The article that inspired my post today is one from the most recent issue of National Geographic, the one they call their “Race Issue.” This issue of National Geographic is all about race relations in the United States. One of the articles caught my attention for its direct address of National Geographic itself and for its being written by the current editor-in-chief of the magazine, Susan Goldberg, herself. Titled “For Decades, Our Coverage Was Racist. To Rise Above Our Past, We Must Acknowledge It,” the article focuses on incidences in which National Geographic journalists have depicted people of different races negatively throughout their extensive history. Goldberg wrote the following regarding her philosophy about National Geographic‘s duty:

“How we present race matters. I hear from readers that National Geographic provided their first look at the world. Our explorers, scientists, photographers, and writers have taken people to places they’d never even imagined; it’s a tradition that still drives our coverage and of which we’re rightly proud. And it means we have a duty, in every story, to present accurate and authentic depictions—a duty heightened when we cover fraught issues such as race.”

The questions that came to mind after reading Goldberg’s article are what follows: What is the media’s responsibility and how is this similar or different from what people expect from it?

The answer to this question is likely to vary from person to person. In my view, the media should focus first and foremost on accuracy of any portrayal. Lack of credibility would render the media next to useless because the news that it reports would not be trustworthy to its readers. Second, journalists should focus on presenting all aspects of issues that are relevant to their intended audience with as little bias as possible. What constitutes “issues that are relevant to their intended audience” will vary from news outlet to news outlet. Furthermore, it is impossible to report on something without any bias; even the selection of what topics to cover conveys some degree of bias in itself. That is why the media needs to be intentional with its diction and choice of topics to cover.

However, some will argue that media outlets have the responsibility of reporting not only without bias, but also with deliberate intention to disprove stereotypes. National Geographic had a professor specializing in the histories of photography and Africa analyze its archives. The professor said that old National Geographic issues reflected prevalent views of the time period and “did little to push its readers beyond the stereotypes ingrained in white American culture.”

Depending on what one believes the media’s responsibility to be, one’s perception of how well a media outlet is doing its job will vary. The thing is, with the rise of special interest news outlets, it is easier than ever for people to find niche news sources that feed their existing viewpoints without offering different perspectives. In my perspective, special interest news outlets that promote one political view or another are not legitimate journalistic operations because of their deliberate bias.

The Trans Youth Equality Foundation is an organization that “advocates for transgender, gender non-conforming, and intersex youth ages 2–18.” It accepts donations from the general public to sponsor its various initiatives and also accepts more specific donations for transgender or non-gender conforming children to attend one of the organization’s camps. I will analyze the website’s logical appeals as well as its use of pathos.

One of the main issues with the website’s logical appeals is its lack of them. The website does not give logical appeals about why transgender children are particularly deserving of the audience’s donations, or why the audience should be concerned about the cause. Perhaps this may be because the website’s creators assumed that its intended audience was already familiar with why transgender children need extra support. They may have assumed that it is clear to everyone that transgender children have unique struggles that are not sufficiently supported in existing programs. However, this is perhaps the biggest issue with the website: it makes assumptions about prevalence and worthiness of its cause without explaining to its audience these assumptions. As a result, the potential donor pool is condensed to people who visit the website already informed of and agreeing with the organization’s cause.

On the flip side, the absence of logical appeals may be intentional. It may be a deliberate refusal to acknowledge the fact that their social cause is controversial and more of a question of value rather than fact. It may be that the organization purposefully chose not to include logical appeals in order to support the legitimacy of their cause. Justification and explanation may make the organization seem like it is not confident in its legitimacy, which is one of the main issues that the transgender movement wants to avoid. If intentional, the lack of logical appeal may be a form of appeal in itself in that it boosts the legitimacy of the organization’s cause by supporting the stance that the basis of the worthiness of their cause is common knowledge that isn’t disputed.

The main appeal that the website relies on is pathos. It features multiple inspirational quotes that support being different from others. Images of transgender children together and happy fill the pages of the website. On the donation page, the following image is located right above the donation information box:

The purported appeal here is that the donors’ contributions have made transgender children feel like they are included and comfortable. However, this particular example of attempted pathos is not very effective: by choosing quotes including phrases like “I can comfortably be myself” and “I have met so many people who are just like me” the organization is indirectly magnifying the differences between transgender children and other children, which doesn’t help to make the largely non-transgender audience relate or feel sympathy for transgender children like it may have been intended to. In fact, this example may have exacerbated the distance between people who call themselves transgender and people who don’t.

