Is The Professor's Proofessional Integrity?

In American society, television can save lives instead of destroying them. Tim Leberecht, a well-reputed blogger and columnist,

I examined the document Does TV Help Make Americans Passive and Accepting of Authority? Throughout the essay the author was arguing that by watching television we as a society are becoming more isolated and passive. The purpose of my analysis is to convey how effective I feel the author did in stating and persuading the audience on this subject. While analyzing this argument the author uses several writing techniques that I feel are very effective in persuading the audience.

Television has brought our nation closer together than before and that more people of the American Society can also be a part of the political movement. Also in Source A, “Not even the sky’s the limit” according

Postman made it clear that his book is not an attack on the television itself. Instead he asserted that, supplied by the television's form, it is the change in the definition of how we learn, and thus perceive, the world around us that is under his criticism. When it comes to entertainment, Postman admitted that the television does an excellent job. "Television [...] serves us most usefully when presenting junk-entertainment; it serves us most ill when it co-opts serious modes of discourse-news, politics, science, education, commerce, religion-and turns them into entertainment packages" (159). The television does not require viewers to carry thoughts from minute to minute, and their eyes are never unstimulated, as the average duration of a camera view is a mere 3.5 seconds (86). Such brevity of thought and picture are a drastic difference from the way we used to get our information. That is, through the monopoly of the print media. Then contiguous information, uninterrupted by advertisements and thoughts not spliced into sentence-long segments, was expressed from cover to cover. Now, the kind of information (or misinformation) we are accustomed to receiving via the television set is redefining the way we receive and perceive information. It is not

On a research paper, how much information can you “borrow” with or without citing the original author?  How do you cite the resources you “borrowed” or quoted from the original author?  Will anyone know if you submit a friend’s research paper?  No one can see you taking an online test from your living room – should that change how you take a test?

Rather instead we are actually left with the author’s notion television is not yet a fully utilized tool. Through the use of these rhetorical strategies the author has created a convincing argument against a widely held belief of the general public, effectively evoking critical thought unto the public and possibly even changing the view in whole. Even though these strategies alone do not make an argument, when used in order to support one you canget a very effective persuasive, even informative, piece like the one presented

He contends that all television is educational, but that it educates its viewers in the ideology of television. When children learn from a television, they learn only what

Television, more so than any other form of communication, has been the ultimate tool of the propaganda effort. It is the trustworthiest

Have you ever thought that something was better than another? In the story “Nobel Speech” it has two versions, the text and the media. Though, It is clearly demonstrated that the media is better for many reasons. For example, the text describes everything through words, while the media gives more description because it shows everything. First and foremost, the media has more description.

In an effort to expose the epistemology of television, which Postman believes has not been effectively addressed, he examines the effects of TV on several important American cultural institutions: news, religion, politics and education.  All four institutions, Postman argues, have realized that they have to go on television in order to be noticed which, in turn, requires them to learn the language of TV if they are to reach the people.  Therefore, they have joined the national conversation not on their own terms, but on TV's terms.  Postman contends that this transformation of our major institutions has trivialized what is most important about them and turned our culture into "one vast arena for show business" (80).  In the case of broadcast news, we see visually stimulating, disconnected stories about murder and mayhem along with a healthy dose of infotainment delivered by friendly and likeable anchors that remind us to "tune in tomorrow".  In the case of politics, we have discourse through distorted paid TV commercials and "debates" in which the appearance of having said something important is

     But, for most part, author feel television is 'drug'; that is corrupting today's society. Many of us fail to recognize how it has caused the decline of family rituals, the avoidance of relationships and the destruction of the family. Our addiction to this daily habit cause us to escape the real world.

“What is television? What kinds of conversations does it permit? What are intellectual tendencies it encourages? What sort of culture does it produce?” (84) are a few of the questions Postman tries to address throughout the remainder of the book. He wants us to think of television as a medium rather than technology. Postman points out that we do not use television as a communication device, but as an entertainment device. The message of the material has been lost and the entrainment value has become what’s important. Because television is about visuals, it must be rapidly stimulating compared to a book where rational thought is being strategically laid

First, the reading claims that professors benefit by appearing on television as it improves their reputation. The professor rejects like claim stating that infact this has the potential to negatively impact the professor. Any professor who does tv programmes subsequently will be viewed as a entertainer, and not an educator. Further, he/she might not be invited to important conferences or events

Prior to completing the Academic Integrity Program, I thought academic integrity was as simple “not cheating.” I considered it a policy solely implemented to ensure that students learned the material. To me, cheating was mostly plagiarism, or trying to pass off someone else’s work as your own. It was not until I completed the program that I began to understand the long-term effects of cheating on the peers, the professor, and the institution. Now, I understand that cheating affects not just me, but also the other students in my courses and the university’s reputation. I also understand the reasoning behind the university’s strict policies regarding academic integrity violations, as they are in place to protect the student, the classmates,

Ethics are the principals that build an individual’s character and integrity. It is the code of conduct that a person lives by; it is the way that a person conducts themselves when no one is around. Stealing, lying, and cheating are wrong, yet every day in the workplace these issues occur. Growing competition lends to the need for people to do what they can to get ahead and stay ahead. Ethics are pushed to the side as people try to gain power or to stay out of trouble, all at the risk of tarnishing their character. This same mindset has spilled over into Academia. A student’s desire to successfully earn a degree by any means necessary has caused educational institutions to address these ethical issues by setting policies in place to combat academic dishonesty.