This is your very first post. Click the Edit link to modify or delete it, or start a new post. If you like, use this post to tell readers why you started this blog and what you plan to do with it.
First blog post
This is the post excerpt.
Final Blog: Seth Meyers and Trevor Noah
Ever since Johnny Carson launched the late night talk show world into national popularity in the 1960s, various hosts have sat behind desks and told us the state of the union through comedy, acting as our nation’s “Court Jesters”, calling out those in government and journalism when they slip up, acting as the “Fifth Estate”. In 1999, Jon Stewart would revolutionize the genre, and “Would forever change comedy and politics” (Dunphy 17). In 2015, Stewart would retire and hand the hosting seat over to South African comedian Trevor Noah, who would continue the work Stewart began. Meanwhile (Well about a year prior), in the wonderful world of network TV, a massive shakeup was occurring with their late night hosts. It was announced that another late night heavyweight in Jay Leno would be retiring, leaving his 11:30 slot on The Tonight Show, and former SNL cast member (And bad comedian) Jimmy Fallon would be leaving his 12:30 slot at Late Night, would fill his shoes. On a side note, also around the same time David Letterman retired, giving Stephen Colbert his spot, and Craig Ferguson (My personal favorite until Colbert) would also retire from late night, handing his spot to James Corden. All in all, 2014 to 2015 was a long period of late night musical chairs. Of course, the open seat at 12:30 on NBC fell to SNL head writer and Weekend Update host Seth Meyers.
If one subject has unfortunately stayed prominently discussed on TV over the past several years it’s terrorism, acts of it, the war on it, so on and so forth. Late night hosts have always been there to discuss it, and comment on how politicians and journalists discuss it. One thing I’m happy about with this blog over the last one is then I talked about how Stewart and Noah and how they reacted to different attacks, but since Noah and Meyer’s runs at late night mostly coincide, I can discuss how each of them responded to the same attacks. In my last blog I split each host up in their own paragraph, but for this one I am going to go by order of terror incident chronologically, and how Trevor Noah and Seth Meyers respond to either. Also, for the sake of the argument, and to have a larger amount of examples to work with, I am going to include some of the events of mass shootings not under the branch of “Islamic terror”, because to be honest, those are also acts of terror.
The first attack I was able to find a segment of from both hosts was the Paris attacks from November 2015, where nine members of ISIS killed 137 people in a string of shootings and bombings around the city of Paris. I think the first thing you notice with both hosts, is the difficulty all comedians have when it comes to talking about tragedies. I am always reminded of Lorne Michaels question to then mayor Rudy Giuliani on the first Saturday Night Live since the 9/11 attacks, where he asked “Can we be funny?” and the mayor responded “Why start now?”. The point is although they are comedians, ment to make people laugh, in the case of late night hosts, they are also mouthpieces for their audiences, or you might say, in an attempt to squeeze all the points I can get out of this thing, opinion leaders. One thing that Noah does, and something I notice he does after a few of the attacks, is he talks about the amazing camaraderie and generosity of people after an attack. He always seems to be amazed by the way people band together in the face of tragedy. He talks about how the people of Paris did as much as they could to help each other after the attacks, letting people into their home among other things. Then, as a comedian, he mocks the fact Parisians are going against the stereotype that the French are cold and stuck up. Noah balances having to be serious, along with the fact his job is to be funny, and make people happier about how crappy the world can get. Meyers does the same thing more or less, discussing the attacks but throwing in self-deprecation about his own failed attempts at learning French. In this example, Meyers turns the argument to a greater issue, that we always seem to get worked up and give the most attention to attacks in Europe, and ignore the constant and even more overwhelming issues going on in the Middle East. He also takes a moment to realize how refugees in Europe will now face harder scrutiny after such an attack. So they both balance comedy with heartfelt reflection, although Noah tended to go more positive and discuss how Paris came together, while Meyers went more negative and discussed the greater issues that come with every attack.
In their response to the Las Vegas mass shooting, which I know must also fit under the ”Gun violence” topic assigned to other students, but I think that this is a form of terror, and also showed another example of how both hosts manage a tragedy on a large scale. One thing you can tell with both of them, having dealt with talking about these tragedies time and time again, they get sick of the old cliches, the “Thoughts and prayers” and moving on. Both of them make the exact same point, that every time a mass shooting occurs, people who are pro-gun tend to say stuff like “This is not the time to discuss gun control with all that is going on” or “We shouldn’t politicize a tragedy”. Both Meyers and Noah attack this, asking the question “But then when will we talk about it?”. Unlike with Paris, they both took their time up discussing the politics, and what can be done to fix the problem. This is where you see Jon Stewart’s influence, nowadays every late night host (Excluding Fallon, who would rather play with Trump’s hair than ask him a goddamn question) questions their political guests with real issues, and also insert themselves into the debate. They “Attempt to influence the debates within the public square and political world, but reside on the sidelines,” (Dunphy 21) as Dunphy said in his book when referring to Stewart. Although, now we also see the hosts become the political story, like when Jimmy Kimmel became part of the health care debate a few months back. Noah and Meyers understand that people are watching them not only for comedic entertainment, but to be a mouthpiece for us and validate our feelings. Also, because their role in the “Fifth estate” is to challenge those in power through mockery, one thing most hosts due is play back things a politician actually says, and with the right framing it seems like the politician is mocking themselves.
The last attack I was able to find that both Meyers and Noah commented on was the recent Halloween attack in New York. The segment from Meyers I found is a lot shorter than the one that I found of Noah, just a note. Noah had a longer bit and it was mostly about how specifically FOX news chooses to politicize some attacks but not others. Like after Las Vegas, when they said making this about gun violence is wrong, but after NYC they were quick to make it an immigration problem. Noah also makes the bit a little funnier and makes fun of the responses. What they both did is comment on the way New Yorker’s responded, how hours after a threat occurred, we were still going on with a public gathering with the Halloween parade, “Dressing up crazy and partying till dawn” and how indirectly funny that is.
Meyers does more or less the same thing but in a shorter amount of time and not as in depth. He also talks about how amazing it is to see New Yorker’s band together, but also how funny it is that right after an attack, they were out in funny costumes and partying in the street.