There are aspects of the high school public education system in the United States that are not serving their purposes and need to be amended/reformed.

 

As a recent high school graduate, I am quite familiar with the ins and outs of the standard public school education system that is implemented in many high schools across the United States. From my experiences and observations, I have concluded that there are aspects of this education system that are ineffective or even counterproductive. I believe that the importance of education lends itself to the necessity for reform in the education system and that this reform needs to happen soon.

As a student myself, I see areas that my peers and I struggle with that we have no control over but which negatively impact our educations. Some of these aspects include AP classes and the very early time at which school begins for many high school students. For example, I’ve noticed that AP classes, which are intended to give high school students a chance to earn college credit and deepen their knowledge of a subject, tend to become mad rushes to cram an unreasonably large amount of curriculum into a single year. This observation has been seen in many other schools with AP classes as well, according to a New York Times article by Christopher Drew. AP class teachers of all subjects have commented on the extensive checklist of material that needs to be covered in class and have struggled to fit all the content in before the AP tests with time to review, meaning that content needs to be finished in April for the tests in early May. There are also concerns that the AP classes do not reflect the actual level of college courses and that there are fewer and fewer schools that give credit for AP classes (Tierney).

It is important to be looking at how to improve the public education system in America because of the changes that have been occurring in the way that students learn and get information. Making sure that school is a safe, educational place for students rather than a breeding ground for stress is of utmost concern as more and more adolescents are diagnosed with mental illness. According to a report by the Center for Disease Control, “school connectedness” was found to be an important factor in decreasing the amount of substance use, school absenteeism, early sexual initiation, violence, and risk of unintentional injury (Blum, McNeely, Rinehart). In observing some of my peers, I’ve seen how disengagement with school activities can lead to a path involving many of the factors listed above. Also, because my own experiences in high school led to white hairs and eye bags, I want to look at ways of lessening unproductive stress for other students.

 

Works Cited

Blum, R.W., McNeely, C.A., Rinehart, P.M., (2002). Improving the odds: The
untapped power of schools to improve the health of teens, Center for
Adolescent Health and Development, University of Minnesota, 200 Oak St. SE,
Suite 260, Minneapolis, MN.

Drew, Christopher. “Rethinking Advanced Placement.” The New York Times, 7 Jan.
2011, www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/education/edlife/
09ap-t.html?pagewanted=all.

Tierney, John. “AP Classes Are a Scam.” The Atlantic, 13 Oct. 2012,
www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/10/ap-classes-are-a-scam/263456/.

I attended the Wednesday, February 28th deliberation at the Fraser Street Commons titled “The Price Is Right: What Is the True Cost of Higher Education?”. It was interesting to compare that night’s discussion to my own deliberation, which was about mitigating the effects of rioting on the State College community.

The student facilitators were generally professional. Some did a better job facilitating the conversation than others, bringing up food for thought in response to audience members’ comments. However, I felt that the overview team did not do a great job introducing the premise of the deliberation. There was no introduction to who the students themselves were, why a deliberation was being held, and no mention of Deliberation Nation as a project. It may have been that the host students assumed that everyone in attendance was either invited or an RCL student, but at the end a few people asked what the deliberation was being held for and the students then explained that it was for a class project. There were also no personal stakes shared or recording done at all.

There was a much wider variety of attendees at the tuition deliberation compared to the deliberation I hosted. Attendees included students, the Vice President of Undergraduate Education, Penn State financial consultants, and other community members. Nearly everyone participated in the conversation, most people participating multiple times, and there were about 30 people total.

As for the content of the deliberation, I found the proposed approaches to be very interesting possibilities for reducing financial burden on students. The first approach was to make public universities free to attend. While this action would keep financial reasons from preventing students from attending college, there was discussion about whether taxpayers would be willing to pay more for other people’s educations. Furthermore, making public universities free could possibly only push back the problem of paying to graduate college, which would become much more competitive and more commonplace as well.

The second approach was to adopt differential tuition, or paying tuition based on major. Majors that require more expensive materials or have a higher average salary would cost more. I brought up that Penn State’s tuition is actually differential, as I had done research on the specifics of Penn State tuition for a Daily Collegian article recently. However, the facilitator denied this, showing to me that she was not well-versed in the material and that she was either misinformed or willing to deny a claim without any basis, neither of which would help her credibility.

