"Control Room": Different Channels. Different Truths.

The documentary “Control Room”, gives insight to what the Al Jazeerd goes through to give news to the Arab world, and how different countries portray different messages.

The Al Jazeera tried to give to truthful and honest news to the Arab people, telling them to “wake up, wake up” and realize what is going on around them. Because of their honesty, they have been banned by several Arab governments, but it is also the most popular news source in the Arab world. The Al Jazeera has been criticized from all sides for taking sides, but Deema Khatib, the Producer of Al Jazeera says, “This is a war, and people are dying… Are any news broadcasts I turn to not taking a side?”

While Traditional Media, according to journalist Ken Wright, “tells us what to think about” and “gives access to certain people,” the Al Jazeera believes everyone should know the cost of war. As can be seen in “Control Room,” the Al Jazeera really believes in using sources that are open-minded to different perspectives.



Different countries will have different views on the war, because they will see different things. As Americans, we don’t have the bloodshed in our backyard, while the Arab people have had to see it almost every day. Our homes are blown being blown to pieces. We really don’t see the reality of war in our backyards.

Is it the role of news to show us what is going on? Or is there sometimes such as thing as too much? For safety reasons, we don’t always need a play-by-play of what is going on. We don’t need to know the exact location our soldiers will be advancing to next. The technology we have today is dangerous during war time, because anything we can see in our home land can be seen by the other side.

Michelle Obama: Change for Fashion

As a new president comes into office, history is being made. People from all over the world have been paying close attention to the election for months, and finally a new president is in office. But, the president isn’t the only change people are watching.
The media criticizes what stars wear, and they even watch what the first lady is wearing. It seems having a new president in office is not enough for people these days. They need more to gossip about, so they turn to Michelle Obama.

Many people have been watching what Mrs. Obama wears, even the New York Times ran a article of her clothing, talking about the subtle effect the first wife's clothing can have on a campaign. New York Times writes,

"But it was particularly the color Michelle Obama chose Tuesday night that seemed symbolically rich, even if its message may have been so subtle as to be subliminal.



“I don’t know if that’s something they consciously thought about,” said Mr. Anthony, referring to the fact that purple is, as every schoolchild knows, created by mixing the primary colors red and blue".

Though in the past, many president's wives have been mocked for what they wear, Michelle Obama seems to be recieveing praise for her casual dress. She dosn't seem to need high class clothing to give here confidence, earning respect from the middle-class woman. The Envelope writes that "After Michelle Obama mentioned on "The View" on Wednesday that she bought her B&W sundress at a store called White House/Black Market, women started pouring into the retail chain's stores, clamoring for the $148 dress designed by Donna Ricco.



"Women literally were snatching (that dress) up," Jessica Wells, a spokeswoman for the White House/Black Market, which has 322 stores across the country, told the Wall Street Journal".



When a president, who is making history by merely being elected, comes into office and our media covers what his wife is wearing, maybe we should stop and look at what we, as a society, deem important. But, apparently, the election was not only a political change but also a change of clothing when it comes to first ladies.

Portraits of War: Unseen Pictures, Untold Stories

In the Los Angeles Times, James Rainey wrote the article “Portraits of War: Unseen Pictures, Untold Stories.” This article questions whether the photo of Travis Babbitt should have been publicized, and why some people feel it is necessary.

Travis Babbitt was killed while on patrol in Baghdad, and the photo was released before his funeral. His mother, Kathy Hernandez, wishes the newspapers had at least waited until after her son’s funeral, but she understands why they would want people to see it: “I do think it’s an important thing, for people to see what goes on over there, it throws reality more in your face. And sometimes we can’t help reality.”

But, the real question remains, do people really need to see such gruesome visuals of war? Some people argue that the pictures hurt morale and intrude on the most intimate moments of human suffering. While, many journalists believe it is their duty, their job, to show truth, to provide an unsanitized portrait of war.

So why have the photographs of the American dead been so few? It is hard for the photographers to be at the right place at the right time, meaning that when action occurs there is a major chance the photographer will not be there. When they are present at the right time, photographers often find themselves thwarted by their military handlers. In one instance, troops jumped in front of a photographer, to prevent the photographer from taking pictures of the dead and wounded as they were being transferred to a hospital.

And, sometimes, the photographer will use their own judgment and withhold pictures themselves. A Virginia newspaper photographer was close to the action, when right before Christmas a mess hall near Mosul was bombed, killing 22 people. He took many pictures of the dead and dying servicemen that were sent around the world, but withheld some pictures of a soldier who died by his side, believing them to be too personal and gruesome.