I guess to more or less compare and contrast the two, and who I think got their point across more and who is more effective…I think Noah gets a little bit deeper politically. Although both of them tend to spin it politically somehow, Noah goes off on some more long winded points that connect the responses to each attack, and shows specific examples from politics and media. Meyers makes some broader points, not using any specific examples and rather addressing congress as whole in the case of gun violence. They both articulate their arguments clearly and at times hilariously, and I 100% understand all the points they make about politicizing attacks, as well as how despite acts of hate there is always evidence of humanity and compassion in the face of it. So as far as “Effectiveness” goes, I think they both are very effective at articulating their points, they just do it in different ways.
Between these two guys I think I prefer Trevor Noah, although both of these guys are two of my least favorite as far as late night hosts go, although not because of dislike, because I like the other guys more. I’ve loved Colbert since The Colbert Report, John Oliver is great, and Craig Ferguson was always one of my favorite comedians on and off of late night. I should also say I loved Seth Meyers as the host of Weekend Update of SNL, a style of comedy he took directly into late night with him. I remember when Meyers got his show and I was psyched because he was always my favorite part of SNL, then I watched the first few episodes live and didn’t love it. I haven’t watched him a lot recently outside of his blog (I mostly stick to Colbert and Oliver), although I remember him being a little too intelligent for his own good. Most of them are smart guys, able to talk and write about complex political issues in a way a general audience can understand and get a laugh from them, I prefer the guys who’s character is their intelligence like Colbert and Oliver. For some reason I remember Meyers explaining jokes after he said them, which kind of makes the joke unfunny. All and all I think Noah is a little bit funnier, his comedy is a little darker and wittier which I like. Also having read his book for school I have an extra level of respect and appreciation of Noah’s comedy, you can tell his prospective and fascination with America’s influence every political issue he tells. I think because of that perspective, it almost suits him better as member of the “Fifth estate”. As someone reasonably new to America, I think his critique of America and its institutions can be a little more nuanced, because he knows what an actual terrible system is like being from Apartheid era South Africa.
That is why I stand by my one word for Noah from the previous blog: Hopeful. Noah sees a lot of hope in America, and the little things amaze him about American culture. He was born into a political system that literally made him illegal, he has seen how things can get better and he exudes that in his comedy. I made the point in my last blog that Noah has a “Happy to be here vibe,” because he truly is happy to be where he is.
Meyers is harder, because Myers is very clean cut “Guy in a suit” sort of performer, he doesn’t have the same gimmicks some of the others have. Stewart was irritable, Colbert is a geek, Kimmel is a dick, Letterman was crotchety, Fallon is a moron. Actually that’s good “Clean cut”, but that’s two words so to simplify it i’ll settle with “Simple”. Because that is kinda what he is, he tells it how it is in a simple way, he isn’t over the top or gimmicky in anyway, he doesn’t have some nuanced perspective, he just makes jokes. Meyers took the Weekend Update format to his own show, basically stating a headline, and cracking a one-liner about it. It’s simple, it makes sense, there is nothing complicated about it all, but yet he is still an entertaining host.
I think it is fair to say these people have tough jobs, they have to go up in front of a nation each night and somehow make a seemingly disillusioned nation feel entertained and laugh about the news, by literally showing us clips of the news. Their job through satire is to hold a mirror to those in power, that was Stewart’s philosophy, the philosophy that “You can’t have it both ways” in media and it us up to people like him to keep them in check. It is a philosophy that his many “disciples” if you will, have carried on. They are America’s “Court Jesters”, and we need them to continue to do what they do in order to keep democracy the way it is.
The Daily Show Blog: “The war on BS”
For years, Jon Stewart was the America’s “Court Jester”, one of the most recognizable comedians to take aim at the political establishment and question their actions with biting satire and comedy.
After fifteen years in the Daily Show seat, South African comedian Trevor Noah took the chair and has risen to popularity himself in the past two years. Terrorism and the fight against it is an ongoing issue that has remained relevant since Stewart started in 1999, and both comedians have faced the dilemma of how to cover tragedy through the lens of satire and comedy.
Overall, watching both of their segments about terrorism and other things, Stewart is the angrier one, who makes subtle jabs at leaders and politicians, more implicitly than explicitly. His jokes walk the line of appropriateness more so than Noah does as well, I think Noah’s comedy is a bit goofier at times (Although Stewart was goofy), but both comedian’s jokes are a little darker than a Colbert or an Oliver. In terms of terrorism, both of them take very different approaches based on the limited clips I was able to scrounge up. Although, before I go into that I think there is a reason for it. Firstly Stewart had much less terror attacks to comment on during his tenure, of course he had 9/11, 7/7, and the Charlie Hebdo attacks…Noah has dealt with far more even in just these past two years with terrorism getting more and more common. Trevor Noah deals with a much more jaded audience towards terrorism, sadly, it’s almost normalized. I think you can see this in their reactions after attacks. Also, I should mention that I define terrorism with shootings such as Las Vegas and the Charleston church shooting, because that’s what they are. In most cases, Stewart opens his show after a terror attack with a solemn opening monologue. “No jokes”, he said after the Charleston shooting of several people in a church. His opening after 9/11 includes him taking breaks for tears, in an unbelievably honest and emotional moment, as a resident of New York, and as an American. I tear up hearing his “I grieve, but I do not despair”, as he goes into the amazing unifying response from New Yorkers after the attack. I will make the point that Noah gets more political, not to say Stewart does not, he just does it with a broader lens aimed at the culture of the problem, rather than specific responses. After 9/11, Stewart made a point that we have to forget our differences as a nation and unify after an attack of that magnitude, and quoting MLK by saying “We are judging people not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character”. It’s a political argument when you say we need to bury our differences to work together. After Charleston he talks about how we don’t call things like that terrorism because it doesn’t fit our narrative of radical Islamic extremism being the sole definition of terrorism, and then about how African Americans drive down the streets of confederate generals. After the Charlie Hebdo shooting, Stewart commends comedians and writers in what can be interpreted as a defense of the second amendment against violence. Stewart gets a emotional, but the political perspective is broader, and in my opinion, more effective. Stewart did makes jokes during these emotional bits, he “Lightened the mood” as you might say. After 9/11 he told the anecdote about eating cottage cheese under his desks in school after the MLK assassination, and he told it in a humorous tone. I think Jon Stewart had a keen understanding of his role. He is what we call in the textbook an opinion leader, people look to him for his perspective on issues, but they also turn to him for entertainment. Stewart gets that, he realizes people look to him, and maybe see solace in his show after a tragedy. Stewart understands that his comedy takes a back seat when a tragedy occurs, that his job is just to write jokes and make money doing it, but he does not squander the opportunity and makes speeches that are meant to uplift his audience and give them a new perspective. In a way I agree with Dunphy’s whole Don Quixote comparison, he is a little mad, and willing to take on the negatives of the world, but I also reject the notion. Don Quixote had no clue what he was doing, he didn’t understand the world around him, and he completely misunderstood his place in it. Stewart is 100% aware of the world around him, he doesn’t stumble through his adventures, he leads them through with stellar poise and detail.