The third approach was to modify scholarship distributions so that financial aid would be offered to more students or so that merit-based scholarships would prioritize students who need the money more. I thought that this last approach was a less developed than the other two approaches, possibly because it is a less realistic approach, or because the group was running low on time.

Overall, I think the tuition deliberation went well and facilitated good conversation about a relevant issue, but could have had better organization on the part of the host students.

While a majority of high school students may see the institution at which they spend their mornings and afternoons on weekdays more as a monotonous chore than anything else, I think they would benefit from looking at high school more as a grounds to learn and grow. Historically, this has been the purpose of high school: to act as a place for students to learn the basic knowledge needed in everyday life and to develop various life skills like communication and teamwork.

Since the publishing of this New York Times article in 1928 about high schools’ responsibility to inculcate pupils with a sense of civic duty, much has changed in terms of American policy, values, and popular culture. However, I think that the fundamental purpose of high school has not.

The author of the article emphasizes the duty of teachers to educate students to be aware of American politics and values and how important it is for these future decision-makers to know the “spirit of the Constitution” rather than only its letters. He also highlighted how important it was for students to be participating in extracurricular activities in which they worked together, which he said would habituate students to things like self-restraint and teach them about American ideals.

While today’s high schools have evolved in function slightly, they are still crucial for teaching students how to function in society. Modern day high schools may not be as traditional or nationalistic, but the basic ideal of teaching students how to be responsible citizens is still present. However, teachers nowadays are arguably less concerned with making sure that their students are model citizens and more concerned with their students’ personal well-being. This change in attitude reflects a general shift toward focus on the self over everything else that I believe has become more and more prevalent since that time.

I do believe that educational institutions, especially high schools, are responsible for teaching students about civic duty. At home, parents may not prioritize this aspect of citizenship or simply don’t have time to address it. However, it is crucial to the maintenance of a cohesive society. That is why high school is a perfect medium for teaching students in a standard way the basics of why being an active, thoughtful citizen matters, especially in today’s world, where thoughtfulness and duty seem less significant than ever.

This responsibility of high schools can manifest in many ways. Perhaps mandating a course on American government/policy would better allow students to understand their role as citizens of a democracy. Monthly seminars that provoke students to think about current issues could also be conducive to instilling a sense of civic duty.

In recent years, there has been an increasing emphasis on diversity in cast members of T.V. shows and of people in the media. More specifically, there has been an emphasis on including cast members of certain groups that were previously not as widely seen such as people of non-White Caucasian race/ethnicity, people of more robust body shapes, and people with physical disabilities.

A idea that has been gaining popularity in recent years is that television show casts should propagate ideals of inclusion and equality by hiring diverse casts. This notion is taken one step further with the idea that casts of mostly White-Caucasian males are somehow inherently racist because of their lack of diversity.

These ideas are built on the assumed value that television show programmers are responsible for displaying politically correct ideals in their selection of characters and show content.

I disagree with this notion. Television programmers are not responsible for displaying diversity casts for two main reasons:

1. It trivializes the ideals behind diversity
2. It limits the creativity of producers, and thus the integrity of television

To me, casts should be selected based on suitability of an actor/actress for the role and his/her ability to execute the role well. No actor/actress should not be considered for a role solely based on physical traits.

Deliberately diversifying a cast often happens in today’s world for fiscal reasons: according to an article by USA Today, for many television executives the reason for cast diversification is commonly because diverse casts gain more viewers, and thus makes them more money. In a quote from the article, one producer says it this way:

“People have begun to recognize how much money they can make by targeting underserved audiences,” says Courtney A. Kemp, the creator and executive producer of Power, a popular Starz series about a black nightclub owner. “The color that’s relevant here is green.  It’s not about any kind of altruism, or a sea change in how people are feeling about diversity.”

Furthermore, deliberately diversified casts often reinforce pre-existing stereotypes and detracts from the merits of the actors/actresses cast for the sake of diversity, while also giving some undue credit for nothing but happenstance.

Television show producers are pressured to portray the characters played by diverse characters in a way that either a) deliberately is non-stereotypical as to send a message about how stereotypes are not true or b) displays that character in a positive light. Either way, the writer is manipulating the show for the sake of an outside factor which mitigates authenticity of the content and undermines the legitimacy of the production.

An article on MTV news praises diversification in television shows for “telling stories we haven’t or have only rarely seen before.” Choosing to focus on unheard stories is in itself a type of bias: who’s to say what kind of “uncommon” story is more worth telling? A television show producer’s job is to create a show, not to promulgate politically correct ideas–the latter is the job of activists. If creating a successful show means catering to politically correct ideas, that’s fine and dandy. But it was never their responsibility to influence viewers’ mindsets in any way besides what they themselves intended.

