Chris Hedges article states that the Internet is strangling the progression and the importance of the newspapers we once cherished as a valuable news source. Journalists have lost jobs, news pages have been cut back and their stocks have also lost influence and decreased substantially. Newspapers have always had the reputation as a trustful source of current events (he actually refers to them as being a public trust). The recent filtering of information through the Internet defies the purpose of reporting. And if the news organization deteriorates then the American public will lose a vast majority of expertise and information.

There is a definite validity with this article because the Internet clutters the minds of millions of people. People no longer watch the news or read newspapers. Their main source for updates and current events has become the Internet. The newspaper was the original source for information and it was always a trustworthy form of text. Now we’ve lost that purity, per se, and we rely on Internet articles that possess unknown validity. Hedges makes it clear that if we lose these old forms of reporting the common person will be deprived of expertise and information.

Nicholas Carr’s article argues that the Internet as well as text messages have provided more reading material for the masses but this reading is much different. Our ability to interpret text and make connections to the material has been disengaged because of these new sources. Carr states that never has there been a communications system that has played such an important role in the lives of the public before. The influence the Internet has on our lives in remarkable but yet it’s not a positive influence. Google hasn’t helped this current issue because its main goal is to build artificial intelligence.

The Internet has definitely not a valid source for building knowledge because it possesses an abundance of articles that only clutter our brains. I don’t feel that it is very useful even though there are many valid sources that one can find. With exception to these valid sources, the other half of information posted is a bunch of useless information. We have lost the ability to interpret texts and experts say that, “we’re more decoders of information,” now then ever before. The connections to writing are long gone and you can blame the Internet as well as Google.

"Terrible" Terry Tate Accepts New Assignment

Ron Felcher, C.E.O. of Felcher & Sons, has recently appointed Linebacker Terry Tate to his staff. Retired NFL linebacker, Terrible Terry Tate, has accepted the enforcer job at Felcher & Sons and has been expected to clean the place up.Terry’s duties are to enforce the law at the office and make sure no one is disobeying common regulations at the office. Terry has stated that he will be taking his job very seriously and assured his boss that employees will feel the pain if they step out of line.

Currently, Felcher has commended Terry on a job well done because the office has seen significant improvement. Felcher quoted that, “since Terry has been with us, productivity has went up 46%.” Even though Terry’s retired, his poise and determination in the office is just like it was on the field. His tenacious defense in the office emulates that of his playing days.

Terry has no time for games or pain. The only thing he has time for these days are punishing those who get out of line. He has unleashed the pain, however, on those who defy the regulations of the office. Ask his fellow employees. He has penetrated fear into all those who work at Felcher & Sons and no one gets out of line when Terry’s around.

People have said that Felcher is insane for hiring Tate but he begs to differ. He thinks of himself as someone who thinks outside the box to stimulate success for his company.

This new idea might sound crazy and out of line but it has been very effective. Maybe businesses all around the world will take this new idea of punishment into effect because of the overall success we all have seen at Felcher & Sons.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8702Im2P18

The Onion’s articles poke fun at famous people who have done great things such as Derek Jeter, who recently broke Lou Gehrig’s all-time Yankees hit record. The one article posted stated that Derek Jeter has fewer hits than Harold Baines, long time Major League second baseman as well as ESPN broadcaster. The article makes mention to Jeter being 144 hits away from Harold Baines who could never shine Jeter’s shoes. It stated that Jeter is honored to be in the vicinity of Harold Baines which, in reality; he has more hits than him anyway. The satire here is very prevalent but it’s also very humorous as well. They’re actually mimicking Baines because he thinks he’s an egotistic newscaster on the new network MLB Network. This is also funny because Jeter just broke one of the most prodigious records on all of baseball, which Baines could never reach even if he played 20 major league seasons. Also, the George W. Bush article was very humorous because it made mention to the fact that Bush laughed when he realized he was president of the United States for almost a decade. All he could do is chuckle at the fact that he was once the commander in chief of the most distinguished nation in the entire world. When asked how he felt about this, all Bush could do is smirk and grin without giving a reasonable answer to the question. This too is funny because he really wasn’t a great president and he didn’t do much to directly assist the nation.

Michael Skube’s article is based on the new phenomenon of blogging. Bloggers now happen to be everywhere and it is on rapid increase. People believe that the news produced from blogs are, however, more interesting than that of the official news. Some bloggers are persistent partisans in political debate but, compared to the real national conversation, it’s particularly tiresome opinion. His point of view declares that blogging is tiresome, cranky, never in doubt and skeptical opinion of what the national conversation really turns out to be. Some of these bloggers have all the liberties that a journalist possesses but with few of the obligations. Even though blogging is an efficient transmission of information, it neglects to tell the whole truth about specific news and current events.

Both articles share certain similarities in that they both possess the fact that, blogging has sky rocketed ever since the Internet has become a more potent force in societal interests. These two articles emphasize that blogs have become a more sufficient news source since it invigorates the audience more than the standard news editorials might. But these articles definitely share their differences. Andrew Sullivan states that blogging will bring about a revolution concerning how people percept the news, in the near future. Skube presents the argument that blogging brings about excess skeptics that arise a cranky and a tiresome opinion of what the news actually is. He calls bloggers journalists without the obligations when Sullivan manifests the idea that they are independent writers who purposely write for the sake of the passion. Both of these authors hold similar yet contrasting opinions of what blogging actually curtails. Who holds the better argument? I’m not sure but maybe all this blogging I’ve been up to will soon help me discover its truth.