4802: Flash Journalism

In the summary of the article, McAdams says that “online media enable new forms of journalistic storytelling,” and that “Simply showing photographs or video on a computer screen is not very different from showing photographs in a book or newspaper, or video on a TV screen.”

Truly, online media is the way of the future. With the world wanting more accessibility to information and faster ways of getting it, the internet serves as one-source-shopping for news information. A few clicks, and you are exactly where you need to be.

So what is to keep audiences’ interest with online journalism? What makes this source of news information any better than others? With more and more people turning to online sources for news, media outlets need to maximize their use of the web.

McAdams is able to nail a couple of the most important devices.

She talks first about video/audio slideshows, which I think are incredibly powerful, more so than videos. While videos may be able to document what is happening very well, they do not have quite the emotional effect of these slideshows. The emotional power of a still photograph, a visual slice of an event preserved in time, paired with the natural sounds of the event and the people involved, maybe even music, creates a remarkably powerful source of flash media that is both fascinating, tech-savvy, and emotionally engaging.

Another device used are digital graphs and images. There are plenty of graphics to be had on TV and in the paper, but what about a multimedia asset?

Online news pages can provide moving graphics that could demonstrate anything from troop movements to how your kitchen sink works. They can be squeezed in between a stretch of type or as their own tab on the web page. But what really makes them revolutionary is the interactive aspect. Readers can see more than a map, but a three-dimensional image of the new state capitol as it is built. They can click to see proposed road changes or how erosion has worked away on the soil. Being interactive allows people to learn along with the information provided.

If this paper were to be updated, it would be sure to include to new devices. In the age of Twitter and blogging, readers can post their opinion or spread information with their own instant form of communication. Putting a “Comments” box below the article allows the readers to post their opinions or comments about the article, and that in turn allows other readers to hold a conversation, or for the editors of the site to see how the article is being received, and whether or not it is a popular issue.

Also, McAdams would probably include a paragraph or two on the implementation of live webcams. Especially for construction sites or traffic updates, people like to see a current update of what is happening, as if they are there themselves. This takes video to the next level, not only allowing them to see what is going on, but to watch unedited, at the moment footage of a certain place.

The True Life Tragedy of “The Town”

Ben Affleck directs and stars in the gritty Boston crime flick “The Town.” The movie circles around a band of modern-day bank robbers who were all born and raised in the blue collar neighborhood of Charlestown in south Boston. Charlestown is well known to be a rough neighborhood, and as the characters say, it is home to the last tough white people. It is home to the world’s largest number of carjackings, kidnappings, and armed robberies, and needless to say, crime is a part of life here, passed on from generation to generation. Doug MacRay (Affleck) is the mastermind of the troupe’s many successful robberies, assisted by he muscle of his longtime friend James “Jem” Coughlin (Jeremy Renner). After a rough heist and kidnapping of a bank teller, MacRay wants a chance to leave the Town all behind and disappear before things get rough. But his ties with the town and his rough upbringing can’t catch him a break, and things get even more complicated when he begins a romantic affair with the very bank teller he kidnapped in the first heist.

The film as a whole is solid; its a dark and dreary depiction of the rough side of Boston, and follows in the likes of the departed and other Irish crime films. As a viewer, you often find yourself morally conflicted, hating the FBI and sympathizing with the criminals, only to have it flipped back to reality when you realize how heartless these criminals are and that the FBI is doing what every citizen would want them to do. Still, Affleck does a good job of playing with your emotions when you contemplate the most prominent conflict in the film: How do you get out of the Town?

You can’t just walk out of Charlestown. This is the great predicament of the town. One would think that after the first heist, you could have enough money to disappear and get out for good. But you’re a wanted man, being watched, and you have more than a few loose ends.

Take the case of MacRay. His father is imprisoned for a long time for the very trade he is beginning to learn himself, robbery. He is taken in by the community, rough though it may be, and lives for years with his friend Jem (Renner) and his father, known affectionately as “The Florist,” a cover for him being the contact for multiple jobs.

