Framing Exercise

Framing in-class Exercise by Angela M. Lee on Scribd

The Media and Suicide

     After reading "Suicide contagion and social media/ The dangers of sharing 'Genie, you're free,' " I realized that the social media and the media in general has had a tremendous impact on our youth, particularly in the last ten years. When I was a sophomore in high school, MySpace was the newest and coolest form of social media. I now have younger siblings who are the age I was then when social media was still in its infantile stages. I can remember my parents being skeptical of my MySpace account and frequently accused me of "oversharing." Texting was just beginning to emerge and become commonplace, and if you didn't have a Sidekick or a Razor, you might as well have gone and joined the Flintstone family back in Bedrock. My younger siblings have even mocked my Facebook account I acquired the year I graduated high school in 2007, which has not helped me to feel less like a dinosaur. With Instagram, Snapchat, Twitter, etc., it is extraordinarily difficult to be disconected from current events and the sharing of emotional responses to some of these events. The suicide of Robin Williams was extremely publicized, and while he was a phenomenal artist and his legacy rightfully should have been memorialized, I think there is somewhat a glorification in his death that goes hand and hand with the continuous coverage of it. I feel that our youth lives within a realm of confusion between actual reality and cyber reality filled with pretty filters and glossy finishes they can apply. In the last ten years, I have sadly known several people who committed suicide and who remain immortalized in a sense by their last cryptic post or a social media account that remains active well after their death. I feel that this has to be confusing for our youth, as there is no sense of finality for the grieving of those who have departed; therefore making the consequences of a selfish act skewed. It seems with the emergence of social media and media in general, we all have become human time capsules unbeknownst to us.

What's in the Well Water?

In the reading, Veronika Decides to Die, the story about the king and the well caught my attention. I thought the story was a great example of how societies evolve in thinking. “They think they’re normal because they all do the same thing” (Veronika Decides to Die). What an eye opening statement! For example, what was normal 50 years ago? The Beatles, bright colors, Twiggy, and VW Beetle are all common things you might see.

A question that came to mind was, can one person change the poisoned water back to the original or maybe into a different water entirely?

I decided to think of some instances where one person did change the well water.

•          Martin Luther King, Jr.
•          Margaret Sanger
•          Jesus
•          Charles Darwin

These people had an impact on the world. Unfortunately, the problem with this thinking is that all my scenarios assume the population is already drinking “mad water.”

The original sustenance of the well water depends on your own convictions and how you frame the situation. Personally, I believe sometimes the well water becomes polluted, like with Hitler and sometimes the water gets purified like with Martin Luther King. How you personally frame the water is very important to societal evolution.

Additionally, society possesses the power to frame our worldview. The article about Robin William’s suicide is a great example. “Genie, you’re free” communicates to the population that suicide is liberating and acceptable. One day will assisted suicide for all ages be permissible? How does this view of suicide relate to geriatric termination of life support?

Overall, I think time provides an ever changing potion to our water supply. 

What Catches the Public Eye?

News agencies must put into consideration who is the targeted audience upon publishing an article. For example, if the topic is over violence, the agency probably would not put a headline reading, "Happy Fighting!" This would not make sense and could mislead the viewers. Reaching out to a particular audience has much to do with the headline or title, visuals, and most importantly the text. To go more into detail about the text, I would like to state that specific words or phrases can grab the audience inward or very much push away. When I read the article over Robin William's passage, I could not believe that I did not see the "Genie, you're free" post by @TheAcademy. It is very alarming that this brand would try to glamorize the fact that this was a suicide case. Especially using a reference from a Disney Princess classic. I do however, understand that @TheAcademy meant the best intentions but failed to capture the true essence of William's life and passing. The post came off to be insensitive and in a playful manner. Suicide is not a joking subject and many individuals contemplate each day about their life. So for @TheAcademy to display Robin William's successful suicide as a cartoon escaping reality, is disturbing. The overall thought for language and perception is words and visuals can send very strong messages. One must view a story or opinion in all different aspects. Therefore the whole picture should have a long thought process and should always manage the possible outcomes, in a positive or negative light.


via GIPHY

Dialogue and Debate

“How to Win Every Argument” by Eric Barker gives a perspective of what usually happens in an argument. Eventually, your mentality sways to do whatever you can to win an argument and show that you are right. Both parties are at fault and instead of having true dialogue, working toward understanding each other’s viewpoints, the discussion turns more into a messy debate. This reminds me of how Mary Scannell describes the difference between dialogue and debate in The Big Book of Conflict Resolution Games: Quick, Effective Activities to Improve Communication, Trust and Collaboration. She states, “A debate is a discussion with the goal of persuading or advocating for their own view, attempting to prove the other side wrong, and searching for flaws and weaknesses in the other’s positions. In dialogue, the intention is to really listen to one another’s perspective with a willingness to be influenced by what we hear.” So what is your goal, to have dialogue or a debate? Just like the article implies when we have the evidence and our intentions are to solely prove the other person wrong leads to that individual hating you. The goal wasn’t to make a new enemy. All in all, maybe winning an argument isn’t the best outcome after all. As Barker states, “Losing an argument can be a learning experience that benefits you the rest of your life.” 

