Wednesday, December 5, 2012
Second Jaws Tweet
A very real shark attack of James Park in his rowboat @ Amity pond sets in a violent realization for the community: is no place safe?
Jaws Tweet
Locals & tourists swim madly in a frenzy of shock at a hoaxed shark sighting #kidsdothedarndestthings
Jaws attack piece
Fishermen gathered this afternoon with fish scraps and dynamite to hunt down a monstrous killer. In lieu of the deaths of two locals, many set sail to find the fish threatening Amity beaches.
The hunt was inspired by a reward of $3,000 for the shark that took is assumed to have taken the life of Alex Kitner, 10, and Chrissie Watson, 17. The reward was declared at the Amity town meeting that took place yesterday afternoon.
Along with local business owners and residents, Chief of Police, Martin S. Brody and Mayor Larry Vaughn were present at the meeting. The discussion commenced with Brody's plans to provide extra police watch on the beaches, but the concerns of the tourist town were summed up in a single question: will the beaches close?
Brody's announced that the beaches would be closing as roars of disapproval arose from the locals. Mayor Vaughn stepped in to reassure that the closing will only last for 24 hours.
"The beaches closing for 24 hours is like being closed for 3 weeks," said a local woman present.
The meeting closed with a local fisherman, Ben Quint, announcing his pursue for the shark.
"I'll catch this bird," said Quint. "But it aint gonna be easy."
Many fishermen stepped up this afternoon with similar aspirations to catch the shark that has been tormenting the town of Amity. The hunt resulted in the successful capture of a massive fish, identified by marine biologist, Matt Hooper.
The evidence is still under investigation as Hooper and Brody will further examine the shark for conclusive proof that this animal is responsible for the recent deaths.
The capture and kill of this shark will reopen local beaches for the busy Fourth of July weekend. Shark spotters from the Coast Guard, Marine Patrol, Massachusetts State Police, and others will be present to ensure the safety of all swimming.
Further shark sightings can and should be reported to authorities at 1-800-sharksee
The hunt was inspired by a reward of $3,000 for the shark that took is assumed to have taken the life of Alex Kitner, 10, and Chrissie Watson, 17. The reward was declared at the Amity town meeting that took place yesterday afternoon.
Along with local business owners and residents, Chief of Police, Martin S. Brody and Mayor Larry Vaughn were present at the meeting. The discussion commenced with Brody's plans to provide extra police watch on the beaches, but the concerns of the tourist town were summed up in a single question: will the beaches close?
Brody's announced that the beaches would be closing as roars of disapproval arose from the locals. Mayor Vaughn stepped in to reassure that the closing will only last for 24 hours.
"The beaches closing for 24 hours is like being closed for 3 weeks," said a local woman present.
The meeting closed with a local fisherman, Ben Quint, announcing his pursue for the shark.
"I'll catch this bird," said Quint. "But it aint gonna be easy."
Many fishermen stepped up this afternoon with similar aspirations to catch the shark that has been tormenting the town of Amity. The hunt resulted in the successful capture of a massive fish, identified by marine biologist, Matt Hooper.
The evidence is still under investigation as Hooper and Brody will further examine the shark for conclusive proof that this animal is responsible for the recent deaths.
The capture and kill of this shark will reopen local beaches for the busy Fourth of July weekend. Shark spotters from the Coast Guard, Marine Patrol, Massachusetts State Police, and others will be present to ensure the safety of all swimming.
Further shark sightings can and should be reported to authorities at 1-800-sharksee
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
A Picture Worth A Life
Scrolling through political and financial articles on the New York Times top news page, one headline sparked my immediate attention and interest: "After Fatal Subway Shove, Asking: Were There No Heroes?"
This generated a sense of morbid curiosity as I became absorbed in every word covering the tragic death of a man pushed onto the subway tracks in NYC. Full of vague expressions of defense, bystanders of the event justified their inability to assist the man facing an oncoming train. The results of these allegations came down to the fact that no one believed they COULD help.