——-Spoiler——

It is revealed later that Jem had gone to prison once for protecting MacRay. A bully from the town wanted to take care of MacRay, which in Charlestown doesn’t mean taking your lunch money. He was going to shoot MacRay, so Jem shot him first. He spent years in prison for that crime, a crime committed with the best of intentions using only what was known to a kid in the town. There were no police, you just did what you had to. MacRay’s ex-girlfriend, single with a daughter and an addiction to pain medications, is scorned by MacRay’s persistence to get out of the town at any cost, and is infuriated by his rejection of her request to come with him. At the end of her rope, drugged up and in the hospital after a car accident, she faces giving up information on the heist or losing her daughter to child services. In addition, MacRay receives pressure from the Florist to do another job, but he refuses because there is too much heat on them currently; the FBI is nipping at their heels and has already put the heat on them a couple of times in interrogations. But the florist sends a message to MacRay that if he doesn’t do this last job, his pretty little bank teller girlfriend will meet her demise.

So despite how much determination one has to get out of the Town, it is never just that easy. Survival growing up depended on the people around you. You owe it to them to stick around in case they ever need your help. The people there know you, know all about you. If they have a chance to make it better for themselves and you won’t help them, they will take it. Any future you hope to have can be completely jeopardized by your past. Just like MacRay being dumped by the bank teller when she finds out he was the actual criminal that kidnapped her, so can residents of the Town never escape the things they have done, never rise above the life of crime. These men learn crime from their fathers, grow up with their fathers in prison, dealing with crime in their neighborhood, and somehow are expected to wind up pure and without blemishes? These are the definition of repeat offenders without hope of redemption. This is the impossible situation from which lost boys and redeeming qualities alike cannot escape.

After a little research, I found out the facts and myths about the real Town.

First off, it is not the bank robbery capital of the world. Charlestown accounts for roughly 2% of all Boston robberies, not even specifically bank robberies, and Massachusetts itself only contributes to 3% of the nations robberies. In fact, in recent years, many realtors have been selling properties to working middle and upper class socialites because of its “safe streets” and close proximity to the harbor and downtown Boston. Most of these white collars work and live in relative harmony with the traditional blue collar Irish American population that has thrived there since the early 1800s.

However, every myth has its roots. Charlestown’s Irish population wasn’t always as tame as it appears now. After the repeal of prohibition and the fall of the mob giants, much of organized crime found new homes throughout the country. A good portion of Irish mobsters settled in the predominantly blue-collar Irish and somewhat neglected strip of land in Boston harbor known as Charlestown. The mob’s presence here was extremely prominent from the 1960s to the late 1980s, with increasing violence spanning from 1950 to the mid 90s, when a government cleanup act and housing project revitalized the ailing neighborhood.

At one point there had even been plans to completely demolish Charlestown. This was originally attempted in the early 1960s by the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA) but was met with overwhelming opposition and some violent retaliation from the mob. During their peak, the Town’s Irish mob was one of the most influential organized crime syndicates in the nation, along with the Sommerville “Winter Hill Gang,” a rival Irsih gang from north Boston.

A large gang war involving these two crime giants tore through Boston in the late 70s, a war which nearly eradicated the Charlestown mob. throughout the 80s they remained more low-key, sticking to running small jobs within the town, until increasing numbers caused their activity to spike again in the late 80s, before the cleanup happened.

Movie Poster for Warner Bros. The Town

4802: NPR

An NPR style story has to be more than just droning interviews. Many find talk radio boring in itself without a rambling monologue to fill up the static. What makes certain NPR stories more than just pieces on the air, but actual audio STORIES, is their ability to write for the ear.

Background noise sets a scene, letting the audiences mind unfold and set a picture. The reporters voice follows up soon, describe the particular details of the scene and what the audience can perceive on sound alone. The interviews are not done in a sound booth with a script, but rather in person or out in the field, as the action is happening.