Why and How?

"The Secret To Winning An Argument Is Ridiculously Simple" by Drake Baer is very interesting. It is a tactic I like to use when in discussion with another. People tend to have this idea that when something sounds right it is, because it makes sense to them in the short term. Yet when asked simple how and why will it work they have to think more critically. By questioning their statement and asking them to explain it will force them to think far more critically than they were. Now they have to lay out everything down to the contradictions and flaws. This is the very reason for arguments, so we can question one another and find issues so we can fix them. 

People need to be questioned, simply because most people can’t see past their own ego. Everyone thinks they are right without even thinking through ideas. If it is even for a good cause a person or group must be questioned. We need to be able to walk through our ideas because if we cannot explain them, how can we expect them to work. I disagree, however, with the how is more important the the why. They are both key components to an argument. If I can’t say why something works, just as how something works, then no real progress is being made.  

Let's Take the Easy Route!

I found the 6 Degrees of Plagiarism . . . to be a very interesting read. The relation to political figures having the audacity to steal another one's work without credit is quite alarming. I, myself at the beginning of my college career, unknowingly plagiarized an assigned essay topic. I know what you are thinking, "how do you unknowingly?" Well upon my visit to the assistant dean's office, I felt like my preparation for college was not set to the proper standard. What I mean by that is that my high school teachers, I feel did not prepare me for citations. Again, I know what you might be thinking, no I was not the student who skipped or slept during lessons. In another instance, I would like to address Shia Labeouf's incident that he had a few years back. Within this incident, or should I say plagiarism scandal, Shia was somewhat of a director and he supposedly had this brilliant idea for his next movie and went to town on creating a script. When everything was laid out for others to view and critique, the reactions were flattering. Well not from one particular individual, someone viewing Labeouf's work felt the urge to think that this work seems all too familiar. And indeed it was, Shia had stolen another author's work and wanted to turn it into a film. The resemblance was scary, and for that Labeouf had plagiarized. His work therefore was to never be looked at the same. His lack of crediting the proper author, left him with nothing and a loss of a huge appraisal group. The point to be made here, is that there is a difference between not knowing, and plain stealing. With integrity and honesty built into someones efforts, the reward will seem that much better. Take a second before clicking the copy and paste option, and think about originality and what the future will hold if you follow through. Everyone should know being original adds way more "cool points" versus being lazy.In relation to the reading over climate change, the "doubters" can be compared to those who plagiarize. These possible candidates for doubting or flat denying climate change would get along well with those who steal other peoples work. The comparison is not blunt, but it is presently vague. For those who do not want to believe that we as humans are burning too much into our everyday world, then I cannot help but to think that they are too lazy to piece together the fact that are so very much visible. If the "non-believer" were to take there time to look at the scientific findings to support climate change, and then take the information into consideration, their opinions may be altered. If this is not the case, then the denial is real and very much like the plagiarizing politician, the facts are not welcomed and the easy route is taken!

We can’t always get what we want... 

Who sang that?...

Now, that song is stuck in my head!….still can’t recall the singer....WAIT!

We discussed pet peeves in class, and it comes down to what WE want. We want others to talk more so we can talk less, chew with their mouths closed, signal in traffic and, for the love of EMAC, "Back out of that parking spot already, so we can make it to class on time!"

We want to utilize technology to the fullest. Write and post the most viewed collection of words and crash the internet......before that deadline. Ideally, we want science to align with our beliefs, because if it doesn’t, then we have to question EVERYTHING. We want shortcuts. 

We want_what we want_when we want it. 

According to statisticbrain.com, the average attention span decreased by 4 seconds in the span of 15 years. We have short attention spans that are getting shorter! 

We want a quick and easy take-away. 

We don’t want to question things. 

We adopt habits from norms without questioning. 

Sometimes ubiquitous habits, just like information, needs to be questioned. Cindy Mays' article discussing the downside to using a laptop in class suggests questioning our habits could actually give us MORE of what we want, what we really, really want.

Most of us, as EMAC majors, know the importance of being critical with written information. However, other people want what they want too. They want to trust the popular retweet, the newspaper journalist, and that brainy man/woman of science. Information can be absorbed, relayed and regurgitated without thought. 

Misinformation soup du jour, on menus all over the world and served 24/7. 

We want what we want, and as EMAC majors we want to deliver what they want before they want it. 

We just have to accept that sometimes, there are no short cuts. 

We must accept this little nugget of wisdom...

                                                                      (...even if it becomes our BIGGEST pet peeve. )