Sharkwater

1)      Was there anything about the Documentary that was biased or omitted? If there was, why do you think things may have been left out? Could Rob Stewart have chosen a better advocate to demonstrate the shark finning side of the argument?

The side Rob Stewart chose to represent the shark finning side of the argument was the mobs and private docks and pirate boats of the waters. Things were left out though to promote the idea that skarks are endangered and something needs to be done. A large portion that was left out against the sharks were the past events and accidents surounding sharks; we heard stories about how they were safe and few absurd ones about people being eaten or killed by sharks. True only 5 people on average die a year by sharks while something like 150 (around that number I believe) die by falling out of bed but there are accidents that happen and not all sharks are as heavenly as the hammer head (The Bull Shark is the first that comes to mind). For the argument Rob Stewart was making, he chose the perfect antagonist for his documentery that really does encourage a rise against the barbarik finners.
As for the advocate of Shark finning, he chose a rather peculiar man who had trouble articulating his thoughts and came across as an idot who didn't know what he was talking about. There were many other choices that could have made his argument more valid.

2)      Describe the ways different people in the Documentary behaved, or the kinds of values and beliefs they displayed. Are there cultural bias in the film.

The main people in the documentary behaved as most green peace groups do, they didn't apove of something and needed to do something to stop it. Rob Stewart was very calm and persuasive to his argument and the greenpeace groups were more stubborn and loud-mouthed with their ideas. Cultural biases were all over the film; the ones for China and Japan the most evident. There was the one man being interviewed about skarks closer to the beginning of the film who didn't know a thing he was talking about and came across as ignorant and amusing. They showed footage of walking down a street in China and seeing all the Shark fins and catalige and also listed the statistic and belief that the Chinese believe a sharks power and strength will be past along if you consume it. This idea has no science behind it and reflects a typical spiritual stereotype of eastern countries.

3)      How much do you agree or disagree with the ways in which they behaved, or the kinds of values and beliefs they displayed? Explain your feelings and point of view.

I agree with how Rob Stewart behaved, finding his motives soley to save the sharks admirable and the values of the Southerners, Chinese, Costa Rican fishing vessels barbarik. Believing killing all the sharks is saving people is based on no fact or evidence, like one of the men said in the film 'it's not like they come up on land'. We invade them and that's something a lot of people are forgetting. The beliefs and words the people said that 'god put the animals there for us to eat' stirrs feelings in me that are completely negative. I don't pretend to understand because I don't, I'm ignorant as far as most religions are concerned belonging to more of a spiritual belief myself then a strick book and politically tainted religion. People need to realize that we are not the top of the food-chain, we don't have the power to control what lives and what dies. Humans love power and have a hard time giving it up but what the documentary is showing is that if we don't, it may be too late to do so in the future.

4)      How did things like music, lighting, editing, testimonials (characters directly addressing the camera) and the various conventions of documentary affect your opinion of what you were viewing?

The music was one of the most powerful things in the documentary. The calm and soothin jaz and classical instrumental pieces, or pieces with a soft vocal over top were placed with footage of the sharks freely swimming under water to show how peaceful they are and how they mind their own. There was more of a dead flat and horror movie like tone when the sharks were being hunted that was also mixed with the soft vocals one might find at a celtic funeral service. As for the testimonials, all were powerful and all were meaningful and professional looking while the ones involving people who didn't support sharks and supported shark finning had a weaker lighting and a less professional flare to them. It made them all look like a joke, which was the point that did get across by the end of the documentary. The parts where it was soley Rob Stewart adressing the camera, like when he was in the hospital, also didn't have a professional look to them and appeared as if they were shot on a flip cam or low budget camera (probably because it was...) made him more real. He wasn't some big star celebrity from Green Peace, he was a kid from Toronto who was a marine biologist and supported something he was working to help. It made him and his cause more real and more relatable.