After watching everyone’s presentations in class, I realized what needed to be done to make an audio piece into a true audio story. Most of the students (myself included) tagged most of the important things for an audio piece: ambient noise, clear reporter voiceover, good interviews, etc. However, few actually made the effort to reach the next step in audio reporting. The ambient noise and the interviews may be different aspects, but they can be the same as well. When an interviewee is talking about working with a bow saw, have that sound in the background. If he is taking you on a tour through a car shop, have the noise of the car shop as he explains things around him. Don’t just talk about things, report the world around you as if your ears were actually your eyes. Describe the scene with every sound at your disposal. That is what makes an audio piece into a multifaceted and fascinating story.

4802: Video Journalism

Cnn. com gives us a look into the future with an interview with some of Georgia Tech’s best and brightest. These engineers have taken the hands-free idea of bluetooth a step further and integrated it into fabric, allowing for the control of electronic devices such as iphones and laptops with buttons and zippers sewn into your clothing.

The story itself was a remarkably fascinating one, in less than 20 years we have come from analog controls to touch screens, digital controls, and now even technological clothing. However, the story was presented in a less-than-fascinating manner. It was held at CNN studios on a TV set with the engineers not being interviewed, but rather demonstrating. While it is very interesting to see how this technology works, it would be more interesting to have been in the lab where it was designed, to see the engineers working on the pieces, and them talking about their inspiration and thought process. The interview didn’t show any action or any build it up; it was almost like a plug.

If this had been a text story, things may have been different. As a text only story, the reporting would have been perfectly acceptable. Something along the lines of, “Researchers at Georgia Tech have begun building new technology that allows the control of your electronic devices through synthesized fabric on your clothing.” Because there are no visuals, or at least not as many, it is not as important to include additional information on anything but the technology. When we see the engineers present like n the video, we want to see them working and explaining their own work, not have the host of the show tell it for us.

You can watch the video at
http://cnn.com/video/?/video/tech/2010/10/19/nr.electronic.stitched.clothes.cnn

4802: Video, the CNN way

As soon as I got into the field and began shooting video myself, I realized just how much thought goes into every shot. Sure, I had gotten all of the information regarding what to do or not to do, but as soon as I set up the tripod I began to think in an entirely different way.
It wasn’t as simple as just filming a person talking; the room itself had character and I needed to set the scene just as much as record the interview. The photos on the wall, the stack of papers on the desk, the Mizzou banner on the shelf, were all just as much a part of the shot as who was talking. In order to truly provide my audience with a story, and not just a boring interview, I had to think like a filmmaker.

But I couldn’t just think of  the interview. It is just as important to set up the video with other shots first to add to the overall tone and set up a scene for the story. A shot of the room, a mid range of the items on the table, and a close up of the toy car sitting amongst the other memorabilia on the table.

Not only did I have to be conscious of what to do, but also what not to do. I had to resist the temptation to think my hands were sturdy or level enough for a hand-held shot, and that while panning shots may be great for a james bond chase scene, they don’t work well for news stories.

So with my steady tripod, scene setting shots, and CNN knowledge in hand, I can officially say that I can shoot for TV.

Nature-Culture Dualism – Mankind as both separate and together with Nature

Since the dawn of civilization, humanity has been inevitably tied to the natural world around it.  As much as we may feel that we are dominant over nature, and that we develop to bend nature to our will, we are in reality completely dependent on it. In truth, it is nature that bends us to its will. WE develop, both technologically and culturally, around the rules and parameters sent by our world. Nature-Culture coexistence is and has been at the heart of our society. It is as much of a part of us as we are of it.

Bruno Latour argues both sides, discussing the belief within “Nature-Culture Dualism”  that humans are beings outside of nature. While many may believe humankind to be outside of nature, a parallel to the natural world, we are in fact a key part of it. We are the prime species it has produced through generations of evolution, and humans, like every other animal, depend on nature and our planet for survival, sustenance, and growth.

