During my childhood, what I mean is until I learn to read, my relationship with media was only with the television. I had watched cartoon as every children, just for fun. Actually I had watched documentaries about nature or history. I think my affinity of history has started with these documentaries and it can be considered as the first positive effect of media on me.
When I learn to read, I met the historical and the political books which will make me a different person. I read different books, learnt different ideas, and I had a chance to compare what I read and expand my point of view. With these books, I learnt reading by questioning. This ability helped me while I read the essays from newspapers.
I try to get information from every kind of media today, I watch news on the television, I read books and newspapers and I follow the news from the internet. I try to learn everything whether they are true or not. Because at last, I want to decide which news are correct. The relationship between me and media cannot be considered like a relationship between a producer and a consumer. I read all the news from it but I don’t believe all of it.
11 Ocak 2009 Pazar
Media: As Spreaders of Ideas
In an ideal media system, we expect that components of the media give public only what happened, as news. However, we see that today’s specific part of media components represent some kind of ideas, instead just showing news. Since big media companies are owned by some wealthy men or directly founded by them, consequently, we see these media companies as a reflection of their owners’ ideas. For example, a businessman called Cem UZAN was an owner of a TV channel and a newspaper, Star. Before the elections, we saw his ideas’ propaganda from his media foundations. His pictures were in his newspaper; his speeches were between advertisements like a big brand’s advertisements. Even in an ordinary TV show, his ideas were passing through from the bottom of the screen as subtitles. Of course we know that these kinds of media have no trustworthiness at all and I think it is ethically wrong too as well as inaccuracy of the media.
In my opinion, in a country that has a media as spreaders of ideas, we cannot talk about a media 100% reliable. However, I think there are some ways that can help us to find longer paths which can take us to the truth. If there are different sides in media in terms of ideas, we can compare their ideas’ specific points and we can reach an opinion. In this kind of comparisons we decide that one of the ideas which on the media, is more likely than the others and we can have an opinion. On the other hand, I think there some media components that have more reliability than the others. For instance, TV channels may be more reliable than newspapers. Because we can see some outhers’ essay and ideas in newspapers, but in a TV channel, they must be more careful when they are trying to give some kinds of ideas since they are being watched by censorship committee of the government.
Finally, I think our media is not reliable but we can use some methods in order to see the truth.
In my opinion, in a country that has a media as spreaders of ideas, we cannot talk about a media 100% reliable. However, I think there are some ways that can help us to find longer paths which can take us to the truth. If there are different sides in media in terms of ideas, we can compare their ideas’ specific points and we can reach an opinion. In this kind of comparisons we decide that one of the ideas which on the media, is more likely than the others and we can have an opinion. On the other hand, I think there some media components that have more reliability than the others. For instance, TV channels may be more reliable than newspapers. Because we can see some outhers’ essay and ideas in newspapers, but in a TV channel, they must be more careful when they are trying to give some kinds of ideas since they are being watched by censorship committee of the government.
Finally, I think our media is not reliable but we can use some methods in order to see the truth.
21 Kasım 2008 Cuma
Cinderella Man
I recently watched that film called Cinderella Man. It is quite an amazing film which is about a second chance story. James J. Braddock’s, a boxer from 1930’s America and his family’s surviving story during the period of the “great depression”.
In the film, the Braddock family is portrayed as a happy ordinary family. There are five family members, James J. Braddock and Mae Braddock, the mother and father who love each other, Jay, Howard and Rose, the kids. In early parts of the film they have enough financial income to live. However during the period of great depression, the family has difficult times in terms of financial conditions. James had a couple of injuries and his box career was going worse.
Obviously the father has to take of his family. He has to gain money to support his family’s needs. But in great depression, conditions are getting harder to live. James Braddock is working hard and shows sacrifice to protect his family. The mother, Mae Braddock is a classical type of a mother. She loves her children and simply she is responsible for their well being. Children are too young and they have not really complex roles in the family.
The idea of marriage is portrayed as a whole lifetime commitment. The members of the family support each other in any kind of bad situation. In Braddock family, children are seeing as the most valuable things in the family and parents do everything to provide them good life.
When the family tries to deal with their financial problems, an important event happened. Jay stole meat from the butcher not to go another relative’s home because of the bad conditions. Even in a situation like this James Braddock make his son to go and give back meat jay stole. This is a little anecdote to understand how interested the parents are about their children’s well-raising.
Despite all the bad conditions in this time, Braddock family can survive by being together. They do not even think about divorcing. I see this family as a perfectly ordinary and happy family. This is the key of the real happiness which is known from the beginning of the human history: a real, happy family.
In the film, the Braddock family is portrayed as a happy ordinary family. There are five family members, James J. Braddock and Mae Braddock, the mother and father who love each other, Jay, Howard and Rose, the kids. In early parts of the film they have enough financial income to live. However during the period of great depression, the family has difficult times in terms of financial conditions. James had a couple of injuries and his box career was going worse.
Obviously the father has to take of his family. He has to gain money to support his family’s needs. But in great depression, conditions are getting harder to live. James Braddock is working hard and shows sacrifice to protect his family. The mother, Mae Braddock is a classical type of a mother. She loves her children and simply she is responsible for their well being. Children are too young and they have not really complex roles in the family.
The idea of marriage is portrayed as a whole lifetime commitment. The members of the family support each other in any kind of bad situation. In Braddock family, children are seeing as the most valuable things in the family and parents do everything to provide them good life.
When the family tries to deal with their financial problems, an important event happened. Jay stole meat from the butcher not to go another relative’s home because of the bad conditions. Even in a situation like this James Braddock make his son to go and give back meat jay stole. This is a little anecdote to understand how interested the parents are about their children’s well-raising.
Despite all the bad conditions in this time, Braddock family can survive by being together. They do not even think about divorcing. I see this family as a perfectly ordinary and happy family. This is the key of the real happiness which is known from the beginning of the human history: a real, happy family.
Kaydol:
Kayıtlar (Atom)