Step 1:
1. List of Media types: Magazines, News channels/TV, Newspapers, Radio, Internet. All usually try to persuade the viewer.
The purpose of magazines is to inform and entertain the reader.
News Channels/TV is mostly is inform people what is going on
Newspapers are to inform and entertain.http://nmsutopia.wikispaces.com/5Morgan%27s+web+quest
Radios are mostly to entertain, however some inform people too.
Internet is both to entertain and inform, but depends on website.
Advertisements- entertain, inform, persuade.
2. The media is influenced by cultural and personal beliefs.
- It doesn't matter as much about a persons intelligence, but how they put it out there and how much attention it gets. There are four things that influence
people's opinions on the media- Diversion, personal relationships with the media, personal identity. and surveillance.
-Media also is influenced by the economy, whether the market is up or down.
-Politically influenced- Media's are politically influenced by who they believe in, or who they want to win an election .
3.I think the effect on groups of people that are not represented by the media are angry and may cause a rage since their side was not viewed or maybe they are glad the media didn't represent them because they possibly might not want to be publicly viewed.
Step 2:
1.The American side was portrayed that allot of U.S soldiers help take down and ruin the hated statue. The Iraq side was portrayed by getting a crowd to watch the statue be taken down but it was mostly journalist and camera people.
2.Iraqi Culture
Major Iraqi Cities
Baghdad (pop. 3,841, 268), Mosul (664,221),
Religion
There are two main traditional religions in Iraq, both are a type of Islamic. One is Shia Islam and the other is Sunni Islam. The more modern religion is Muslim.
Government
The President is Jalal Talabani. It is the Iraqi Transitional Government.
Social Structures
In the Middle East, 168, 754 sq. miles, (twice the size of Idaho) Baghdad is the capital, and they are bordered by Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, and the Persian Gulf.
4. this information affected my understanding because I thought that both sides were at fault but really they weren't.
5.the media captured this event in saying that both Americans and Iraqis were all over the statue.they only showed the parts that didnt involve them interfering with the event. I think that intentions were to make it look like it was only the soldiers of both sides that were being rowdy and demolishing the statue of the hated person.
6.I think the newspapers images were docotored because they didnt want the public to think that it was all the media who were all over the statue after it fell.
7.I think the purpose was to make the soldiers and the people look bad.
8. I think the the media gains from altering these photos because people believe what they see even if it isn't true.
9.The gains from altering these images,is to keep some people not aware of what is going on and trying to look like both side are equal.
10. Yes I do think an altered image can change history because people will think that, that is the way it really was and they will not know the truth.
Step 3:
1a. The image on the U.S. side is a lot smaller than the one in Spain (making the main point larger, using pictures).
b. The U.S. newspaper has a larger title, in bold letters, and pretty much the same body font/ size as Spain does, however Spain's newspaper title is smaller.
c.The U.S. article has more descriptions of what happened, while in Spain they used more photos to explain.
2. The U.S. audience would be Detroit, MI. The Spain audience is El Mundo, Spain.
3. The side not being represented in these two articles is Iraq, they show the two sides helping their own people, and not so much of the Iraq people.
1.The out come for the Muslims is that they are all very hated by most Americans, they were assumed to all be like the terrorist from the 9/11 attack
2. It says in the article that the squad got daily reports on life in Muslims neighborhoods, according to the documents by the Associated Press.
3.True, I think it is true because they are racial against the Muslims.
4. the media has portrayed my view of the Iraqi war by making me/us think that both sides of the war were equally at fault for taking down the statue.
5.it has made me see that there is different sides to the war not just one.
6.I think the media does have an impact on history because they they usually only tell one side of the story so some of the world has a different view then the rest.I think that the media has changed history because no one will know which story to believe if they don't put both sides and all of he truth.
my question:
why do Americans blame all Muslims for the terrorist attacks instead of just the few who really did it?
essay:
"Truth is always the first casualty of history". Media, more times then not changes the story. It might have some truth but then they add stuff or leave things out to make it more of a juicy story. People also have blamed not just the Muslims that were part in the terrorist attacks but all of them. This might change history, it might start a controversy, and it might not have both or all sides of the story.