Early religions were founded on the beliefs of nature personified into deities, gods of thunder and fire and of the elements. Ancient societies created these gods because of their dependence and of nature and the significance of it in their lives. They used stories featuring these gods to explain the world around them, even to the extent of explaining their technology as a gift from the god’s element. Most pagan holidays (and consequently many christian holidays due to their roots in paganism) took place around specific alignments of the stars, a change in seasons, or as a result of natural events. These ancient societies built their culture around religion, religion that acknowledged nature as the primary caregiver, provider, resource, and, at times, enemy.

In harsher locales, indigenous people would plan their entire way of life around the world they knew. Their societal hierarchy, their food gathering techniques, their buildings, and even their sense of value was based on the natural world and what it could provide and what it would destroy. Mayan monuments and temples were built out of the hardest stone that could be found because they were built to last. Tropical storms and jungle rot would swallow up a thatched hut in an instant, but these stone monuments would remain.

Human technology developed as a means for people to control or alter their natural world to serve their better needs.But the irony lies in the fact that technology as we know it, machines and computers and whizzing gears and pistons, all came about as a result of mankind learning to use nature to its advantage.  In reality, nature becomes a resource of development.

One of the most basic technologies, man’s harnessing of fire, is a direct representation of technology based in nature. The idea probably came when an early human saw lighting strike and create sparks. If he could recreate sparks with stones, he could have his own fire. This mimicry of natural occurrences in order to replicate the same product may very well be the best representation of mankind as both dependent on and attempting to harness the power of nature.

With fire harnessed, humans could cook food, cutting down on the amounts of parasites ingested and broadening their diet. Tools became more advanced, and as a result metals could be smelted to replace stone and allowed for more advanced building, weapons, tools, etc. With these new advanced technologies, humans could further exert their control over the environment, but they still relied heavily on it for resources and for a basis on how to expand their society and technology. Even in the modern world, we rely on very basic natural resources that have not been greatly altered. Gasoline and coal remain two of our most widely used sources of energy, from the power in our homes to our vehicles and even to make other products, such as plastic, that our society depends heavily on. The centuries old dead organic matter that composes coal and petroleum links our mega-modern world directly to our dependence on nature for our very survival as a species.

Yoxen tells us about yet another example of nature shaping our modern technologies and society. Yoxen describes “the virtues of Raspberry leaf tea for pregnant women. The leaves contain a substance called fragine, which acts as a muscle tonic and is particularly effective in strengthening the muscles of the pelvic floor.” Fragine or a similar substitute is most likely still used in childbirth preparation in an over-the-counter pill, but moreover this represents the epitome of mankind’s intertwining of society and technology with nature.

Biotechnology, which many would believe to be a modern science, has been around for hundreds of thousands of years. From the first fermented drink, to the first cheese, to the medicinal raspberry tea leaves, to modern genetic engineering, all of these fit under the definition of biotechnology.  “Biotechnology is a field of biology that involves the use of living things in engineering, technology, medicine, etc.” (Webster’s Online). So in a sense, humans have been using biotechnology since before the first written word.

Some would argue that even chimps use biotechnology, as they use leaves of the bitter pith plant to cure stomach aches and get rid of parasites. We know they have a sense of technology; they make spears from twigs and sponges from leaves. They also possess what is known as natural history intelligence, a mapping of resources and particular places and knowledge of plants and animals around ones self, yet another thing they share with humans. No one would argue against the facts that they are our closest genetic relatives, or that they share many over our same understandings of technology. Yet despite these similarities we still consider ourselves separate from nature, existing in a different world, something that we would not say about the apes with which we share so many traits.

Arturo Escobar discusses how philosophers and sociologists throughout history have sought to define the relationship between mankind and nature. He mentions philosophers Thomas Hobbes and John Locke who both tried to trace men back to their “state of nature,” or the state in which they were the most primal and lacking in modern customs. Essentially mankind in the absence of modern society and culture. Both philosophers came up with drastically different results. According to Escobar, “Hobbes saw the state of men in nature as low, and life of pre-social man as solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. Locke saw the state of nature as one of peace, goodwill, mutual assistance and cooperation. But it is truly the in-between that is the truth. Both cooperation and conflict come as a result of possession, control, and/or knowledge of nature as a resource, both in the ancient past as well as today. So, mankind without society is not strictly good nor bad. What is essential to remember is the integration of society, culture, and technology of mankind in association with the natural world around us is what has brought us to this modern age we reside in today.

