’t as much of an issue because it was mostly adults using/abusing drugs, and their time to help the community was almost over. These days, drugs are popular among teens and young kids. These teens and kids are who make up America’s future, so we need them to make sure our society doesn’t fall apart. Aside from using drugs while teens/kids brains are still developing, they also don’t know how to control how much drugs they put in their bodies. My essay will be focused on information of over usage of drugs and why they’re bad for society in general. One Viewpoint: One viewpoint on this topic is that people need to know more about drugs and how it negatively affects everyone and our community. For instance, this drug article has topic on what drugs are. Then they follow up with articles to show the aftermath of drugs, so that people don’t do them. So a viewpoint on this topic is that they need to be kept away from teens. Drugs are bad, but it's a whole different story when it comes to teens with drugs. Teens are still developing mentally and physically. Drugs have a huge negative affect on teens brains and can interfere with how they grow. Besides that, the teens don’t know how to control themselves. In the “ E-cigarettes and teens” section of the article listed above, the authors showed that when a teen tries smoking cigarettes or e-cigarettes, they don’t stop. After thirty days, research shows teens smoked more than double they did than the first time they tried it. Point being in any case, teens, or anyone shouldn’t be exposed to drugs because of how it negatively affects them and everyone around them. Another Viewpoint: An alternate viewpoint towards drug addiction is mostly from people who have tried drugs or are addicted to drugs; which is that it helps them cope with other things going on in their lives. People claim they use drugs for many reasons, if they needed to cope with something, drugs isn’t the way. The website on drugs states that people think that drugs are the way to deal with things like stress, mental health issue, etc. While the article lists these things, they also have side effects about using drugs to cope with something. For instance, the article states that if someone uses drugs to help cope with a mental health issue, drugs can worsen it. Even though drugs may feel good for a short period of time, it’s just their to hurt your body. So another viewpoint for this topic-like I said before- is that drugs can “help” cope with issues but just lead to a more damaged version of you. My Informed Opinion: My opinion on this topic is that it is going to be very hard to keep drugs from ruining our society. The side of drugs being shown to negatively affect people is more convincing because there are more studies and evidence showing that drugs negatively affect people than it helping people. The fact that we hear so much about drugs affecting people may bring in a little bit of confirmation bias, but even without that, there were way more articles showing that drugs were harmful than good. To me, drugs helping people cope was the most unconvincing because in the end, it just ends up hurting you. I may be wrong, I don’t know the feeling of drugs when they “make me feel better.” Besides that, what really distincts between what’s bad and what’s good is the evidence given to us. Objective Summary: The 2018 midterm elections are taking place on November 6. Based on past elections it has been found that a high amount of people in America are not voting in any elections. The times reports that “if did not vote was a candidate in the 2016 election, it would have won by a landslide.” It has been found that most of the people who are not voting is the young demographic of America and the democrats. The reasons are most likely due to people not thinking that their vote matters, or they do not like the government system. This has gotten many democrats worried that their party won’t be elected, but has gotten the republicans hopeful about their party being elected because there are less democrats voting than there are republicans. Hickson’s Analysis of NY Times Video: This video is to persuade. The video is being published on the New York Times opinion section of their website which means that it is trying to persuade. It may seem like an informative piece because there is a lot of information about the people who are voting and the people who are not voting, such as how in the last midterm election in 2014, 16 percent of eligible voters from the ages 18-29 voted. But it then goes into the idea of how more people need to start voting and what the government could do to encourage more people (especially the young demographic) to vote. Their audience is the people that are not voting so they can try and get their attention towards voting. They have many sources that are listed at the bottom of the right hand corner of the video as the facts are being stated, and are all reliable. It was published by a well known and reliable source of current information. Sfeir’s Analysis of NPR article: This article's purpose is to inform others on why so many Americans choose not to vote. The reason why this is an informational article is because the authors choose not to give their opinion on why so many Americans don’t vote, instead they interviewed people and asked them their opinions instead of including their own. Although this article may be informational it does have an underlying tone of trying to get other people to vote, by showing readers that their is a large amount of people that aren’t voting. The article states that the reason why so many people aren’t voting is because they feel as though their vote doesn’t matter. The article uses a statement stating that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in the 2016 election but Donald trump won the electoral college which is a reason why many voters don’t vote. The article is reliable because it was found from a source that is well known and