Prompts:

Should television show programmers value artistic freedom over economic success?

Can television shows with diversified casts truly establish less biased views of a certain group of people?

Allkpop.com is a news site dedicated to all things related to Korean pop music, or K-Pop, and I’ll admit that it is a guilty pleasure of mine to surf that website whenever I have a minute or two of down time. I call it a “guilty pleasure” because it can barely be considered a news source with the kind of unprofessional reporting that make up most articles. The writing oftentimes doesn’t even make sense and lacks professional standards or editing, and the bias is thick (think DailyMail). But it gets me my K-Pop news and does so quickly, and it covers interesting topics compared to other K-Pop news sources.

One feature Allkpop is rather known for are its lively comment sections, which tend to be filled with rabid fangirls and random Internet trolls, but which can occasionally hold some interesting discussion about controversies in K-Pop news.

An example of one of these comment sections can be found here. This is the comment section of an article about boy group BTS and their view toward a common explanation of their success, which has continuously grown since their debut in 2013, but recently exploded exponentially. Because BTS’s level of success is unprecedented in K-Pop, many have tried to pinpoint exactly what the key was to their international stardom.

The comment section of the article is full of readers debating the true reason for BTS’s success and whether their rise was due mostly to social media or whether it only played a small part. There are many debates that quickly devolved into petty personal attacks and name-calling, but here’s an example of a discussion with substance:

I think this particular exchange comes pretty close to deliberation. One commenter relayed his or her viewpoints, and another read them and took the time to come up with a response to the first person to enhance the other’s argument while sharing new thoughts, resulting in a civil discussion about BTS’s merits and success without either side seeking to “win” the conversation or bring the other side down.

Furthermore, it enhanced my own perspective on the subject by causing me to think about it from new viewpoints that they brought up. Both sides clearly showed a degree of respect for the other’s views while also bringing up points of contention. Their arguments were based mostly on personal experience and observation, however, so both sides’ arguments could have been enhanced with some solid evidence as support (in fact, Rose_Blue’s second comment says that girl groups are more popular than boy groups in Korea, which is blatantly incorrect based on overall sales in all aspects).

This exchange goes to show that even in a largely spiteful comment section such as the one under this Allkpop article, there are still pockets of interesting ideas and almost-deliberation from which readers can glean new understandings and a broadened view of the subject.

William Clifford’s essay “Ethics of Belief” is a piece of writing I wish everyone could read and understand. I wish this because its content is precisely what I think so many people, especially my contemporaries, either fail to practice or think of at all, but is basic to our functioning in a society. I believe there is a growing amount of people with “credulous character,” who subscribe to an unsound method of belief formation that brings down the character of humanity as a whole with each insufficiently evidenced belief. (By my own observations, the increase in “credulous” mindsets is largely due to the increase in availability of a vast wealth of information thanks to the prevalence of the Internet.)

While I don’t think Clifford’s intention was to persuade, his essay helped me understand why I feel off when certain logical inconsistencies in belief formation are brought to my attention, which in itself persuaded me of Clifford’s credibility and depth of thought. Clifford’s clear analysis of the basis of belief formation, inference, and the dangers of improper belief formation gave form to thoughts that I had had, but was unable to describe well, and also brought to my attention novel thoughts that I had not considered before.

I agree with Clifford that we are morally obligated to support our beliefs with evidence, that insufficiently corroborated beliefs are detrimental to human society as a whole. However, I think that using the argument that “people should care about forming beliefs legitimately for the sake of the betterment of society” or conversely, “people should care about forming beliefs legitimately because unsound belief formation is immoral” is one that is too idealistic, too high an aspiration for many modern day people.

Rhetorically speaking, why should anyone care about the betterment of society anyway, especially when unsound belief formation can lead to his or her own benefit? Maybe in Clifford’s time, a day and age when perhaps more emphasis was placed on righteous character than now, encouraging people to make sound beliefs for the sake of society was a more plausible notion.

Evidence is essential in the formation of a belief. The role of evidence is to validate beliefs and give credibility to the belief’s holder. Imagine a world in which credibility is nonexistent–people would be forced to be suspicious of one another, not knowing what’s true and what’s false. Society would be unable to exist because man would be turned against one another, each looking out only for their own interest. In such a world, one without cooperation, humans would, in Clifford’s words, return to “savagery.” This is why it is immoral to form beliefs without sufficient evidence: a belief formed on no basis but a whim is detrimental to the character of society, and so is immoral by definition.