Media can change history in many ways. First, it might change history by making people think that what they say is true. When the media does this they most likely leave things out of the story and people who weren’t there to witness the event don’t get to hear what really happened. They also try to make people believe that the Medias story is the truth. Another, way media can change history is leaving out important events/parts of the story. When they leave out important events/parts not everyone knows what really happened but they think they do because people trust the news media. Like in the video it made it look like it was just the Iraqis and the Americans but it was mostly the media people dancing around the statue. So people thought it was not the media doing anything wrong. As you can see, I think the media can change history
Media can also start controversy. First, media can start controversy by leaving out important parts. This leaves people thinking about what really happened. Some people might also think that what they heard/ read is true which might lead to people talking about it and fighting about what they think is right. Another, way the media starts controversy is by adding things having to do with the government or presidential things. There is a lot of people who talk about these types of things and they think there opinion is right. Then they all have on opinion then it’s just a whole bunch of people talking about those things and they are usually all fighting about it. The last way, media might start controversy is talking about it on the news. Sometimes on news channels they talk about things then have somebody else there to talk about it with them. Most the time they both have a different view on the event. All in all, I think that media can start controversy.
Media sometimes doesn’t tell both sides of the story. First, a different country might tell a different side of a story then the U.S does. This might mean that they are bias. If people are bias they pick and choose what they are going to pick or say. Another, thing that might happen if they don’t tell both sides of the story is the other country is going to have a different view then U.S or the other country that is involved. This might make people tell a different story then somebody else. If people get different views on something then nobody gets all of the truth. I think it is a vital piece of information to include all sides of a story. Lastly, not knowing both sides of the story might lead people to want more information that they can’t find/ have. When this happens people just want to believe what they hear. In my opinion if people believe what they hear they will never know the truth. As you can probably see, not telling both sides of the story is not good.
All in all, media does many thing wrong in my opinion. Media doesn’t many thing different then I would. Media can change history, it might start controversy, and it sometimes doesn’t tell both sides of they story.
NAVIGATION BAR
5Morgan's homepage5Morgan's blog page
5Morgan's animal farm page
5Morgan's perfect classroom
5Morgan's web quest
Step 1:
1. List of Media types: Magazines, News channels/TV, Newspapers, Radio, Internet. All usually try to persuade the viewer.
The purpose of magazines is to inform and entertain the reader.
News Channels/TV is mostly is inform people what is going on
Newspapers are to inform and entertain.http://nmsutopia.wikispaces.com/5Morgan%27s+web+quest
Radios are mostly to entertain, however some inform people too.
Internet is both to entertain and inform, but depends on website.
Advertisements- entertain, inform, persuade.
2. The media is influenced by cultural and personal beliefs.
- It doesn't matter as much about a persons intelligence, but how they put it out there and how much attention it gets. There are four things that influence
people's opinions on the media- Diversion, personal relationships with the media, personal identity. and surveillance.
-Media also is influenced by the economy, whether the market is up or down.
-Politically influenced- Media's are politically influenced by who they believe in, or who they want to win an election .
3.I think the effect on groups of people that are not represented by the media are angry and may cause a rage since their side was not viewed or maybe they are glad the media didn't represent them because they possibly might not want to be publicly viewed.
Step 2:
1.The American side was portrayed that allot of U.S soldiers help take down and ruin the hated statue. The Iraq side was portrayed by getting a crowd to watch the statue be taken down but it was mostly journalist and camera people.
2. Iraqi Culture
4. this information affected my understanding because I thought that both sides were at fault but really they weren't.
5.the media captured this event in saying that both Americans and Iraqis were all over the statue.they only showed the parts that didnt involve them interfering with the event. I think that intentions were to make it look like it was only the soldiers of both sides that were being rowdy and demolishing the statue of the hated person.
6.I think the newspapers images were docotored because they didnt want the public to think that it was all the media who were all over the statue after it fell.