has been known to be very reliable. I think this article was intended for people who are concerned about why so many people aren’t voting, or why certain people are getting elected when it appears to them that Hickson’s Opinion: It is my belief that the New York Times video is a reliable source with many good facts about the people that are voting and the people that are not voting in elections in America. It gives reliable resources and verifiable facts. As long as you keep in mind that it is trying to persuade you, it will be good source of information to make opinion on if more people should be voting in the elections. The same is with the NPR news article, although it may be a little less reliable because of the underlying bias that is never directly addressed unlike the New York Times video. Sfeir’s Opinion: I do agree with some of the statements that were presented in the article. I agree that to others it may feel as though their vote doesn’t matter especially with the 2016 election even though Hillary Clinton won the popular vote she still wasn’t elected president. The NPR article might be a little biased because NPR has been known to be liberal. This article is an informational article because it lets people know why others aren't voting without including bias. However the article may seem like it is trying to persuade people to get up and vote by the large amount of facts included in the article that show the large amount of people that aren’t voting. Overview:
Baby boomers, Gen X, Gen Y, and Gen Z. Each is a name for a the set of people born in a given generation. Digital natives has recently been added to the list as a subcategory almost. Digital Natives are defined as people born after 1980 in an environment where they were surrounded by technology. All who were born before 1980 and/or raised in an environment where they weren’t surrounded by technology and the internet, are considered Digital Immigrants. There has been many debates on whether there is a significant difference between Digital Native and Digital Immigrants, because of the internet. There’s debates about whether one group is better than the other and whether the education system needs to adapt to Digital Natives for them to be successful. Each debate has had varying results and continues to be questioned. One Viewpoint: One viewpoint on the Digital Natives versus Digital Immigrants debate is that there is no such thing as a Digital Native. The article titled “The digital native is a myth” by is persuasive. Its focus is to convince the reader that there actually is no difference between people born in the age of technology and those who have had to learn to adapt to it. The reading’s main point centers around education and refuting the claim that the way “digital natives” are being taught need to change because the world has evolved and these students brains are wired different, therefore they learn different. It cites a source that is pro digital native (Targeting Millennials with Insurance) and uses two other sources (Teacher and the Teacher Education and 2011 review for the Higher Education) to prove that not only is education already “particularly vulnerable to political whims, fads and untested” policies, there isn’t any reliable or consistent data that justifies the claim that this claim was more than the aforementioned. Another Viewpoint: Another viewpoint on the Digital Natives versus Digital Immigrants debate is that in order for Digital Immigrant teachers to be successful and effective in a classroom full of Digital Native students they need to reform their lessons and how their teaching to fit their students comfort and interest level (specifically through technology). The article “Digital Natives, Digital immigrants” is persuasive. It focuses on the issue of education and claims that because many digital native students find themselves being taught by digital immigrant teachers, it is up to the teachers to change if they want their classes to be successful. They place the weight on teachers and the education system claiming that the way education is currently taught is suited for the previous generations of students and not the current. The reading is in first person and includes quotes from students teachers and cited evidence about certain softwares to help support the eventual suggestion on how to update learning, by taking advantage of strategies or things digital native do often or seek aka multitasking and instant gratification,(In this case it was by making learning into a video game). My Informed Opinion: My original opinion about Digital Natives and Digital Immigrants was a pretty objective one. I assumed there was a difference between each group but I just figured each had their strengths and weaknesses. Personally, after researching, I still agree with the Digital Natives and Digital Immigrant subcategories. In my research I came across a sentence that read “Different kinds of experiences lead to different brain structures”. It was a quote from Dr. Bruce D. Perry of Baylor College of Medicine, cited in the second article I discuss. That was the most convincing piece of evidence for the idea of Digital Natives and it made the other article completing ruling out the idea of a Digital Native, without any evidence, very unconvincing. Overview: NYC schools are segregated, a finding uncontested by legitimate sources. About half of the schools in NYC have or have had student bodies that were 90 percent or more African American and Latino. The contention arises when talking about whether segregation is a bad thing. School segregation is a hot issue at the moment because of the City’s policy of School Choice. School Choice allows for families – if they choose – to have their children study outside their home district. School Choice is generally considered to be the leading cause of segregation in the NYC school systems. People disagree on whether School Choice - and the resulting segregation - is bad.