The most interesting element was the wide-spread attack on an amateur student photographer who had captured the last moments of the man's life in a series of over 40 photos. These pictures made their way to publication for the public and resulted in a back lash of "instead of taking pictures, why weren't you trying to help him out?" This student faced the majority of the anger and disappointment of all who witnessed the event that day.
The student claimed the flashes of his camera were to warn the train conductor, that this was the action he was capable of during this tragic circumstance. But at the same time, this sparked a concern that I also feel while watching those commercials of starving third world children or reporters in the midst of any tragic event. There is a line of involvement when it comes to reporting. It's almost as if that line becomes invisible, that a reporter's job is to remain unbiased of a subject, removing themselves from the picture as merely the medium between information and the public. But at what point can we step beyond that boundary? It seems circumstances of life and death to be an obvious scenario to sacrifice any story. But at the same time we must take into consideration the realities of our abilities while also understanding our responsibility to report the real, even extremely tragic, events as they unfold before us.
Reference: "After Fatal Subway Shove, Asking: Were There No Heroes?"
This generated a sense of morbid curiosity as I became absorbed in every word covering the tragic death of a man pushed onto the subway tracks in NYC. Full of vague expressions of defense, bystanders of the event justified their inability to assist the man facing an oncoming train. The results of these allegations came down to the fact that no one believed they COULD help.
The most interesting element was the wide-spread attack on an amateur student photographer who had captured the last moments of the man's life in a series of over 40 photos. These pictures made their way to publication for the public and resulted in a back lash of "instead of taking pictures, why weren't you trying to help him out?" This student faced the majority of the anger and disappointment of all who witnessed the event that day.
The student claimed the flashes of his camera were to warn the train conductor, that this was the action he was capable of during this tragic circumstance. But at the same time, this sparked a concern that I also feel while watching those commercials of starving third world children or reporters in the midst of any tragic event. There is a line of involvement when it comes to reporting. It's almost as if that line becomes invisible, that a reporter's job is to remain unbiased of a subject, removing themselves from the picture as merely the medium between information and the public. But at what point can we step beyond that boundary? It seems circumstances of life and death to be an obvious scenario to sacrifice any story. But at the same time we must take into consideration the realities of our abilities while also understanding our responsibility to report the real, even extremely tragic, events as they unfold before us.
Reference: "After Fatal Subway Shove, Asking: Were There No Heroes?"
55°F...Who's Concerned?
Around 11:00 p.m., I encountered a unique phenomena that we all should reflect upon. This December evening, I found myself leaving the warmth of a friend's home, bracing myself for the winter chill to break crisply against my heat-blushed face. However, my preparations were joyously interrupted by a surprising blanket of cool air, reflective of the mid-season nights along the coasts of Georgia I've visited in the past. In absolute bliss, I hopped in my car, put my arm out the window, and felt the warm "winter" breeze pushing the hair off my face. But in this feeling of astonishment and glee, there was another thought which tugged from the pit of my stomach at the edges of my breezy smile. In all my experiences living as a New Englander, I've never witnessed a temperature like this so late/early in the fall/winter seasons.This realization flooded all the comfort of the cool air with feelings of worry. The concerns of global change that had been pressed upon my naivety in school performed a heart jumping dance with the combating joys I felt in that moment of 55° weather. This was the absolute definition of a bitter-sweet moment. I realize this experience isn't related to journalism in itself, but I think this dynamic is relevant to most of our generation as we come to terms with changes that continue to creep into our awareness. Although it may seem like a blessing, sparing us from the torments of shoveling mounds of snow from our driveways, I think this event should spark an understanding that something is changing... for better or for worse.
 |
| Time to start building these! |
Banning Gay Conversion: Banning Speech
In this entry, I feel it necessary to start with the article introduction that immediately sparked intrigue and confusion on the separation of our nation... "A federal judge cleared the way on Tuesday for California’s new law banning gay 'conversion therapies' for minors, one day after another federal judge, in a separate decision, called the ban an unconstitutional infringement on speech."
This issue is obviously LOADED with controversial topics. It not only deals with gay rights for minors but also freedom of speech...
“There’s a good deal of uncertainty about how to apply the First Amendment to professional speech to clients and even more uncertainty in the case of minors,” said Eugene Volokh, a professor and constitutional expert at the U.C.L.A. law school. “It’s not clear how this is ultimately going to play out.”