Conan 'Pushes the Envelope'

Talk show host Conan, is hosting the same-sex marriage of one of their costume designers and his partner on late night television when they film in New York. The opinions on this are various and both on the pro side and con side. Featured on the show recently when Conan made the remark that the media and news stations had picked up on their plans, he said that they all had their own perspective and opinion on it. Following directly after this they played a montauge of various news stations who'd comented on the 'to be' featured show in New York that Conan was 'pushing the evnelope of late night television' in practically the exact same words over and over again.
Asking now why this might have happened, what seems to be the most unanimous conclusion is that in a press release or press article made by Conan or the producers, the same phrase was used and when news writers were creating the review, they 'got lazy and just copied and pasted'. It seems to be the most legitiment conclusion. Same-Sex marriage seems to have blown up lately as such a big deal and I am a supporter of the LGBT comunity however I have yet to understand why it's such a big deal.
source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GME5nq_oSR4

Who killed the electric car?

1.   Describe the ways different people in the Documentary behaved, or the kinds of values and beliefs they displayed.
The different values displayed were those of environmentalists and the co-creators of the EV1s as well as those of a higher power such as the government and the oil and car companies. The way they acted were connected to their views and values; the car and oil companies were against the electric car because if it did blow up into a success, they would loose profit in their companies and the car companies played as pawns seeing the oil companies are their magor supporters. As for the electric car supporters and manufacturers, they challenged the higher power because they believed that the electric car was a better alternative and the hope of a cleaner and better future; however what's good for us doesn't always get to us. It seems greed and self-preservation usually get in the way...

2.  How much do you agree or disagree with the ways in which they behaved, or the kinds of values and beliefs they displayed? Explain your feelings and point of view.
I agree with the environmentalists and suporters of the electric car, because I believe that the future can be brighter, and will be brighter. One day we're going to run out of oil; that is an inevitable fact that most still haven't come to terms with. The race is to see whether we run out of oil first or we destroy our planet with it before we do. I disagree with the companies because they turned down a new alternative because of greed and self-preservation. I disagree with the government for taking a biased side. I do agree with the environmentalists for not giving up and standing up for what they believe in.

3.   Was there anything about the Documentary that was biased or omitted? If there was, why do you think
things may have been left out?
The documentary was biased towards the electric car and all of its benefits to society and the environment. I would have liked to find out a little more about any possible technical flaws and why they weren't advertised on a grand scale. They came across as a mystery and why was a constant question streaming through my head. Obviously these points may have been left out to make the electric car seem supirior in that aspect compared to the other alternatives.

4. How did things like music, lighting, editing, testimonials  (characters directly addressing the camera), statistics and higher powers and the various conventions of documentary affect your opinion of what you were viewing?
Regarding the music, lighting and editing: These were all well done in the sense that they made you understand how grave the matter could come across as to a supporter of the electic car. The funeral styled music evoked a certain mourning that the electric car and sympathy towards those who supported it.
Regarding the testemonials and higher powers: The testimonials did what they alwasy do in documentaries; they made you think. They gave you two sides of one battle and they made you try to choose a side (and with the biased in the documentary and subjective viewpoint, this was rather easy). The higher powers that we met though were three celebrities who had a brief say on the matter (these clips were from interviews, television media sources and testimonials). Tom Hanks, Mel Gibson and Ex-govenor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger were all for the electric car which could and would appeal to those who idolized these actors and their works.
As far as statistics were concerned they brought a sense of urgency to the documentary. We've all heard about these problems with the environment however only few know just how important a new alternative is (we're running out of oil and coal and we're not going to be getting anymore soon)