7.I think the purpose was to make the soldiers and the people look bad.
8. I think the the media gains from altering these photos because people believe what they see even if it isn't true.
9.The gains from altering these images,is to keep some people not aware of what is going on and trying to look like both side are equal.
10. Yes I do think an altered image can change history because people will think that, that is the way it really was and they will not know the truth.
Step 3:
1a. The image on the U.S. side is a lot smaller than the one in Spain (making the main point larger, using pictures).
b. The U.S. newspaper has a larger title, in bold letters, and pretty much the same body font/ size as Spain does, however Spain's newspaper title is smaller.
c.The U.S. article has more descriptions of what happened, while in Spain they used more photos to explain.
2. The U.S. audience would be Detroit, MI. The Spain audience is El Mundo, Spain.
3. The side not being represented in these two articles is Iraq, they show the two sides helping their own people, and not so much of the Iraq people.
Step4:
Muslims
1.The out come for the Muslims is that they are all very hated by most Americans, they were assumed to all be like the terrorist from the 9/11 attack
2. It says in the article that the squad got daily reports on life in Muslims neighborhoods, according to the documents by the Associated Press.
3.True, I think it is true because they are racial against the Muslims.
4. the media has portrayed my view of the Iraqi war by making me/us think that both sides of the war were equally at fault for taking down the statue.
5.it has made me see that there is different sides to the war not just one.
6.I think the media does have an impact on history because they they usually only tell one side of the story so some of the world has a different view then the rest.I think that the media has changed history because no one will know which story to believe if they don't put both sides and all of he truth.
my question:
why do Americans blame all Muslims for the terrorist attacks instead of just the few who really did it?
essay:
"Truth is always the first casualty of history". Media, more times then not changes the story. It might have some truth but then they add stuff or leave things out to make it more of a juicy story. People also have blamed not just the Muslims that were part in the terrorist attacks but all of them. This might change history, it might start a controversy, and it might not have both or all sides of the story.
Media can change history in many ways. First, it might change history by making people think that what they say is true. When the media does this they most likely leave things out of the story and people who weren’t there to witness the event don’t get to hear what really happened. They also try to make people believe that the Medias story is the truth. Another, way media can change history is leaving out important events/parts of the story. When they leave out important events/parts not everyone knows what really happened but they think they do because people trust the news media. Like in the video it made it look like it was just the Iraqis and the Americans but it was mostly the media people dancing around the statue. So people thought it was not the media doing anything wrong. As you can see, I think the media can change history
Media can also start controversy. First, media can start controversy by leaving out important parts. This leaves people thinking about what really happened. Some people might also think that what they heard/ read is true which might lead to people talking about it and fighting about what they think is right. Another, way the media starts controversy is by adding things having to do with the government or presidential things. There is a lot of people who talk about these types of things and they think there opinion is right. Then they all have on opinion then it’s just a whole bunch of people talking about those things and they are usually all fighting about it. The last way, media might start controversy is talking about it on the news. Sometimes on news channels they talk about things then have somebody else there to talk about it with them. Most the time they both have a different view on the event. All in all, I think that media can start controversy.
Media sometimes doesn’t tell both sides of the story. First, a different country might tell a different side of a story then the U.S does. This might mean that they are bias. If people are bias they pick and choose what they are going to pick or say. Another, thing that might happen if they don’t tell both sides of the story is the other country is going to have a different view then U.S or the other country that is involved. This might make people tell a different story then somebody else. If people get different views on something then nobody gets all of the truth. I think it is a vital piece of information to include all sides of a story. Lastly, not knowing both sides of the story might lead people to want more information that they can’t find/ have. When this happens people just want to believe what they hear. In my opinion if people believe what they hear they will never know the truth. As you can probably see, not telling both sides of the story is not good.
All in all, media does many thing wrong in my opinion. Media doesn’t many thing different then I would. Media can change history, it might start controversy, and it sometimes doesn’t tell both sides of they story.
Glogster:
5Morgan's web quest