Ahh… (sigh of relief). A more modern read, not to mention the Q&A format made for an interesting style. The reading was rather straightforward, and by the end I wasn’t quite sure what to take from it. I think one of the most relevant points that is pointed out in deliberation is the perspectives of some are pronounced far more than others, even when a diverse group exists. Opinion and bias occur simply from representation, not just stereotypes.

The part concerning people doubting “the evidence of their own senses” was almost gross. How people can be so easily, without even realizing it sometimes, persuaded to think a certain way based on the majority’s opinion, is dangerous. People continue to lose the ability to think fro themselves, and in essence, create new ideas, instead of recycling the same reconstructed ones.

I definitely enjoyed this reading more so than the last one. The setup too was cool, having it set up like a question/answer format. There were also some very interesting points, especially when it was mentioned that election day should be an actual holiday, and I definitely agree with that. One of the biggest reasons, the voting booths don’t get a great turnout is because people are at work, or at school, and simply don’t have the time afterwards to go and vote. If election day was a holiday, there would be no school or work to hold people up. There are other holidays, such as Presidents’ Day, or Columbus Day, that we all get off for, and yet, we don’t really do anything during these days. There isn’t even much meaning and significance to them, especially compared to election day and voting. Another interesting point made in the handout was the lengths to which town hall meetings go to get people to attend. These included different hours (though holding it in the night really doesn’t increase the numbers as, though they’d gain the 9 to 5 workers, they’d lose others, such as parents, or night workers.) They also would change the town hall’s location to more accessible and hospitable places, so it’d be easier and more comfortable for them. They would also have food and other sorts of goodies, which makes me wonder just how and where the town hall gets the money to spend on these things.

I really enjoyed the part of the article in which the ease of deliberation was discussed.  It was pointed out that meetings and deliberations would go much faster and would be much simpler if the people at the meeting were all of the same race, socioeconomic status, and background, who all shared the same ideas.  This isn’t the case although, and people should not strive to make it so.  Diversity is needed to better serve the need of all citizens.  A representative population would be ideal.  If 30% of the community is hispanic then idealy 30% if the people at the meeting should be hispanic.  In this was people would be comfortable sharing their ideas knowing that they are not alone.

…And I’m blogging about democratic participation.

I enjoyed the article as it delved into the aspects of democratic functioning and small time running of the backbone to society–the working class guy/girl.

Participation is vital to keeping the flow of society running for Americans, and voting is just one of the factors. Sociological issues that need to be settled with attending to needs might be changing townhall times or placing a holiday to promote participation.

I’m curious why that’s not been set in yet. For a community to grow, I guess it does depend on the psychological factor (like New England).

I agree with Young that exclusion comes in 2 different forms of External/Internal. Views seem to be under the shadows of the overwhelming majority with Internal, and the word cannot be spread appropriately in External.

I like the part with Consensus and will from God to show that even your lone opinion should still create an impasse since nobody can look into your eyes at a situation. Seems familiar to my life.

I actually enjoyed and understood this entire article, probably because it was a simple Q & A session. However, the questions asked of these experts were relatable for out class. For instance, in college we are taught that we should give a damn about what is going on around us, for us, and to us. This article exemplifies these views. This article discusses how and why the whole nation should get together in smaller groups to make decisions. Since we all have our own lives to deal with, it is obvious that many Americans don’t pay attention to politics. Or, they may think that their one view does not matter. However, in the Kennedy election, one vote made him president. Therefore, each and every view on a subject does matter. That is what Young and Mansbridge are trying to prove.

In order to get more people involved in local and national governments, people are going to need to see the actual outcome of the involvement they put forth. I think it is a good idea to make a holiday for the nation in which they decide smaller matters for local governments by people from that small town. If it is them who are affected, they should want to be involved. This is the exact problem, getting people to come to the meetings. They brought up how night meetings interfere with mothers and fathers who work during the day, and so on. That is why the holiday would work. Higher up authorities should deal with budgets and more serious problems; they should not be bothered by minute decisions that make more sense for smaller groups to decide. With the nation as it is now, hopefully people will start getting more involved in what will happen to them, their kids, and so on. If not, slowly and surely, we will lose even the little bit of power we still have.

I can honestly say out of the readings we have done in this section of class, Fung was my favorite reading.