4802: Writing for The Ear

Writing for the ear is not something that many journalism students consider to be a key skill when they enter into the journalism school. Yet as soon as I learned exactly what “writing for the ear” meant in the world of reporting, I began to see its application in all sorts of broadcast media. I picked up on the significance of everything from word order that simplifies a story to the appropriate use of ambient noise in order to set a scene.

In the case of radio and sound broadcast, writing for the ear is even more important. Where in television broadcast audiences can use their vision as well as audio in order to follow the story. If a news anchor says a somewhat complicated sentence or the audience member doesn’t understand, they can use visual clues or text on the bottom of the screen to back up the story. When only audio is presented, every sound and every word must be carefully recorded and written, maybe even more carefully than in print or television.

When out in the field recording audio, I felt myself begin to be more attuned to sound in general. When first gathering ambient noise I walked around the student commons several times trying to find the proper location. I clearly wanted to gather good noise, but I was carefully to avoid predominantly noisy individuals who would drown out other conversations and give the impression I was interviewing them. I steered clear of the students playing music on their laptops, and made sure to distance myself from the clatter of the restaurants. I finally settled myself where I could get a slice of each of those sounds, but blended together as a whole, one ambient noise that would place the listener in my shoes and provide a setting for the story.

Even when recording my questions with my interviewee, I made sure to ask questions that not only gave her ample opportunity to answer with detailed information of her own, but allowed the audience to gain a sense of her personality.

In short, when doing an audio journalism story, I attempt to provide the listeners with a story that puts them in my shoes, and, using just the power of sound, create the illusion that they can see, feel, and even maybe smell what I had in that particular story.

The New World Cup

The 2010 FIFA World Cup was a groundbreaking event in the World Football (or Soccer) Theatre.

Hosted by the Nation of South Africa, the event showed how the nation itself has made leagues of progress since the fall of the Apartheid in 1994. South Africa had a beaming national pride that showed even through the digitalization of television, and not only in their capital city of Johannesburg. Pretoria, Durban, Port Elizabeth, Cape Town, and a handful of others were shown in full light by the world press coverage of the event. Built just in time for the opening ceremonies, Soccer City Stadium and its counterpart Soccer Tower showed the viewing world a forward, westernized, and developed African nation, not the segregated and impoverished third world country so many had come to assume it was.

But the 2010 world cup was a great success for another group of people, a group whose goal was to make their nation not only true competitors in the sport, but to rally behind their team as well.

It is common knowledge that while Soccer may be the World’s sport, it is clearly not America’s. Baseball is our favorite pastime, and Football our most watched sport, but ‘Soccer’ clearly is out of the running. This world cup marked the start in a change in that.

In years past I can remember hearing about the World Cup, maybe be invited to a watch party here and there, but I myself was never that much of a fan, and more often than not had no idea when a game was even on. In recent years my fan base grew, as did that of the United States. For months before the opening ceremonies this year, predictions were being made, jerseys were flying off the shelves, and lines were drawn (Yes, although every other nation cheers for their own, we Americans always seem to pick an exotic champion). Everyone was buzzing. It was if there was a month long Super Bowl in town.

According to worldcupblog.org, the official FIFA blog site, a total of 19.4 million viewers (4.5 million on Spanish Language Univision) in the U.S. watched their team lose to Ghana 2-1 in round 16 of the semifinals. This is more than the NBA finals 2010 (18.1 million viewers) and 2009 World Series (19.1 million average per game). As quoted in the blog, Stephen Master, vice president for Nielsen Sports Company, “That’s phenomenal”.

Pundit versus Professionals

Stephen Colbert is one of the nation’s most well-liked political pundits. CNN is one of the America’s most trusted news sources. And although some Americans get the majority of their news from Colbert and his ilk, never should he and CNN be considered to be on the same wavelength as far as reporting goes.

