Summary Carlson Gives Evidence Of The Decline In Public Discourse

Sachs explains that TV viewing brings little pleasure and close to being an addiction with little benefit and almost no happiness. This appeals to the readers emotionally since most can identify with some sort of addiction and its fallout. Most Americans have some sort of addiction, whether it is food or television and relate when the author uses this analogy to compare. Sachs goes on to claim that this addiction is leading to the decline in our social development since we spend less time face to face and more time in front of a TV or other media devices. Time that was once spent with family is now in front of a television screen or other media devices. This hold true as much now as it did in 2011 when this essay was written. Just this one statement can draw a reader further in since now almost all of us have a device that fits in our pockets that takes our attention away from other people. We end up looking down at our phones or tablets more than we look at other peoples faces. This, unfortunately, is becoming a sad truth in our society today. We would rather look into a world that is hard to distinguish what is real and what is made up instead of enjoying the real world. Sachs does state that there are other factors contributing to the decline of our social state in America

In every day life, there are people will will constantly judge one. That is something that everybody has to accept, because it will never stop. In the first anecdote, the man does speak up for himself; however, “instantly the doleful eyes of my seatmate turned tiredly from his newspaper to fix me with a resentful state: [thinking to himself] what question could be so important as to justify my sibilant intrusion into his stupor? [Instead,] I mumbled a question” ( Buckley 65). The way that the character pursued his motive depended on his seat mate, rather than speaking up for himself. There is a loss of strength and energy that is lost among the American people.

Following the September 11th terrorist’s attacks, Bill Maher, host of the controversial late night television show Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher, outraged an already shell-shocked America. During the show he attacked our military by saying “We have been the cowards lobbing cruise missiles from 2, 000 miles away. That’s cowardly” (Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher). He continued by essentially expressing respect for the hijackers, saying “Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, [is] not cowardly” (Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher). Not surprisingly, Maher has been publicly ridiculed since making these statements. Two of the show’s sponsors pulled their advertising, and several local affiliates have taken the show off the air. The reaction to Maher’s statements has been swift: apologize, praise America and maybe you’ll get to keep your job.

This is a breakdown of Neil Postman's "Amusing ourselves to death"(1985), which must be written to explain the effects that high volume of emails, text messages, video games, and internet television has on the human race and the way we think. In the first chapter of the book "The Medium is the Metaphor" Postman (1985) begins his argument that he presents through out the book. Postman (1985) explains how knowledge is no longer gained from print, but from visual. This change is dramatic and irreversibly and the two print and visual can not accommodate one another. In chapter 2 Postman (1985) lays out a plan for the book. Postman (1985) rants and raves about how television is evil and has

Not only is the way we view the world being altered, but also the way in which we receive information. Because the internet makes finding the answer to a question so easy, humans are beginning to want everything in an instant. I think the Internet has changed our expectations of comprehending text by reading and analyzing the text, to get it quickly and with giving little to no effort, or as some call it, “brain sweat”. Although it may seem that there is nothing wrong with taking a more efficient way, computers can only do so much. We must be able to recognize social ques and communicate with others. I agree with Carr’s statement that “if we lose those quiet spaces, or fill them up with “content,” we will sacrifice something important not only to ourselves,

Technology can become a necessity, to where we need it to communicate. In “Meet Your iBrain” it says, “As the brain evolves and shifts its focus to new technological skills, it drifts away from fundamental social skills, such as reading facial expressions during conversation or grasping the emotional context of a subtle scripture”. Technology has become a way out of in person communication. Whether it be sending a simple text or creating a false self-image on social media, technology provides as a buffer to reality. It goes in the article to say, “…young people eight to 18 years of age expose their brains to eight and a half hours of digital and video sensory stimulation a day”.

In the reading “How the Mass Media Divide Us’, professor Diana Mutz argues that the mass media, in an effort to increase audience size, actually divides Americans by entertaining them with television “shout shows” that are built on bitter debate, intense disagreement, and irate confrontations. Mutz believes that this causes Americans to embrace more extreme political views. Uncivil discourse increases polarization by helping partisans think even less of their opponents. A study conducted by Mutz concluded that watching civil versions of political exchanges can lead to decreased levels of polarization. In a civil setting, where differences of opinion are conveyed in a manner which supports mutual respect, viewers are able to see differences

Both the article, “Why I just asked my students to put their laptops away” by Clay Shirky, and the article, “The collective conscience of reality television” by Serena Elavia have their differences, but mostly similarities. The article by Clay Shirky talks about how electronics affect students while in school. Many teachers had been letting students use their phones and other electronics during a class but later teachers began to tell their students to put their devices away. The other article from Serena Elavia talks about television and how the producers don’t always show the truth behind the television screen and they are only making the viewers upset. The net Media was described on both of the articles, and how it’s also been affecting us today. Although there are many other differences between the two articles, some similarities include social media, distractions caused, and people’s desire over the topics, both articles agree with the topic.