Spellbound: Humanizing

1. Why does the director of the Documentary Spellbound spend so much time at the beginning of the Documentary introducing the 8 competitors that will be participating in the National Spelling Bee.
For the same reason in the Olympics they play the 'Behind the Athlete' or 'Athlete's Moms' specials. It's to humanize the people who we're supposed to feel something for. It makes a boring subject relatable if not interesting. Most look at spelling and acedemics and immediately change the channel or find something else to do.You get to know their families, their motives and their personalities; choose a favourite and root for them in your mind as you watch the documentary.
2.   Describe the ways different people in the Documentary behaved, or the kinds of values and beliefs they displayed.
Most, as in usual circumstances, showed a must desire to win, they've spent their entire educational career working towards this with either pressure on themselves or pressure on them from their parents (or both) while some, mostly in a rarer situation with Spelling Bees in the US, just have a natural talent for it and want to do it for fun, but also have that motive to win as all should and do. 
3.  How much do you agree or disagree with the ways in which they behaved, or the kinds of values and beliefs they displayed? Explain your feelings and point of view.
I agree with the one mother who said it was a form of child abuse. It's the same with sports too, academics and anything that involves competition in my opinion. In a way for America, this is the 'nerdy pagent show' I've heard that nick name loosely associated with Spelling Bees a number of times.
Coming from a sports perspective, I've seen families in a variety of different views on competition. Some families, lik mine, are oblivious to how the sport works so allt hey can do is cheer me on. Others like one girl I played against last year in a tournament, had parents who pressured her and her teammates and her coach to win so they could put a new trophy on the mantel. The question posed now is, who would you root for? And that's also another reason why the students were introduced at the beginning of the documentary.

4.   Was there anything about the Documentary that was biased or omitted? If there was, why do you think things may have been left out?
I think the last part, when the spelling bee had reached the top 8 and they announced the other boy who'd come 4th the year before was a bit of a surprise, seeing as he wasn'tmentioned once before. I thin it was left out simply to show the suspence of a competition like this and all the twists it can hold.

5. How did things like music, lighting, editing, testimonials  (characters directly addressing the camera) and the various conventions of documentary affect your opinion of what you were viewing?
The music made the atmophere a little more lighter, like the theme of jepordy in a way. The lighting created a sense of realism that came when it was the individual interviews; almost like they were talking into a webcam while the lighting for the participants while on the stage in the National Spelling Bee was more dramatic and intimidating, which showed the viewers just how alone you can be up there.
Over all, they affected my opinion of the viewing by once again making it more real. There wasn't the high tech lighting and editing like in the Hollywood block busters that immediately come across as cinematic but instead Spellbound had a 'homey' charm to it that really grounded the viewer.

Election and the news

1. Do you think someone like Karl Rove who has clear ties to Super Pacs and the republican party should be hired as a journalist for a news agency? 

I do believe everyone has a right to a job and the privilege of having it. I respect that papers and news channels have a biased opinion however I don't believe that they should be the ones broadcasted so close to election day and while the polls are running. I know if you were to volunteer for a Canadian election, the dress code rules are strict. If you wear a colour that represents a party, you're considered to be biased. 

(source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TwuR0jCavk)

2. News is supposed to be presented from an objective unbiased perspective, why was it in Karl Roves best interest to delay the call of Obama's election win?
They didn't believe Ohio was in the 'Romney Camp'. Given all the numbers and statistics, it was a legitimate call that Obama would take the state and the election since there was no way for Romney to catch up. He wanted to delay the call for fear they may come across as biased towards one side.
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TwuR0jCavk)

3. Why would Brian Williams state that Trumps tweet went from irrelevant to "irresponsible"?
A man in that position and that high a 'Celebrity Star" shouldn't be listing opinions as such because the outcome could lead to what it has turned out to be. Rage and fights calling Trump on the 'irresponsible' use of language and power and the others believing he was only voicing an opinion (however they also describe it as irresponsible)

"The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy," fumed the celebrity mogul.
Williams showed some of Trump's tweets on air, saying he had "driven well past the last exit to relevance and veered into something closer to irresponsible."

(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07/donald-trumps-tweets-deleted_n_2088987.html)

Canada favours Obama: In class assignment

1. Chose 3 articles from various papers on the American Election Day. Read the articles and give five reasons why you think Canada would prefer to have Obama as the commander and chief of the United States.

a) Canada's politics and parties falls more on the left specrum of the USA's spectrum

b) He invests more in Canada then the Rebublicans do

c) After Rebublicans commented on rape and 'legitimate rape' the women of Canada, and the men started to voice their objections as well as those in the USA (also the same for women's voting rights)

d)Canadians agree more with what Democrats are doing: 'Obamacare' like the Canadian Health Care plan established by the NDP Party

e)They support and help Canada's economy and aren't impulsive about wars or firearms.