Colbert is purely entertainment, and while his show is based in real world  events and facts, the discussions promoted both on his show and on his website, colbertnation.com, bear little resemblance to true news stories at all.

I am as guilty as the next viewer; often I watch Colbert’s show and find myself intrigued on a certain topic, so I go and look up the article on the web or in a paper. It is that second step, however, that most Americans skip. Colbert’s reporting should be taken with more than a few grains of salt, as the events may be true and guests real people, but the conclusions gathered and the points that are made are done so in the spirit of entertainment first and foremost, and all else falls as secondary.

CNN on the other hand, is a true news network. Broadcasting online, on air, and on print 24/7, there is scarcely anything that they miss. However their coverage is notorious for being cut and dry, almost boring in its non-biased fashion. In the age of instant-gratification, shows like Colbert’s and other pundits provide journalistic “one-stop shopping,” allowing viewers to get their dose of entertainment and “keep up” on current events in one half-hour sitting. While the more serious news followers watch/read their national news via CNN, many younger, less interested, or just plain lazier viewers may turn to Colbert or his counterpart at “The Daily Show”, Jon Stewart, to keep up on their current events.

There is one aspect of reporting that both groups do well. Both CNN and Colbert have teams of reporters searching for leads and interesting stories to display to their audiences. Despite the fact that he reports purely on what he can make a joke about, Colbert is still able to pull up obscure and interesting news issues as well as the expected front-page stories on which to make a commentary about. He is like CNN in the fashion that hardly anything escapes his net, and although he may not have the airtime or power to rival CNN’s coverage of events, his viewer base alone shows just how effective and influential his form of journalism is.

Moral and Ethically Responsibility in Humanity’s Expansion of Technologies

Whether it is something as simple as setting children in front of the TV or as politically complicated as the H-Bomb, society is a maze of technological fixes. These fixes are when we as humans use our technology to make up for the deficiencies and limitations of ourselves and rely on science and engineering to provide society with solutions or different options to societal problems. Sometimes a technological fix may not do anything but open up a new problem for us, but we nevertheless resort to yet another technologic solution to assist us, even if it means making ourselves weaker for it.

For instance, when a mother is trying to cook dinner and get the older kids ready for soccer practice, she plops the youngest ones down in front of their electronic babysitter, the television. As the kids sit mesmerized by Spongebob, she is able to carry out other duties without worrying about the young ones. But while this may be a temporary solution, consistent use of this as an alternative to nurturing and supportive care and education will merely open up more problems. More societal issues, such as the children becoming anti-social, lazy, or distant from the family module, will require more fixes. So, while the mother is able to provide a cheap and effective alternative to actually supervising her children, she runs the risk of opening up more issues in the child’s life which will undoubtedly be attempted to be fixed by new technologies and technological solutions.

The hydrogen bomb, as well, provides a semi-permanent fix, in this case for the political and violent problems of world wars. The paradox that is the weapon results in the fact that no one will provoke a nation which possesses weapons of mass destruction, and if two conflicting nations both have these weapons in their arsenals, fear of their counterpart’s retribution will keep their bombs at bay. Most powerful nations of today solve military conflicts with a concise ground war, which is, believe it or not, a much more humane and practical war than one that utilizes military force. To quote Alvin Weinberg, “With the United States involved in a shooting war, may sound hollow and unconvincing; yet the desperate and partial peace we have now is better than a full-fledged exchange of thermonuclear weapons. Like the television babysitter on a far grander scale, this technological fix provides a solution to the threat of nuclear annihilation by an opposing nation while completely ignoring the real problems of humanity’s warmongering behavioral issues and the conflict between nations dealing with religion, resources, or ideology.

Alvin Weinberg noticed mankind’s irresponsible habit of using technology to fix its problems rather than bettering itself and attempting to correct human flaws in society. In his article “Can technology Replace Social Engineering?” Weinberg provides evidence of technological fixes versus human fixes stating that “a safer car, and even its development and adoption by the auto industry, is a quicker and probably surer way to reduce traffic deaths than is a campaign to teach people to drive more carefully.”