As I said, Noah faces a different world since 2015, one where terrorism and mass shootings have become a part of society, he faces an audience that does not need the solemn epitaph from a late night comedian because we have gotten it so many times already. After both the recent NYC terror attack, and the second Paris attacks Noah looked at the reactions of the attacks. After NYC, he attacked Trump and the overall Republican response to the attack, and how it is easy for them to condemn an attack by a Muslim as terror, but not as fast to call the Las Vegas attack an act of terrorism until the facts come in. Noah’s point is a lot clearer, not a introspective, and more attack based. After the Paris attacks it was the same thing, he also attacked Trump and the overall response the the attacks. Although, I wouldn’t call this wrong or bad, just a different approach. The jokes were still on the darker side, but he does make jokes, at least a lot more than Stewart did at the top of the show. After the Orlando shooting Noah made a more emotional speech, but still made a more targeted political argument about guns than Stewart would have. Overall, Stewart takes the moment to reflect after an attack, feeling emotional than channeling it towards the overarching issues that create a world where terrorism occurs, and how our unity against it can stop it in its tracks, but still makes it funny. Noah goes right to the point, whether it be guns to Donald Trump, he makes a witty argument, and spares the emotion in front of an audience already jaded to terror.
In terms of which host is more “Effective”, I guess you need to decide what “Effective” means. Is it to entertain? Or is it to Inform? Or is the role of a late night comedian to reflect and contemplate the overarching issue? I think the main goal of these types of shows are to entertain above all else, and in terms of that Noah is more effective in getting his point across. Although, In terms of making a point, they are both pretty effective, Noah is just more concise. Stewart makes more of an emotional point, he inspires thought through pathos, Noah uses facts and quotes in a more logos based argument. Both are entertaining and draw the eye in different ways. For me, I feel more affected by Stewarts emotion and wider points, I just think he and Noah see the job a little differently.
It’s hard to say who I like more, can Colbert be the answer? What about John Oliver? I like them more than Stewart or Noah. As a person I prefer Noah, I just think he is a fun guy to watch.I am a big fan of his stand up shows as well as his book (The one that BC made every incoming freshman read this semester). Noah is a smart yet goofy comic, he makes intelligent points through goofy voices and puns. Noah had an amazing upbringing, that he outlines in his book Born a Crime, and I think you respect him as a performer once you know the hell he went through to get there.Although, even having watched far less Stewart than Noah, Stewart is a lot funnier, I like his biting and edgy humour more than Noah’s punny way of thinking. Stewart is just awesome. I also respect Stewart’s place in the comedy world. As Professor Dunphy explains in his book, Stewart completely changed the landscape of political satire. The whole “Parody of a news show” concept has been replicated several times. Not to mention the members of his staff and the “correspondents” of his show have all risen to their own fame as well: Stephen Colbert, John Oliver, and Sam Bee all have their own shows now. Even Noah said on his first show as host “He was our voice…our political dad”.
One word? Really? There is no way I can do that…but I don’t want a final in this class so here it goes. I hate this word, especially as one word but i’m going with “Edgy” for Stewart. He just is, his jokes are darker, he attacks people dead on for ignorance and stupidity. I wanted to go with “Nuts” and “Intelligent” as well but those seemed to broad. I watched a bit where he had the President of Pakistan on his show. He politely served the foreign leader tea, looked up from his cup and straight up asked where Osama Bin Laden was, now if that isn’t edgy I don’t know what the hell is. Another bit where he mocked Dick Cheney for accidentally shooting a fellow hunter by telling parents “Don’t let your kids go hunting with the vice president…he’ll shoot them in the face.” There’s also the bit Dunphy cited in his book where he tells Tucker Carlson he needs to go to a journalism school…I stand by edgy. Trevor Noah is harder, mostly because I think his persona isn’t as clearly defined. Stewart had 16 years, Noah has had about 3 in the American comedy spotlight. I’m gonna go with “Hopeful”. Yeah it’s strange, but I think it’s the thing that draws him from Stewart. Stewart was dark, maybe a little depressing and negative. Noah always has a “Happy to be here” vibe…probably because as a mixed race kid from apartheid era South Africa, he is truly happy to be where he is. His bits always seem a little more educational and a little more upbeat. Like after the NYC bombing in Chelsea that wounded 29, Noah made the point that New York will be New York, and will do what they do best “Dress crazy and party till dawn”. I think Noah represents hope too, because he is a rags to riches immigrant story, he experienced first hand how determination can achieve great things.
I loved the way Noah began his first show, I think it sums up the entire role of The Daily Show, and of political satire as whole. First he honored and thanked his predecessor who paved the way, and finishing his opening monologue with “Let’s continue the war on bullshit”
Edward Snowden: The Blog
This is a great issue, and a great conversation. It is one that pops up a lot and i’m glad when we get to have it, because it is an important one.
In terms of Snowden I knew more the people on the street, that is for absolute certainty. When the Snowden event occurred I knew the basics, that Snowden, an NSA agent, leaked files regarding intelligence about specifically bulk collection of personal data. At the time, I knew nothing about the Patriot Act or any of those laws, I would learn about all of them in an English class a few months later. I have seen bits and pieces of interviews before (Including the Snowden piece by John Oliver when it aired, I am a big Last Week Tonight fan). By the of this assignment, I knew most of what had been said.
When it first happened I was of the opinion the man should be executed, but I was young and less educated than I am now. I now believe that he should at least be allowed back to the US and put to trial like everyone else, I also tend to believe that running is almost always evident of guilt, and running to a nation we don’t have the best relationship with does not give me a great image of him. Not to say I don’t respect where his head was, and the principles he stood for. He saw something he saw as unjust, and acted on it. I always called him a traitor, although from watching interviews as well as the two videos, he is patriot, he in no way hates America. In his mind he wasn’t attacking America, he was fighting for it. I like to think facing a similar situation i’d act as well, he was brave to do what he did, it was how he did it I question. By dumping as much as he did to journalists, who will do their own job as well, he ran the chance of intelligence that protected our military and intelligence agencies oversees, getting out for all to see, endangering them and their families.