 

2. Do you agree with the sentiment of Abigael the four year old girl who is tired of the focus of America on the election.  

I believe it can be taken various ways, what Abigale is trying to say through her teary actions. It can represent both Obama and Romney however all other viewpoints and interpretations aside, I do agree with the sentiment.

 

links to articles:

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/11/05/obama-landslide-in-canada

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/uselection/article/1283207--u-s-election-ten-things-to-watch-on-election-day

 

link for video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjrthOPLAKM

 

Another post from tumblr and twitter: "It takes more then four years to change a country, you've been in school now for more then four years and you still don't know the different between you're and your!"

-Post about Obama after the hate he got on all his 'false promises'

Landslide for Obama... in Canada

The question posed and answered in trending Canadian media this week is all on the American Election, specifiically why Obama is so popular in Canada and why is it that without a doubt he would win by a landslide.
Canada's far right wing party of the Conservatives are more on the left wing or center to the American lines and platforms. Womens rights are still much respected and counted for and it would be a death sentence to take away voting rights for women or even mention that was an idea. Canada's conservatives, as conservative as they may be to the Liberals and NDP parties of Canada, would in - personal opinion - be closer to the Democrats in the United States. This being said, Canada in all parties along the lines would fall to the Democratic side of the American spectrum which is why most in Canada say they would vote Democrat.
Voters is the next thing to be said about this electiona and all elections. Voting is a right and a privellege seeing as many countires and people are both fighting and dying to hold and obtain the right we first world countries take for granted. The U.S.A and Canada both have some of the lowest voter turn outs compared to the UK and Australia. Personally I didn't know until a few years ago that Australia had a fine for not voting of I believe around $20 USD (research: yes it's $20 and after a 21 day period of not paying the fine you will be fined up to $50 and may need to see the court). The voter turn out in Australia is around 99.9% and I know how seriously they take it having a few friends across the ocean an in different countries from myself. Now imagine if the USA and Canada had a fine for not voting... I'm not too sure how that would be taken by the general public.
It's not just the USA who've been keeping up on this election and voicing opinions. Meanwhile on none other then the Democratic site of tumblr (a blogging site where almost everyone is a democrat or left wing on their spectrum and the most re-blogged post is 'Mitt Romney is an idiot pass it on') others from around the globe are listing posts such as;
'Dear America, if Romney is elected and you voted for Obama, Australia (or any country for that matter who the blogger is originally from) welcomes you with open arms'
It's quite cute really.
Democratic or Rebliblican, the USA has a decision to make and it's voting day today so I agree with those who say they'll wait and see what happens.

Moore's newest election ad

Link: http://www.torontosun.com/2012/10/30/michael-moore-makes-funny-ad-for-obama

Now whether Moore's video helps the Democratic campeign or picks away at it is an opion unique to every voter in the United States. My personal opinion on it is that is speaks to the younger generation with the attitudes and language given and it also speaks to the older generations given the people in the ad (veterans and survivors of World War 2 in a retirement home). It can either help the campeign, voters agreeing with the message and interpreting it to the full extent to support it, or on a lesser side, others can look at it as a joke and completely disregard it or change their loyalty in politicians.
One image that I believe spoke volumes more then this ad by Moore was a simple image of a protest I found on tumblr. It was of a group of young women dressed in the typical suffragettes outfits and holding one big sign protesting the idea of taking away women's voting rights. Now the twist on this and the story behind the image was that there was another older women beside them holding her own sign and wearing almost th exact same clothing they were. This women was alive in World War 2 and was along the first women who were able to vote and were granted that right. She was wearing her own clothing from that time that she'd kept and her sign read;
"I've already needed to protest this once, why amd I doing it again?"
I believe that speaks volumes more then this rather 'joke' of an ad for Obama. I do understand Moore's intentions and that my beliefs and ideas are different then some/most Americans so maybe this ad does work for them. As I said before "Moore's video helps the Democratic campeign or picks away at it is an opion unique to every voter in the United States"