He goes on to discuss other examples of a technological fix being more effective or at least more practical in the sense of society fixing its issues, along with several of his own ideas for necessary fixes for today society and that of the future. He seems to believe that there is nothing that technology can’t solve, and that with the proper implementation of technology throughout society, the world’s problems can be solved. While I may agree with him on the concept of technology as a means to an end, technology alone as the ultimatum to society’s current and future issues is impractical and morally irresponsible.

Using technological fixes as the sole solution to societal issues is merely like patching a leak in a pipe with tape. It adds pressure and strain to other parts and don’t completely fix the blemish, merely covers it up and diverts the leak. Occasionally, the “pipe” needs to be fully replaced. By this, I mean that society needs to address some of its own issues and learn to live smarter and more harmoniously with itself before it attempts to advance technology to a state too powerful to properly and responsibly manage. If humanity continues to use newfound technologies, not only as fixes but without full knowledge of its repercussions or effect on existence, without tending to positive moral and ethical growth within society, humanity may find itself in a dire situation. A situation like this could mean greater technology in the wrong hands, the hands of someone who wishes to do harm to others. Or the situation could be likened to governments playing with the lives of people like children do with toys.

Take for instance the issue of cloning, a field in which science has been invested in and made great leaps in recent years. As a technological fix, cloning could be the answer to numerous issues. Stem cell research, the growing of organs and blood for patients, genetic alterations to embryos to remove disease or disability, some would even go as far as to say clones as soldiers or a labor force. But for every benefit to cloning that is obvious, so is there the possibility of the abuse of the technology by corporations, governments, or even privatized/terror-oriented organizations. There is also the likelihood that society cannot deal with the implications of such advanced technology if they are not ethically prepared. So while cloning has its pros, the abuse of the cloning of humans has a large potential for scientific horrors to emerge if society is not ready to handle its newfound technology.

It is alarmingly evident that the medical industry in particular may not possess the moral responsibility to push through some of the “medicines” they do, because they will throw caution and safety of the customer by the wayside if it guarantees some degree of result and/or a profit. The “fixes” they provide are riddled with other problems and side effects, the epitome of a fix that merely creates new problems to be fixed. Take for instance the piece of Vandana Shiva, titled “Reductionist Science as Epistemological Violence,” in which the author has a great distrust of the so-called “experts” of pharmaceuticals. “The multinationals that produce synthetic drugs in pursuit of fabulous profits and ignore their toxic side effects do not care. When they are forbidden to sell some harmful drugs in the home countries, they find a lucrative market in the third world, where the elites, including the medical establishment, are usually bewitched by anything that is offered as scientific, especially if it comes wrapped in pretty pay-offs.” In this case, I completely agree with Shiva. Putting the trust of societal growth in the hands of those who merely seek to make a profit is more than unwise; it is irresponsible.

This is not to say that I am against new technologies or using technology as a fix; humanity has been maximizing available technology to our advantage for generations and it has allowed us to grow throughout the ages. Technology, as a whole, is a way to reduce the manual labor involved with tasks and allows humans to develop their society. When humans learned to farm, they ceased to be nomadic and were able to form towns, writing, numerical systems, and more technologies, in short, civilization.

But while technology allowed for growth in society in ages past, so should it continue to allow our current society to expand and become more progressive. Rather than technology be merely a fix to our societal problems, let it be a helping hand to humanity attempting to establish greater social stabilization and promote a better society in general. Technology can be more than just a “fix.” It has the potential to be humanity’s greatest ally in the betterment of itself by promoting communication, understanding, and peace.

Works Cited

• Shiva, Vandana. “Reductionist Science as Epistemological Violence.” 232-55. Mizzou ERES. Web. 12 Sept. 2010.
• Weinberg, Alvin M. “Can Technology Replace Social Engineering?” (1962): 55-64. Mizzou ERES. Web. 12 Sept. 2010.