I am a little bias, I think Oliver and his writing staff are amazing, the quality of their research and the intelligence of their points are fantastically eye opening and entertaining. Although bias aside, I think he makes an excellent point, people only care about surveillance if it affects them personally. He is right when he says “No one cares about foreign surveillance”, they only care if the government has access to their own personal data…and dick pics apparently. The whole dick pic thing is great, it makes an intelligent point that people only care when it infringes on their personal stuff, but also managed to be absolutely hilarious.
When it comes to foreign surveillance, I do sort of care, so although I agreed with Oliver’s point I am a slight exception. I think in dangerous areas we need to keep up intelligence, areas like Russia, China, North Korea, sections of the Middle East, among others. These areas could potentially produce things that want to bring harm to the US and our allies, and we need to keep on top of that. When it comes to allies I feel differently, I think when we spy on allies, as we did, it break down the supposed trust between us and them. If I am keeping an eye on someone I think is dangerous it is one thing, but if I tell my best friend that I read his texts, he’d say “Don’t you trust me?” and you run the risk of breaking down an alliance that helps us more than it could hurt us.
When it comes to turning it on the US, I am still sort of on the fence about that, and government surveillance as a whole. I tend to believe that you shouldn’t care if you have nothing to hide, but everyone has things that they want hidden. In the majority of cases it isn’t a terror plot, but personal things they don’t want some random person in the NSA to read, which is appropriate. On a personal level I don’t care if a few NSA agents see crap that I might do, whatever, as long as they don’t tell anyone I know if that could hurt me. I agree that we have to give up a little privacy to help make sure we are safe, I’d go through a long line of airport security to make sure my vacation flight to Florida doesn’t blow up over North Carolina. Although, I think there needs to be a hefty amount of accountability to make sure these programs aren’t being abused, regulations need to be passed and the intelligence committee needs to have the ability to properly police the intelligence community to make sure we don’t infringe on the 3rd amendment or anything of that sort.
Is Ed Snowden a hero or traitor? Like I said, when it first happened I strongly believed he was a traitor, now I feel a bit differently. I think he can’t be a traitor to the state because his goal was to help the people, his goal was not to aid our enemies, it was to aid us. A traitor is someone who fights for the other side, but in his mind he did not, he was fighting for us. Although I don’t think he is a hero either. He still made it easier for enemies to get a hold of our secrets, and he also brought trust in government further down than it already was, he meant well, but I don’t think he is a saint either. As I said a few times, I have changed my opinion on the issue since it first happened. I believe we need a healthy amount of surveillance to stay safe, but we need restrictions to make sure it stays a “Healthy” amount. If anything, he started a needed conversation, one that questions an abuse of power, a conversation we need to have as much as possible to maintain the democracy this country stands on. I think what Snowden said towards the end of the VICE piece is true, although we can trust government now, we need to be wary of the one who decides to “Flip the switch”.
“Unproductive” Blog
Overall (this isn’t a review I swear), I enjoyed a lot of the show, like Dunphy said in his email, there are cliches, and there are sound issues and what not, but you can ignore them, I liked season one more than season two story wise, but season two was better production wise in my opinion. I appreciated it a lot as a film and production person myself who briefly directed a talk show like the one they do in the show while I was in HS, so was able to relate to a lot and that increased my enjoyment of the show.
For season one, my favorite character was Theo, mostly because he was the most funny out of all of them, and also the indirect victim in a lot of the drama. He was the laid back one having to deal with his friends constant division and bickering, as his friend group crumbles around him. He was the character most blatantly “Comic Relief” with the most over the top jokes and bits, which I found the funniest moments of the whole season. My favorite part of the show was the characters and the complexity of their relationships, although If I had to think of a least favorite character, and although I liked certain aspects of them both, Kate and Ben both seemed to think very emotionally, obviously Kate breaking up with Ben in a terrible way, and Ben treating her terribly for 95% of the season, even though he knew it hurt her and his other friends. I actually think I would enjoy hanging out with this group, as long as they are not in the social state they are in for most of the season (haha). They are all production and film geeks like myself, and I enjoyed all of Ben’s movie references. I found myself really associating myself in some way with everyone of them, and I think I would enjoy being part of that group.
For season two I did not find myself associating with the characters as much, probably because they were all older grad students while season one were people closer to my age. I liked the Alex character, partially because I sit next to the actor in political science and we have talked about the show and his role (And Yankees baseball). Although, I thought his character was funny. Obviously, Brayden was a dick. Although I liked him and found his film references as funny as Ben’s from season one. A least favorite character would be Alexis, I just thought she was annoying and handled the moving out situation the wrong way. Like I said, I have less affinity with this group because of their age, and their drama is a little bit different than I’m used to, so I couldn’t see myself being able to be part of their group as much as I did with the season 1 group.
I thought the last episode was the best part of season one, it wrapped everything up very well in a sweet way, with all the characters doing what they should have done earlier and discussing their issues with one another, and even even though you could say there is cliches, I think they are some of the cliches that are good and it all wrapped up the plot very well.
For season two my favorite scene was the first one with all of Brayden’s goofy directing requests, like asking for a “Kubrick”, and meaning it as code for a wide shot. My favorite episode was #8, I thought it had a lot of funny moments, and although the hacking thing was a little nuts I thought it was cool for some reason, although by far my favorite moment of the show was what I assume was meant to be Theo’s cameo when he takes Brayden’s Coke, that was great.
I think the season one group went back to how it was before Ben and Kate broke up, and for some reason I feel like they had the kind of thing going that they will end up getting back together at some point, because Kate’s whole “Breaking up for writer’s block” thing would make sense to be temporary. Sam will eventually work things out with her parents, but she seemed like the kind of person that could deal with the whole situation with or without direct approval from her parents. In general I think they’ll all be fine.
Season two wrapped up a little less open ended than season one, I guess it seems like they are only going one way from here. Alex and Alexa are moving out, and Mia and Colin will start dating. Season one wrapped with them all hugging but with things left unanswered, like we don’t know where Bracha will wind up in all of this.