Case-and-point, Ex-GOP Chairman Randy Pullen wanted people to listen to his arguments on gun control, but nobody wanted to listen to him. So, instead of moving on, Pullen makes a few wildly inappropriate racial comments, and now everybody is listening. Pullen has a captive audience, makes his anti-gun control comments which get heard, printed, and discussed, and he is happy. The only problem is that he made inappropriate racial comments, which is bad enough on its face, but some people never got past the garbage talk to hear what he was saying and his whole message became negative.

Carr discusses the effects that the Internet has on our minds and the way we think, as well as the way media has changed. Our minds no longer focus. When in conversation with people we are constantly distracted by the technological advances our era has brought. Text messages, emails, pop culture drama has all taken

Given this scenario, this paper will be concerned with the following queries: (1) if language was once central to the nation­state as an ideological enterprise (Anderson, 1991; Bourdieu, 1991), how do current postnational debates and articulations of citizenship affect public discourses on LOTE in the United States? (2) Where does the nexus of language and citizenship, which once played an integral role in the processes of imagining and disseminating ideologies about the nation­state, stand today amidst globalization’s decentralizing agency, particularly when we consider what English has meant to the development of the United States' democracy as a pluralist narrative? Theoretical Perspectives: language ideologies, citizenship, and the

America is currently going through a lot right now as a country. With so many opinionated people its necessary that we dive into conversations openly and respect the other person we are speaking with. Since opinions are often very different and personal, it is easy to feel attacked when someone doesn’t agree. The point of the conversation though is not to agree with one another but to share a viewpoint that is different and have thought provoking conversation. Just because we might not stand eye to eye on every little detail does not mean I cannot listen to what you have to say and value your opinion. I find it really frustrating to see people in the media, such as reporters and politicians, refusing to be professionals and set aside their differences to communicate in a calm manner to work together for the common good. Each person has a right to their own opinion and can still use their patience to respect another individual even if the opinions are polar opposites. It has become standard practice to avoid hurting someone’s feelings or offending anyone. As a society, in this situation, we need to toughen up. We don’t have to be offended by every little thing and should learn how to make compromises. Being closed-minded is holding us back as a country.

People very often debate whether technology is good or bad. Many people believe that technology can only cause harm to their lives and society, while many others strongly defend the technologies which have made their lives much more leisurely and enriching than it could have been several hundred years ago. In my opinion, both of these views are correct to an extent, but I also believe that what should be examined is not whether technology in its self is good or bad, but rather how we as humans use it.For decades now, television has been accused of contributing to the dissolution of the American family and the destruction of the minds of those who watch it. However, although the TV has been involved in this, the problem roots not with

In America there are many people who don't practice polite speech, but are still plenty successful, but when I say this it's really about some people in the one percent of America. I remember when Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton were running for president and Hillary would open a debate with “How’s everyone doing”, occasionally switching it up to “Welcome to the debate”. Trump on the other hand would just immediately hop right into the topic, and that drove people just like the anthropologist absolutely crazy. After the election, or the day after they would sit and argue with each other on the news saying stuff like, “He is the first nominee to ever casually talk to America, and at times it seems as if he doesn't care”. At the same time they would sing their praises to Hillary stating how, “As opposed to Trump it seems like she has been here before,” and boisterous things like, “It's become appallingly obvious that we will have our first female president”. Sounds like Hillary was gonna win the election doesn't it. Not so fast. The election of Trump demonstrates that polite speech has already lost much of its face value, because if someone like Trump can get elected, to the most power position in the world, all without using it, what is it really for.

Certain media theorists such as Sherry Turkle do an incredible job on studying these properties of technology and their bearing on us, but sometimes seem to dwell on the negative side of the analysis. In short some of these media theorists do astonishing work studying the impact socially that using and communicating through modern technology has, but then takes a negative stance due to their archaic understanding of what is capable with these technologies. We have come so far in the past years in advancing humanity and its natural predicaments while being heavily reliant on technology to communicate. Not noting that advancement is pessimistic and