I remember the first time I learned about the existence of an emoji keyboard. After I got my first handheld smart-device, the iPod Touch, in 2013 and first began texting, I realized that emojis could be used to liven up a boring text and also add some depth and nuances to my words.

Since then, emojis have become more and more commonplace in digital communication, a trend reflected by the large increase in the number, variety, and quality of Apple’s emojis over the years. Emojis gave texts a new dimension: graphics. In a world where texting is quickly becoming the preferred and convenient form of communication, emojis allow users to quickly express a feeling or idea that would take much longer to express in words, which could be interpreted differently by different people.

What I came to notice, however, was that certain emojis were not used the same way by me and my peers, American teenagers, as how they were intended to by their adult Japanese creators. For example, the smiling emoji with its tongue sticking out meant a teasing or playful expression to us but was originally intended to be an expression of hunger. This observation of the disparity of emoji meaning across different cultures led me to think about whether emojis were truly conducive to nuanced expression.

The thing is, no matter how many emojis are created, there will never be enough emojis to encompass the entire spectrum of human emotion. We make do with the emojis we have, oftentimes using an emoji that doesn’t quite represent what we’re feeling but is the closest compared to the others. In this way, emojis may be limiting expression in digital communication: we oversimplify what we are feeling and limit ourselves to expressing only the emotions that the emoji keyboard has options for.

On the flip side, emojis encompass the main range of emotions that people feel on a regular basis. It can be argued that more complicated emotions should be typed out in detail or just conveyed in person anyway. Emojis weren’t meant to represent complicated emotions in the first place — they are just a convenient way to express an emotion without having to go through the trouble of looking for the right words. A graphic is so much more telling and faster to pull up as well. In that way, they do their job, and they do it well. It may be our own fault for trying to use overextend the use of emojis in digital communication.

So have emojis given digital communication depth or hindered self-expression? Overall, I think that while emojis are limiting in some ways, in general people overuse them and stretch their purpose. Used within their intended range, emojis can enhance digital communication in a world where texting is more and more common.

Digital storyteller Roman Mars presented a TED Talk titled “Why City Flags May Be the Worst-Designed Thing You’ve Never Noticed” in 2015.

The topic of flag design, also known as vexillology, may seem like a niche or irrelevant topic to some, but Mars’ TED Talk makes a strong case that vexillology is in fact a great starting point for understanding the principles of design and developing appreciation for design in all aspects of life. I left with a new understanding of design and its importance in everyday life: how to goal of design is to make life better and bring joy, and how paying attention to design can allow us to appreciate the “bits of genius” in the world that nameless designers have created for our lives to be a little better. I also learned the five main principles of flag design, and how they can be used to understand the design of almost anything: 1) keep it simple, 2) use meaningful symbolism 3) use two to three basic colors, 4) no lettering or seals, and 5) be distinctive (or be related).

Beyond the ideas presented, the style and clarity of Mars’ speech effectively achieved his purpose of informing his audience of what design is all about as well as bringing our attention to what constitutes good and bad design.

Mars’ style was conversational: he incorporated personal anecdotes and questions the audience might have to get the audience to relate on a personal level. He also incorporated humor into the talk, though not in a gaudy way like through jokes or slapstick humor, but more of a subtle wittiness that enhanced the talk and held his audience’s attention. Despite being conversational, Mars remained professional and was clearly well-informed about the topic of vexillology, citing sources of his information in the talk and other expert vexillologists.

One thing I will mention about his presentation style was that in the beginning Mars explained that he would essentially deconstruct an episode from his radio show, playing bits and portions from it by pressing a button. Because he chose this format of presentation, he had to sit at a table that held a lot of technology related to radioing, which may have taken away from the level of engagement the live audience felt during his presentation. Also, he included some random sounds and music from his radio show, which I felt detracted from his delivery because they did not seem to have much purpose and were at times distracting, though I think if I watched his talk again but looked at it as if he were reenacting a radio show the sounds would have made more sense.

Rather than show the difference between a speech and a presentation, Mars’ talk showed how the two could be melded into an ambiguous form of both. While he spoke for the majority of the time, he often played recordings of others speaking and his talk relied heavily on visual aids, which would lead me to label it more as a presentation than a traditional speech.