The one thing that keeps coming to me is a goofy tagline: “Be Unproductive…Watch Unproductive”. If it’s one thing I myself have had issues with regarding my film stuff is getting it out there for people to watch it, I usually just post it on social media over and over again. Although I wasn’t around when the first two seasons came out, and don’t what what they may have done to advertise for them, I think a lot of students would find it cool that there is a student run show that is shot on campus, and you could definitely take advantage of that by advertising around campus, because people really like when they see things on screen they can associate with on a personal level. To relate to the concepts we read about in the textbook individual differences theory explains that people with different characteristics will be affected in different ways by something in media, this can relate to that because Brooklyn College students would enjoy a show about Brooklyn College more than students who go to NYU. Whenever something is shot in my neighborhood I watch it, regardless of what it is because it is cool to see the areas I know on-screen albit briefly. I think if this were to be well advertised you could have students going “Hey they shot that by that bench I did homework on next to the pond!” or something like that. In general a web series is a good format, not that a production has much of a choice, but the internet and streaming is becoming more and more popular for watching shows, Youtube has that paid service now with original content, and I think the continuing convergence between internet and film/TV will continue and most shows in the future will be on some kind of paid streaming service.
Radiohead Blog
My first ideas when we got the assignment was happiness about how cool it was, (Review rock music for a class? Sign me up!) but I was trying to remember if I already knew any Radiohead. I don’t know why, maybe it’s based on a distant memory, or the name, but I always assumed Radiohead was harder rock, closer to an AC/DC than a Nirvana. Come to think of it I may have been mixing up Radiohead and Motorhead. That doesn’t necessarily turn me on or off to it, rock is my favorite genre and I have no issue with hard rock. I picked up a sorta rebellious, 90s connotation with the name, “OK Computer”, but it’s hard to get anything from that and that’s probably the point.
I listened to the whole album a day or two after the assignment was given, as I was writing a script and on my commute to school, just to get a feel for the music and the album on one listen. My first impression was “Why have I not been listening to Radiohead my whole life?”. First one I listened to was “Paranoid Android”, which after a little research I realized was considered one of their best songs, for good reason. I’m not a musical guy, so I am not very good at articulating what about a song I like, other then “I like the way it sounds”. I guess I liked how “Paranoid Android” seemed to tell a story, because it seemed to bounce around in tempo and volume. Despite hating the film it was written for, I enjoyed “Exit Music (For a Film)” very much as well. Based on the first listen, I really liked the album, not something I’d listen to on a regular basis, but I’ll listen when I find it. Although, upon my second listening of the album I realized that “Electioneering” was far and away my favorite song on the album, a true rock n’ roll song with an awesome political message about what I interpret as the fakeness of politicians. Overall the first impression was positive, some of the songs were a little too slow for my taste, but I really liked the messages most of the songs portrayed.
I always loved looking up the meanings of songs, it shows you what the artist was going for. Although nothing about the songs meanings could make me enjoy it more, but it gives me a new appreciation for the song if I think the meaning is really interesting or important. So I looked up the meanings for the songs on my second go through of the album. Reading the lyrics along with the track then opening up Songfacts.com to get the meanings. Although I still loved certain songs, and did not like others, certain songs grew in my head and I gained more appreciation once I realize the point Radiohead was getting at. For instance how “Airbag” was about a car crash the lead singer was in, and it’s about how a lot of what we see is an illusion, like the fake safety we get from things like airbags. Based on at least two to three listens of each song (Probably 6-7 in the case of “Electioneering”, freaking loved that one), and reading over the lyrics and Yorke’s interviews of the album, I got the bigger picture, so here is my individual “review” for the whole album:
Airbag – Good, twisty guitars, I don’t like the way he sings because I have no idea what he is singing in this one…but cool background once you look it up with the car crash.
Paranoid Android – My initial favorite, I like how it seems to tell a story, the song is about chaos, which is portrayed by all the crazy places the song bounces too musically, as well as the weird animated music video.
Subterranean Homesick Alien – I like it, but too slow for my taste, although love it as a tribute to one of my favorite songs of all time, Bob Dylan’s “Subterranean Homesick Blues” .
Exit Music (For a Film) – Love the title, hate the movie it was written for, love the melody, and the lyrics about trying to escape. Specifically how Romeo and Juliet tried to escape the social bonds they were confined to.
Let Down- Like it, still too slow for my own personal music taste, and it is about the fear of being trapped.
Karma Police – I like the message and lyrics, telling about how fate catches up with us, as well as the folky-ish opening guitar riff.
Fitter Happier – Not a song, but I think it is absolutely genius, a robotic voice describing all the seemingly artificial things about life with sci-fi noises in the background…It reminds me of “Choose Life” From Trainspotting.
Electioneering – By FAR my favorite song on the album, really great guitar riff, and really sick rock n’ roll. Also, great lyrics and political message tied to it about what I see as the fakeness of politicians.
Climbing up the walls – The second half of the song is really cool, with the loud guitar and the screaming reiteration of the title lyric. The song does its justice to its point about the strained by people with mental illness.
No Surprises – Also a little too slow for my own taste, Yorke says it’s about trying to keep it together, I guess I kinda miss that, I think it is my least favorite song on the album.
Lucky – The song is really cool, being originally written for an album to raise money for Bosnia, I see the point of wanting to be lucky, and be pulled from the wreckage. Although my favorite part of the song is the line “We are standing on the edge” and the story behind it. As Yorke put it: “The history of our times calls to mind those Walt Disney characters who rush madly over the edge of a cliff without seeing it. The power of their imaginations keeps them suspended in mid-air, but as soon as they look down and see where they are, they fall.”
The Tourist – Musically too slow for me (No pun intended). I read that Yorke thought it was the perfect song to end the album, saying it was “Obvious”, which I can’t help but agree with. The loud sort of climaxing guitar with the repetition of “Slow down” is a way of telling the listener to wake up and slow down.
My total view of the album as whole remains positive with the second listening and research. Having learned the meanings and stories behind the songs I gained a stronger appreciation for a lot of them as well as the artists. Also, the first listen was while I was doing other things, either working or riding the bus. The second listen was split between the second floor of the campus library and my bedroom, so I really focused on each song and notices things that I didn’t the first time around because I was distracted. For instance “Electioneering” kind of flew past me, then on the second listen I realized I loved it and listened to it in repeat.