So, how does the banning of conversion therapy constitute as a form of speech? I suppose we can look at it as the group's freedom to verbally change a sexual preference. If that definition doesn't quite do it for you, that's probably because I don't fully believe it myself. But, I do understand there is a sense of freedom being taken away by this ban, however immoral the conversions may appear. I suppose the issue reminds me a bit of a program I watched recently, looking into the lives of those living in a religious compound. The culture was bizarre and controversial, leading to the arrest of the leader, Warren Jeffs. The relation I see is the inability to close the compound entirely despite the acts of Jeffs. But I digress...
What's interesting about this issue is the division of support. While one supports the ban of the therapy, another calls for the banning of the ban. This particular issue leaves us with a conflict of bans on bans...on bans. It's headache-inducing. But, if you decide to plant your feet in this matter which has judges divided, where would you stand in this morally grey area?
Reference: "Clashing Rulings Complicate Path of Gay ‘Conversion Therapy’ Law"
This issue is obviously LOADED with controversial topics. It not only deals with gay rights for minors but also freedom of speech...
“There’s a good deal of uncertainty about how to apply the First Amendment to professional speech to clients and even more uncertainty in the case of minors,” said Eugene Volokh, a professor and constitutional expert at the U.C.L.A. law school. “It’s not clear how this is ultimately going to play out.”
So, how does the banning of conversion therapy constitute as a form of speech? I suppose we can look at it as the group's freedom to verbally change a sexual preference. If that definition doesn't quite do it for you, that's probably because I don't fully believe it myself. But, I do understand there is a sense of freedom being taken away by this ban, however immoral the conversions may appear. I suppose the issue reminds me a bit of a program I watched recently, looking into the lives of those living in a religious compound. The culture was bizarre and controversial, leading to the arrest of the leader, Warren Jeffs. The relation I see is the inability to close the compound entirely despite the acts of Jeffs. But I digress...
What's interesting about this issue is the division of support. While one supports the ban of the therapy, another calls for the banning of the ban. This particular issue leaves us with a conflict of bans on bans...on bans. It's headache-inducing. But, if you decide to plant your feet in this matter which has judges divided, where would you stand in this morally grey area?
Reference: "Clashing Rulings Complicate Path of Gay ‘Conversion Therapy’ Law"
Egyptian Media: Reflection On Our Rights
As the media in Egypt takes charge on the limiting constraints provided by their government, it is incredibly important in this moment to reflect upon the glory of our own rights as journalists.
The issue sprung from Egypt's draft constitution that is putting limits on freedom of expression. In lieu of this restriction, it's critical to think on the importance journalists and other media have on the well-fare of a populace. Referring to a previous blog, the Leveson report, stemming from the importance of the royal pregnancy, resulted in many key elements that the media should reflect upon.
According to Lord Justice Leveson, media should act "as guardian of the interests of the public, as a critical witness to events, as the standard barer for those who have no one else to speak up for them."
In our country, being able to realize these important rights, we are at an absolute advantage. As mediators between the government and the public, the huge responsibility of sharing information, as well as the unity of the country, the Egyptian media is a point where all these elements are at a major threat.
Read further information about the issue leading to the division of the country: Thousands of Egyptians Protest Plan for Charter
The issue sprung from Egypt's draft constitution that is putting limits on freedom of expression. In lieu of this restriction, it's critical to think on the importance journalists and other media have on the well-fare of a populace. Referring to a previous blog, the Leveson report, stemming from the importance of the royal pregnancy, resulted in many key elements that the media should reflect upon.
According to Lord Justice Leveson, media should act "as guardian of the interests of the public, as a critical witness to events, as the standard barer for those who have no one else to speak up for them."
In our country, being able to realize these important rights, we are at an absolute advantage. As mediators between the government and the public, the huge responsibility of sharing information, as well as the unity of the country, the Egyptian media is a point where all these elements are at a major threat.
Read further information about the issue leading to the division of the country: Thousands of Egyptians Protest Plan for Charter
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)