The idea of deliberative functions are very interesting and I think they make a very valid point throughout the article. I especially liked the ideas that if we want more people to become politically active and take the time to care, we should shorten the work week or create national holidays for political affairs. As the article states, we have holidays for all other kinds of historical events, why not political events as well? They bring up interesting incentives.

It is true that in today’s society, many citizens choose not to be deliberately active because they do not have the time. After being a parent, working full-time, and taking care of other interests that may come first, what times is left to be active in different groups?

Overall, I was able to relate, understand, and agree with this article in many ways. They brought up a lot of points to think about.

“A Propaganda Model” article reinforced what I learned in Introduction to Mass Communication. It is known that a plethora of information is feed to the press at every instant. However, there are stake holders or people in high places who decide what information does and does not seep through to the mass public. They can even sit on information until they feel the public is ready for it. And of course, the rhetoric used in some articles can be bent and changed to fit what the authority feels acceptable to the public. These practices are woven into the news room so heavily that journalists may think that they are being as unbiased as possible, when in fact they are not.  There can be definite stains on some information without the journalist even knowing. For instance, some sources could lie to journalists and either know they are lying or actually think they are telling the truth. There are sketchy techniques all over the place.

The fact that there are 29 media corporations that own over half of all the rhetoric that is thrown at us repeatedly scares me. How can we as a mass population get all the information that we need and deserve, if half of the media already has its’ mind made up on certain subject matters. Therefore, our views on some subject are slanted. I mean look at Septemeber 11, 2001; most Americans, I am willing to bet, didn’t even know we were fighting with the Middle East. This just frightens me for the future. Things are only going to get worse. More and more information will be hid from us to keep us ignorant. Because ignorance is bliss, right?

This was the most difficult piece for me to get through this entire semester. I just could not seem to grasp the majority of the ideas the writer was trying to get across. I did however, pick up on a few important opinions or statements that Chomsky. After discussing the media in my mass communication class, I liked the idea of the “news filter” when explaining how the propoganda model works. I thought it connected me to my other class in the fact that the news filters are mainly affected by the size of the concentrated ownership or the owner’s wealth. With that being the first issue regarding the propoganda  model, advertising plays the next important role. This was the one idea that stood out to me the most and brought me back to the Persuaders video and how advertising helps to emotionally get the consumer involved in the products/services that a producer is selling. Although I didn’t quite understand some of the reading, I did pick up on the advertising aspect and how the propoganda relates to the way a service or product is sold. I also found this relatable to the way Bernays tried to establish his opinion that the Propoganda model was a positive aspect toward making a product wanted, and making the language apparent and pleasing to the eyes and ears of the average citizen.

After reading this piece, I found myself extremely confused with what exactly the writer was trying to get accomplished concerning the personality types of an intellectualist. I did however, find it eye-opening that in his opinion every man is considered an intellectual and that every man is a “philospher” in his own state of mind. Every human has a taste and a philosophical point of view regardless of whether one thinks that they do or not. I loved the line, “There is no such thing as a non-intelluctual person. I also found it interesting that Gramsci says that many times people that think they are creating a new group of intellect involving individual beliefs, they are really just centering themselves in an existing group of intellects. Many times intellectual people are involved in a lot of the same groups and have a lot in common regarding their own beliefs, moreover I disagree slightly on his opinion because i think that every individual has different types of intellect and can apply that to their own lives in a variety of different ways. It’s interesting that Gramsci was in jail when writing this, however I think some of his opinions and theories are a little skewed from the actual theories in society involving intellects.

Upon reading “The Intellectuals” by Antonio Gramsci, I found it to be very intriguing. In addition, the fact that he was in jail when he wrote this, also added to my intrigue. Like I have said for previous articles, the idea of class distinctions and groups was brought up. I like the idea of “essential” intellectuals, in that specific groups are experts on subject matters first, and then it is passed down throughout history. We are not born with knowledge in our brains, it is handed to us; moreover, it will only work if we want to absorb it. We need those “essential” intellectuals to show us the way. On page 9, Gramsci states, “All men are intellectuals, one could therefore say: but not all men have in society the function of intellectuals.” In my opinion, he means that everyone can have knowledge on a subject matter, but that doesn’t make them know everything on the subject matter. If the society or the model does not incorporate that specific knowledge into the system, this intellectual can advance the knowledge of the whole. There is never wasted knowledge. I like how Grasci brings up the idea that although we may do something as a hobby that does not mean that we are an expert. The expansion of the mind is essential to making the world keep going.