I guess you kinda get the feeling that OK Computer is ambiguous, that the lyrics are all over the place and there really is not much of a true point, at least that was my first impression. I figured since it was written in the late 1990s during the height of the tech boom and the freaking thing has the word computer in it, (And there’s a sing where the vocalist is a computer) that the album had something to do with technology. So as requested I did some research, and as it turns it out I was right, the album is meant to describe the isolation that the internet and technology creates, doing away with true human interaction. Which you can really get in a lot of the songs, “Paranoid Android” is about the chaos of the modern world. “Let Down” is about the sense of feeling trapped, maybe in a way like being trapped away from people and behind a computer screen. “Fitter Happier” is literally “Sung” by a computer, and displays the fakeness in technology, void of human contact. “Climbing Up the Walls” is also about being stuck, itching to get out. Although I feel like, with my knowledge of this band confined to the single album, this is a group that wrote about a bunch of different things with different meanings. For instance in regards to “The Tourist”, Yorke said to Rolling Stone: “It sounds like it’s all about technology and stuff, but it’s not”, so yeah, who knows. Going with the theory the album is about the isolation of technology, I feel like much of it is still relevant today, we are deep into a world where human interaction has been broken down to social media through devices, and less actual meaningful human contact, a feeling Yorke agreed with in a recent interview: “I was getting into the sense of information overload, which is ironic, really, since it’s so much worse now,”. In conclusion, I have to listen to some more Radiohead in my spare time. 🙂
Sources:
Blog #4:
What i’m gonna do here is discuss Gattaca first, review and talk about it, then I’ll discuss Pump Up the Volume, then I will compare the two, then i’ll sum it up.
Ok, so i’ll lead with this…I didn’t really like Gattaca. Believe me, it has nothing to do with the type of movie, or the genre, I think there was a lot of issues. Although I thought it was pretty bad it had some merits, Andrew Niccol is pretty talented, I thought some of the directing was cool (Other than that weird upside down sex scene that was odd), I thought Uma Thurman gave a good performance, and a lot of Jerome’s dialog was hilarious and witty. Other than those aspects, I hated it. Starting off with the premise, which is actually kinda cool, and probably realistic. There will probably be an accessible system where parents can cherry pick everything about their child, we already have a lot of the science now. Although, when it came to the whole entire “Life-switching” thing, I think it has a lot of holes. Did Jerome never go out? Or have friends anywhere in this area that he supposedly lived? No family that might wonder why he now looks absolutely nothing like him? A few times they go out together, I feel like that runs a lot of risks of running into someone that knows what Jerome actually looks like. I also just couldn’t be sold on it because Vincent looks absolutely nothing like Jerome, no matter how he cut his hair, wore is clothes, or how tall he was could you convince me that they are the same guy. I kept getting thrown off by the fact Jerome had an accent, and that apparently wasn’t a big deal when it came to mimicking him, but a few unnoticable inches in height was? They mentioned that “On the file” he was a certain height, did the file not say that the guy was a foreigner, and had a thick accent? Also, when the “Invalid” picture is plastered all over Gattaca, a company of supposed geniuses, how could no one realize that that photo was their pal Jerome in glasses? The whole concept, although cool, really makes no sense at all. Another thing is you never find out what Gattaca is, or what they do, you could argue it didn’t really matter to the plot, but it takes me out of it. Besides the screwy plot holes, a boring protagonist, and a stupid love story, nothing bothered me more than the plot conveniences. There is a channel on Youtube (I’m sure you have heard of it) called “CinemaSins” they go through films and poke holes and point out continuity errors, their motto is “No film is without sin”. They have a recurring bit of “Blank: Ex Machina”, “Ex Machina” is defined as: “Any artificial or improbable device resolving the difficulties of a plot”…this movie was the movie of “Ex Machina”. It seemed like at every turn there was just a little stroke of luck that stopped Jerome and Vincent’s gig from being up, but also kept the cops on his tail, in other words: pushing the plot forward and not making the movie 35 minutes. Things like the lucky coincidence the cop talked to Irene, and was able to identify the piece of jewelry as hers when she left it at the club. Or when Vincent was somehow able to slip the fake blood vial while he was getting injected. The best one was the entire sequence where the cop shows up and Jerome has to miraculously climb a flight of flipping stairs, just moments before the cop shows up. Then, when the cop is just seconds away from finding Vincent and all the science stuff downstairs, he gets a phone call. It just seemed like at every turn there were tiny little things that managed to keep the absurd plot afloat. I just generally thought it was un-entertaining, I thought the characters (Other than Jerome) were boring and lacked and personality, and the twist at the end with the brother and the whole “We have to go swim now” thing was just plain stupid, and had nothing to do with the entire plot. To me I think there was just so much wrong with the movie that it distracted me from a premise I was really interested in. Also that last line? “Maybe i’m going home”? Come on, that’s just terrible.
I mean to me it is amazing that this movie was successful 20 years ago, but I think it might actually do better now in today’s world. Dystopian movies, and films about government control and conforming are really prevalent, at least more so than they were in 1997, so I think the movie would dazzle audiences today, more so than it did then. Although, in my opinion the movie as is probably should have been left on the cutting room floor, but that’s just me.
Now onto Pump Up The Volume, which I freaking loved. It’s ironic, I love scifi and hate teenage dramas, yet with these two movies the two switch. First things first, I love Christian Slater, he narrated a non-fiction two-part special event about dinosaurs that was on when I was little called “Dinosaur Planet” that I must have watched 1000 times, and I thought his voice was cool. Then when I got older I saw him in great 80s movies like “Heathers” and “The Wizard”, he was a short time character in my favorite TV series of all time “The West Wing”, as a wiseass naval Lieutenant, then more recently in “Mr. Robot”. Long story short, I like Christian Slater. At the beginning of “Pump Up the Volume”, I wasn’t sold, I thought Mark wasn’t likeable and I thought it was a corny teen angst flick with the angst directed at all the wrong things. Then as the movie went on, and you start to see how the fresh, honest voice really digs into the hearts and minds of the students, and what I thought seemed like vulgar guy just messing around, turned into a fight against corruption and a campaign for first amendment rights. I thought it was really well written, the dialog seems natural and logical for those characters to say, and the story flows logically, and even when they come close to disaster, the distractions like the transmitter and Nora pretending that he was talking to her made sense, and didn’t seem thrown in to fix a problem. I liked Nora’s character a lot, and the sort love story the develops between her and Mark makes sense, it isn’t forced. I for some reason I enjoyed the two scenes where they are about to kiss but one of them keep looking away or something and it becomes this goofy, awkward dance between two social outcasts. I enjoyed the music choices quite a lot, a cool mix of various rock music that had me tapping my feet as I was watching it. I will say I really enjoyed the movie; the actors in it, the writing, the point it tried to make, and the technological medium of radio it told it through.