One Viewpoint: The NY Post, in opinion article titled “NYC’s Failure to Create Enough Good Schools is the Problem, Not Segregation”, argues that the segregation of NYC schools is not a problem. The problem is that the schools offered by the City are just not good enough. The article argues that there is enough evidence of schools which have benefited from school choice that it thinks it is worth improving the current schools, not changing the School Choice option. The article cites multiple pieces of evidence to support its claim. One data point is that African American students who go to a school outside their district - thus exercising School Choice - have better passing grades than others. They pass about 20% more classes of both math and English. The second piece of evidence cited is a study that said one school gained about $3400 more to spend per student when 66 students expected students left by exercising school choice, leaving more money to spend on fewer students. More money, in most cases, means an overall better education for the kids involved. These were the arguments used by the article in the NY Post to show that school segregation was not a bad outcome. Another Viewpoint: Another viewpoint argues that school segregation does not allow for all kids to have an equal playing field. The NY Times, in an editorial article titled “It’s Time to Integrate New York’s Best Schools,” cites data showing that the four specialized high schools NYC only accept around 10% African American and Latino students ,even though those kids comprise 68% of the NYC school system. These specialized high schools produce almost entirely graduates that go on to experience economic success. The article argues that the job of these schools when originally founded was to challenge the brightest minds in NYC, but that is not being done. The schools are excluding large portions of the NYC population from the school. The article argues that this plan to integrate the specialized schools is the first step in forming a more integrated school system. My Informed Opinion: I think that school segregation is a big problem. Segregation, as it has historically, has unequally impacted African American and Latino kids. The school system in NYC has a bad distribution of money. The best schools get the best testing students, and the best testing students are statistically more likely to be wealthy. As a result, some of the best schools in the city raise millions of dollars in PTA money. This creates a system where the rich get richer. The other setback of the system is the best schools almost never have special needs kids or English language learners. Special needs kids and English language learners are more expensive than the average student to teach because they often need a better support system. The Department of Education (“DOE”) in NYC gives schools money based on how many students they expect to have, but if the schools with more English language learners and special needs kids get the same amount of money per student for these more expensive kids as any other kid, those schools will have fewer resources overall. It is also true that the schools with special needs kids and English language learners often have more African American and Latino kids than white kids. Going to schools outside of one’s district is one of the ways people segregate the schools, as this allows white families to choose schools where other white kids are, and where there are better schools. This gives segregation an easy avenue on which to happen. I also think many of the arguments claiming that segregation is not a bad thing are poorly constructed. The NY Post article references a study that says when 60 kids left – or did not enroll because of School Choice - the school gained $3400/student. In most cases that would not be true as the DOE would typically give the school less money. Segregation is a terrible thing for NYC kids and robs many of them especially African Americans and Hispanic kids the opportunity of a good education. Overview: We know the reaction to Harvey Weinstein’s sexual assault reports as the #MeToo movement. The movement where women stand up and open up about sexual assault experiences. However, in France women reacted in a similar manner but rather than calling their movement “Me Too” they decided to give it a more upfront message “#BalanceTonPorc” or “Call Out Your Pig”.
One Viewpoint: One perspective on this topic is commonly an agreement to Catherine Deneuve's take on the whole ordeal. Deneuve and around 100 other women have signed a paper that consists of multiple statements surrounding sexual assault and varying experiences. Such as “rape is a crime. But insistent or clumsy flirting is not a crime, nor is gallantry a chauvinist aggression,” and “this liberation of speech has been turned on its head.” Deneuve believes that the feminism surrounding this topic is going backwards and is twisting around sexuality and crime. Another Viewpoint: The alternative view of this topic is that this movement is a big progression of feminism in women’s rights. Lise Bouvet says “I think this time society and men have no other choices than to listen to us.” Ariane Fornia, a women who experienced sexual assault said “she believes the era of powerful men abusing others with impunity is over now that women are speaking out.” These women who have been silent and hiding finally feel comfortable, safe and supported enough to speak out. My Informed Opinion: I think that Deneuve’s take on how women are going about handling this is unintelligent. I make the assumption that she is a women who has been taught that these things she is saying are correct and justifiable. But I disagree that women are going in the wrong direction. I agree with her that a women can be a leader and have a strong sexuality and not be “disgusting” or “nasty” but this movement is not about women’s empowerment in sexuality. It is about men being inconsiderate and getting away with things. I agree with Ariane Fornia, that this movement is a big progression for women’s rights. Thousands of women especially women we see in media speaking up and encouraging other women to stand up giving men no other option but to pay attention is intense and impacting. I think together the Me Too Movement and the Call Out Your Pig Movement are a strong powerful event in our time. Overview:
The use of medical marijuana in America is becoming more widely accepted. Medical marijuana provides assistance to some of those living with serious mental illness, but even so, it is not a cure. The use of this drug is still frowned upon in some states in the US like South Dakota and Idaho due to certain drawbacks of the drug. But as time goes on its safe to assume that sooner, rather than later, (at the very least) medical marijuana use will be permitted in all 50 states. But some states proceed with caution due to general lack of knowledge of the effect of marijuana. The risks and the benefits of taking medical marijuana to treat mental illness should be weighed by medical professionals alone. One Viewpoint: Many medical professionals have proven and verified that medical marijuana is a great treatment for mental illness. Many believe that their shouldn’t be as much resistance from lawmakers because it can do much more help than harm. One of the biggest pieces of supporting evidence I found was a report published by The National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. This is the collective scientific national academy of the United States, so any study by them has taken many highly-respected, licenced professionals years of time and effort to complete. The study that they published supports therapeutic and other health effects of cannabis or cannabinoids. It talked about how cannabis has a positive impact on mental illness and can sometimes help in ways that prescription medication cannot. Another Viewpoint: Despite the benefits of using medical marijuana, there are quite a few risk factors associated with using the drug. According to Katie Moisse from ABC News, in the article 5 Ways Pot Can Kill You or Not she states the negative effect of smoking marijuana. She says that is messes with human’s cognitive ability, causing pot smokers to more easily forget things and make it more difficult to learn new concepts. This is even more common in teens and young adults that smoke. She also says that it causes people to lose concentration, which, according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, leads to those high and driving having double the risk of getting into an accident. Smoking weed relaxes the body and mind to the point where people lose their ability to properly function and put themselves at risk of injury. My Informed Opinion: I find that medical marijuana is an important tool that way too many people are squandering. It provides a different form of help to the body that doesn’t have as many notable side effects as other prescription medications. Even in the article that I read that didn’t support the use of medical marijuana, the author was still an advocate. She simply listed all the possible side effects of the drug that weren’t even likely to occur. I acknowledge that marijuana isn’t for everyone, both recreationally and medically. But from personal experiences, I know that it has helped many people that I care about deeply. Therefore I am an avid supporter of medical marijuana and I believe that if people stop demonizing the drug and open their eyes and ears to the many stories of people who have have been helped by it, it would help the country as a whole. Overview Birthright is a program in which young diaspora Jews, mainly from the US, go on a 5-20 day trip through Israel. In recent years, the program has garnered criticism on the Israel Palestine issue. Twice in the last couple months two separate groups have had “birthright walkouts” in which a handful of the people leave the group in protest. One Viewpoint One position on the issue is that those walking out are protesting in a way that is not their place. The haaretz article on the topic says, “Birthright co-founder Charles Bronfman says participants don’t have the right to criticize Israel while they are enjoying a free trip paid for by others.” This is the general stance of anti walkout opinions. While free speech is encouraged, the official stance of birth right is that the participants of the walk outs are ungrateful of the gifts given to them and ruin the trip for others participating. You couldn’t expect an article that cites the owner of birthright to be unbiased, but this article is relatively factual though strongly worded. Another Viewpoint The alternative argument is that the walkouts are the right thing to do. Beyond supporting all peaceful protests supporters of the walkouts point out that birthright supplied maps mark the Gaza strip as “just as Israel as Tel-Aviv” and that the Jewish youths don’t meet any Arab Israelis. They used too but the meetings where cut a move that critics claim to be very political in contrast to the fact that birthright refers to itself as apolitical. My Informed Opinion I have two beliefs that come into play when the birthright walkouts are concerned. I believe that the ability to protest peacefully is acceptable in almost any situation, and that the question should be what is the most effective venue not what is the least likely to step on any toes. I also believe that education on all issues is important, which is why the argument that people who aren’t pro Israel shouldn’t be on birthright in the first place didn’t grab me. And why making organizations like IfNotNow and breaking the silence open to those on birthright trips seems like the right opinion. |
In The News BlogThese are all analyses of current events written by out class, to help keep you up to date. ArchivesCategories
All
|