An Idea for the Media Presentation

So I have been thinking a lot about exactly what I'd be interested in for this media presentation. I was trying to do something that fit my personality and who I am, and I think that I have come across an idea that may work: the presentation of Christianity in media.

Namely, I guess I will be looking at common practices of Christianity on television (yes, those horrid tvangelists) and in the news (such as the comment by that priest about Haiti). I think it will be interesting to compare what I believe with how the media presents what "Christians should believe." Maybe I can even dispell some preconceptions of Christians and stereotypes that have been cast upon the religion. I'm excited!! What are your thoughts??

As for the reading we were assigned for Tuesday, I have only a few points to make:

1) Tannen has presented the court and legal system as yet another example of America's "argument culture" and the two-sided scheme we seem to follow in everything. I agree that there is hardly anything in court cases besides the two sides hammering out their own views and distorting others'. The premise of the court system has always been justice. "Do not twist justice in legal matters by favoring the poor or being partial to the rich and powerful. Always judge people fairly" (Leviticus 19:15). I will make the claim that the corruption in our courts (and the hatred of lawyers) has resulted from our greed and obsession with money. It's as simple as that.
2) Our new book, Amusing Ourselves to Death, actually kind of angered me, as much truth as it presented. A key quote I found was on page 11, "A person who reads a book or who watches television or who glances at his watch is not usually interested in how his mind is organized and controlled by these events, still less in what idea of the world is suggested by a book, television, or a watch." I have found that this is true, but for me, this is the reason why I hate media. People do not think about how it affects them, or assume that it just affects everyone else. What do you think is the reason for this ignorance?

State of the Union Address

So I just finished watching the State of the Union Address. I had just finished reading part of The Argument Culture, so I was already in that mindset.
Obama said a fair amount about how the Democrats and Republicans need to work together, and how we need to be united. I thought this was a good strategy, because of the recent election. He needs to get at least one Republican vote from the Senate, so by saying that rejecting an idea completely just because it came from the other party was a terrible idea was a smart move. We read about that in the first chapter of the Argument Culture. While saying that we needed to be more united, he also pointed out some of the things the Republicans did wrong. "Lets try using common sense."
Obama also made his speech into a competition when talking about America's global situation. He repeated several times that the United States would not be number two, that we would settle for nothing less than being the best in the global market.
So, do you think his speech was convincing to pass all the bills he wanted? What do you think will happen?

Posted by Elizabeth Bush

"Argument Culture": Personalities

There were a few intriguing and though-provoking lines throughout the chapter we read for today out of "Argument Culture," but I want to focus on this paragraph in particular:

"We all tend to think of ourselves as reacting to others and others' behavior as absolute. If we hear ourselves snapping at someone, we focus on what we were reacting to. We think of ourselves as nice people who were provoked. But if someone else snaps at us, we rarely wonder what we said to provoke this response. Instead, we judge the other person's personality: He is rude, she is temperamental. The same thing happens when public figures are criticized for behavior that is a reaction to provocative questions put to them. This would be less unjust if the provoked reactions really did reveal their 'true selves.' But as often as not, they simply reveal the frustration of being caught in the web of the culture of critique" (Tannen, 67).

This is so significant to me because I have seen it so many times. Our perceptions of ourselves as logical, having thought our responses out thoroughly, are completely twisted. There is no way that a person could logically think of a quick response to a provocative question -- there's too much at stake. Especially when it comes to my faith, provocative questions illicit time and thought, they need to be supported by the Bible and such. But since sometimes it takes longer than others to come up with a response, any answer that is given is taken to be false or is criticized as being "the easy way out." I can't explain how many times that has happened to me.

Judging others based upon their fast responses to such questions as "illogical" or "argumentative" is like saying that a sweet dog is vicious because he barked when the doorbell rang. It's ridiculous, and I think that answers given to provocative questions need to be taken with a grain of salt. There's no way that the "truth" actually comes out; what comes out is our defense mechanisms that we've had to create and build simply to protect ourselves against stupid questions that threaten our reputations. What is said in an argument is often the result of being fired-up and angry, not because a person truly believes that his or her spouse is really a(n) [insert name here].

What do you think?

By: Melanie Pawlikowski