Although, not to say it doesn’t have its faults, as “CinemaSins” says: “No movie is without sin”. My first issue is actually with the casting a little bit. Like I said I love Christian Slater, and I think the Harry side of the character was a role made for him, my only problem is I can’t believe him as a nerd who cant talk and is a social outcast, maybe it’s that he seems a little too good-looking, or maybe i’m just used to louder more outgoing Christian Slater roles. I also feel like the message was a little all over the place. Half the time it seemed like the point was “Stand up and fight”, but at other times it seemed like the message was “Fuck it, worlds screwed up and no one can do anything about it”, but I guess that makes sense with the fact the character toys with what his point is, where he started it as a thing to mess around with, but turned into a political movement.
Since I had to mention Rodman’s chapter two, I think it really shows how much the media can affect the masses, drive opinion, and create change. I guess you could argue that the movie displays a “Bullet Theory” or a “Two Step”, it depends on if you classify Harry Hardon as an opinion leader, or the media itself. In a way, he does not take opinions from other media and regurgitates it, he is the media to those kids, he is the one with the facts. Although, you can also see how the word of mouth spreads, and how the “Multi-step” comes into play a lot too with kids reselling recorded tapes of his broadcasts, and kids telling other kids what was discussed. Overall, it definitely is an example of the “Powerful effects model”, where the media had a direct influence on the behavior and opinions of its audience, in this case, Harry Hardon to the kids of Humphrey High.
At the end I think Mark probably got a decent amount or jail time, even if he could get off on some first amendment things, he still evaded arrest among other things. The several radio voices chiming in at the end is really cool, it’s an answer to his call: “Talk hard”, go out and make your voice heard, stand up for what the believe in, and that is exactly what people go and do.
These two films are vastly different in genre, cast, and overall style, but they have one central theme in my mind: Control and injustice. Gattaca is about a world that discriminates against people with poor genetics, and Pump Up the Volume is about a world that shuts down free speech. What differs in regards to this theme is how the main characters choose to tackle the injustice. Gattaca tapes into fear of other humans, where the main character talks about injustice, and how much it sucks to be who he is and hides from it, feeds himself into the system, and becomes a player in it. Literally pretending to be something he is not, only justifying the system further. Pump Up the Volume taps into what can be good in people, especially in the face of adversity where a protagonist sees a problem and tries to do something about it, rather than just putting his head down. I would be curious to see a movie in Gattaca’s universe that shows the “Invalid’s” civil rights movement, rather than a movie about the guy who tries to fit in.
As all movies do, each has its pros and cons, things it does well, and things where the points fall flat. Each of these films were vastly different subject matter, yet still managed to connect in some way, and that’s a great thing about film, you could take any two films no matter how different and analyze and compare them to see their effects on an audience. With the long weekend I watched a bunch of movies (As a film major I am prone to do), particularly Dog Day Afternoon, which really shows how the media can distort facts, creating their own story based around what makes sense. I got hitched on Akira Kurosawa this weekend as well, his film Rashomon, literally created an entire principle around contradictory witness testimonies. I watched a French horror film on Netflix called Raw, that was so sick and gory that people reportedly fainted and ran to puke during its screening at the Cannes film festival (Highly recommended by the way). All movies have a goal in mind, the director wants you to feel a certain thing, and I think it is really fun to take different movies and analyze them to see how they achieved that goal…or didn’t in the sake of Gattaca…sorry 🙂
Blog #3
Fake news is a funny thing, it is definitely evident of a larger political and societal problem, but it’s funny. We live in a world where a term “Fake News” exists, and doesn’t just exist, but is at the forefront. The concepts of fake or exaggerated journalism has existed for centuries, yellow journalism and propaganda justified entire wars among other other things, it isn’t really anything new. Although recently, with this past election and Donald Trump it has become a real talking point. Of course, most of what Trump calls fake news isn’t truly fake news, he basically just calls out any outlet that specifically calls him out. Although, that’s not to say fake news isn’t still a major issue. There are news outlets, mostly small lesser known ones that make up stories that are bias and one side that people actually believe. When it comes to the articles I don’t feel like it was anything new, I feel like I don’t go a day without hearing fake news in some aspect, and I have more or less heard everything in the two New York Times articles. The article about Macedonia interested me, I had heard something during in the campaign about the “underground” news outlets powered by Russia in Eastern Europe, but I didn’t know how large an industry it is in Macedonia. The Atlantic article was really good, very long, but very good. We subscribed to a notion that we could make our own reality and believe what we wanted to, which I guess in a way is true, we can form our own opinions and realities, but within the guidelines of facts. America has always been the country of ideas and free expression, so naturally with those abilities we draw our own conclusions, because we can. A society where new ideas and diverse opinions are suppressed, is told what to think and how to think it, we have the power of imagination, and everyone likes to share their opinion. That is where I say we lost it, the only thing that separates us from the old days that makes us a little crazier…sharing. We can share anything, whenever, however we want with a few clicks. The internet and social media made everyone’s opinions public, and the more people listening the more your opinion becomes trusted as fact. It’s hard to think whether any of that implies that America is “Losing its mind”. I think we are a little lost, maybe a little confused, we have boundless information at our fingertips with modern technology, and i’m unsure how ready for that we were. I think we are the supercomputer that got too much information shoved in that it just couldn’t compute anymore and shorted out. I think Green Day said it right in “American Idiot”: “And sing along to the age of paranoia”, the age of information kinda does away with “Ignorance is Bliss”. Boundless information is a small rectangle in our pockets, you no longer have to seek it out. In the past, academics and intellectuals pursued knowledge, now that it is more available everyone can know it, but some people aren’t educated enough to comprehend it all…so we get paranoid people who don’t know better losing their minds, they see one thing that they see as fact and they tell everyone, and suddenly it’s a deal. A few years ago a Facebook link went around my neighborhood exclaiming the threats of a harmful liquid that erodes metal, and can be choked on in its solid form. The liquid was called Dihydrogen Monoxide, or two hydrogens and one oxygen…H2O, it was warning about the effects of water. But people didn’t realize that, and everyone freaked the heck out. In Aaron Sorkin’s latest show, about a TV news show “The Newsroom”, the guy who ran the news division had a phrase: “I will not be governed by the fear of stupid people”…which is what we are. The masses have a louder voice than ever, we get straight to leaders faster than we ever did, and people know that. People like the Mikhail from Macedonia, who are well aware of how impressionable people can be, (Especially when their own opinions are supported) and has made an industry out of fake news, plugging fake trash onto our Facebook feeds. Now I commend Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook for accepting that they have been part of the problem, but are they really responsible for people’s intelligence? I don’t think it should be up to Facebook to have to police what morons post and support, they are a business, they take money because they are one, and they work off the ad buys. It is a tough question if they should be limiting what types of ads they buy, I don’t think it is their job, and I think if they could control that sort of thing, you could call into question why they did or didn’t. Say it went another way, and Facebook denied all the fake stories that made Hillary look bad, but none of the ones about Trump, then they’d be partisan. Back to what I said earlier, Facebook should not be responsible for stupid people believing stupid junk, we can’t blame Facebook for people taking things seriously. Who do you blame for my neighbors freaking out about a Facebook article saying water was killing people? Facebook for not finding it? Or the stupid people that live around me? Facebook is not a news outlet I don’t think they have to be held to journalistic standards, (Moral standards? Heck yeah) they are not in the business of information, they are social media. Facebook connects people, they can’t control what people post, even if it is fake news or propaganda. When it comes down to it, truth is truth, it is not up for debate. Two plus two is four, that cannot be debated, the Earth is round, that cannot be debated. They say there is three sides to every story; each side’s interpretation, and the truth. There is only one truth, truth is a fact, facts can be liked or disliked, but it can not be debated.
Blog #2: Censorship
I tend to think I have a radical view: censorship of any kind by any government or legal entity should outlawed. Straight up, I don’t have any “If this…”, “What if that…”. The government should never have the ability to tell you what you can and cannot read. I understand there is a lot if inappropriate stuff out there, stuff kids should not really be exposed to, but that is up to the kids parents on whether or not their kid can take it, because some might be able to deal with a mature text, and other can’t. For me it comes down to, like the articles said, educating kids on the background. A kid might read Huckleberry Finn, a book known for its use of the N-word, but if along with the text the teacher properly educated the kid on the background of the word and why it is not a good one, the kid won’t use it and be negatively affected by the text (You would hope anyway). I was actually a little surprised with some of the books on that list and in the articles. I have read Huck Finn, which I guess in some ways I get it, language and racist themes throughout, but the point is it was a realistic novel about that time period. “A Curious Case of a dog in the Nighttime” is a fantastic book, and I have no idea why anyone would challenge it. In schools, where you might be more careful to what you read to students, I honestly am ok with kids being read books with offensive language as long as they are properly educated about that language. Although, I don’t think books should ever be “banned”, every book from “If You Give a Mouse a Cookie” to “Mein Kampf” should be available to those with the inclination to be educated. In terms of the chart, I think it makes sense, because sex and language are for some reason the things that people think should be censored the most (Despite being two of the most fundamental aspects of human society), it is easier to agree that eight year olds shouldn’t be watching porn and swearing like sailors…more so than seemingly obvious things…like racism and sexism. Which don’t seem to be as agreed upon as “Bad”, because in some areas and cultures uses of the N-word for instance, are not nearly as offensive. Also, sexism and racism are subjects of historical teachings and debate, we learn about how they affected people and culture in the past, so people are more likely to want to use those texts to educate. I get that parents want to protect their kids, and i’m fine with a parent telling a kid they can’t read something they think is inappropriate, if you don’t like them reading Huck Finn in class, sign a form saying they can’t, that should be allowed, I just don’t want government involved. With censorship, that’s what it comes down to for me: leave government out of it. Parents, teachers, authority figures with a personal understanding of a child’s mental capacity should be the ones responsible for the texts and information students are allowed to absorb, the government or any other public entity should not have the right to say what can and cannot be read. If we start down that road where does it stop? As much as I love Ray Bradbury and “Fahrenheit 451”, I don’t want it to become a reality.
Weekly Blog #1 (9/6)
I have to say, much of what the three men said were things that I was thinking but couldn’t exactly articulate in the way that I wanted to, at least not without making myself seem stupid. I pretty much agreed with everything they said, although the left does their best to shut down the right (As in some cases they very well should), they end up throwing more kerosene on the fire. As I said, nothing “New” to me was stated, although I learned a lot about the Antifa which had confused me before the article. That being said, I pretty much agreed with everything said between Beinart, Sullivan, and Bruni. I 100% believe that people, no matter what they are yelling, should have the right to yell it. Don’t get me wrong, I am a Jew, and hearing Nazi rallies three states away is troubling. In a perfect world, these hate groups don’t exist, we all love each other and live in a peaceful Star Trek society. Unfortunately, they do, and they are endowed under the exact same rights as the rest of us. They should be allowed to march and rally as they please, because that is what the first amendment says. When groups like Antifa shut that down, it only makes them angrier, and more likely for rallies to become riots. That is where the line must be drawn as well, at violence. As long as the groups continue to be peaceful, they have the same rights as we do, because their right to say what they want is what makes America America. The Antifa have to abide by the same rules, I am all for fighting Nazis, but street level violence only makes all the problems worse. I think Beinart makes a good point when comparing the two. In essence of the fact they are violence based political groups representing the extremes of their respective sides, they are the same. They both shut down the other from saying what they want to say via violence and intimidation…in certain footage of Charlottesville, it’s hard to tell who’s who, it just looks like a mob of violence in wild west bandit masks. In other words, you can’t tell the good from the bad. I think this kinda thing is embodied by the examples Sullivan explains about Boston. The group in Boston only recognized themselves as a free speech group, neither Neo-Nazi or white supremacy. Then anyway, the other side shut them down to the point not even the press could get any word of what their message is, and it hurts democracy when the public cannot get the opinions of everyone. I also really liked Bill Maher’s interview in the video. Although, I don’t tend to love Bill Maher, I don’t find him funny, (At least not compared to the Oliver’s and Colbert’s of the world) but I really enjoyed what Frank Bruni had to say, it makes sense. I liked to hear someone speak their mind about something like that, and I think he is right. These days, people like to drive the wedge deeper and deeper between people and social groups. We claim no one can understand our problems so they cant help, which is a bad way to look at it because then we just grow in our differences. I think that in the end we like to define groups, we pick a party, then a sect of that party. Then we are in our own racial and social groups, and suddenly no one is talking, and nobody’s getting anywhere. It is hard (I’m sure) to sit down and talk to a Neo-Nazi, i’m sure there won’t be many intellectual discussions between Antifa and Nazi’s next time they find themselves face to face, we can never really reel in the extremes of either side, so it falls to the rest of us. There will always be disagreements, but the least we can do is educate and talk, and try to strive for a way that we can understand each other and begin to help each other. That is the only way the US democracy will last.
Ryan Schwach Mass Media Blog 