There are certain requirements a picture must meet before it can ever go to print. Photographers working with the U.S. military agree not to use pictures of the dead and wounded if faces can be recognized and the family must also be notified beforehand. Paul Fusco, a veteran photographer, said he was convinced that controls on war coverage come straight from the White House and helped support an unjustified war, a way of getting people to support the war.

Photographers show bravery and skills and they work to produce an insider’s view of the war for us. War photographers go through long hours of boredom, put themselves in dangerous situations, for 20 minutes of action, a few photos. Many soldiers respect the photographers for standing beside them through firefights and mortar barrages, but those bonds can quickly fly out the window when things go wrong. Tyler Hicks of the New York Times and Carolyn Cole of Los Angeles accompanied the Army during the insurgent stronghold of Najaf. They experienced many life-threatening events next to the soldiers, but the respect they gained from the soldiers disappeared when they tried to take pictures of dead and wounded soldiers being taken to the field hospital. Cole understood the soldiers’ high emotions, but she resented them blocking her camera and getting in the way of her job.

“They were happy to have us along when we could show them fighting the battle, show the courageous side of them,” Cole said. “Then suddenly the tables turned. They didn’t want anything shown of their grief and what was happening on the negative side, which is equally important.”

Photographers argue that people need to see all sides of the war: “I feel we still aren’t seeing the kind of pictures we need to see to tell the American people about this war and the costs of war,” said Steve Stroud, deputy director of photography at the Los Angeles Time.

We often see more pictures of Iraqi spilled blood. We are seeing more pictures of the enemy than our own soldiers, our brothers, fathers, sons, and friends. The New York Time ran 55 photos of Iraqis dead or wounded in six months, while only 10 of its own U.S. causalities. The Los Angeles Time ran 41 photos of Iraqi causalities and 10 American wounded. This is partly due to the fact that there have been more Iraqi casualties, but American editors fear the resentment they often get for publishing pictures of the dead of wounded American soldiers. Even American photographers become resentful to the idea that the public may not see their work. “These pictures are going unseen because editors don’t print them,” Hondros said. “And they don’t print them because readers don’t want to see them.”

There is evidence to subject that the public’s view may fluctuate. In a survey taken by the Associated Press, 2,461 regular newspaper readers were questioned and 59% percent said they would have published the Babbitt photo themselves.

Should something like that be published on the front page of the Durango Herald? Is it ok for Los Angeles Times, a paper distributed nation-wide, to show this picture, but not the Durango Herald, a local newspaper? Most people who read newspapers are of a mature age to be able to handle a picture that may be offensive to some.

War movies often show more repulsing pictures than the pictures photographers deliver to us through the news. But, just as movies have rating, likewise, newspapers should be monitored. A child is not likely to pick up The Los Angeles Times to read cartoons, whereas they would The Durango Herald. The Los Angeles Times targets an older, more mature, audience; thus, it is appropriate they that can show the reality of war.

Technology and Children

In the article, “A new era in PLAY” By Reed Karaim, we are informed that the way children are learning has changed. No longer are children receiving their knowledge from books. Why open a book when the book will read itself to you? Four years ago, when I got a cell phone, I was the lucky kid on the block. Now, it seems every kid has not only a cell phone, but they have a PlayStation, IPod, and access to a computer. According to Reed Karaim’s research, “The Entertainment Software Association reports that nearly a third of Americans who play computer and/or video games are under 18. The Pew Internet & American Lie Project says 93% of teenagers are one the Internet, A study of the cellphone industry found that up to 70% of 12- to 14-year-olds now have their own phones, as well as significant number of 5- to 9-year-olds.” What does a 10-year-old need with a phone? Somebody tell me please! Some may argue it is a way of contacting their parents. While this may be true, we have to wonder why payphones were created? I think today they just sit as a reminder of the past generation, because the generation of today has more phones then they know what to do with. Karaim’s research tells us, “According to a Kaiser Family Foundation study, American kids ages 8 to 18 average 44.5 hours per week in front of some kind of screen. The only thing they do more is sleep.” Many people are concerned about the activity… or lack of… that children are receiving. If a child watches 2 or more hours of TV a day, they are more likely to become obese and have weight problems later on in life. It’s a Friday night and sure people go out to the movies, but what would have previously been a board game night with my friends turned into playing the new video fade Rock Band. Video games and TV shows also teach children bad habits, such as aggression.
As the world around us is changing, we can’t avoid technology, we can’t raise out children in a cave. So, we have to learn how to be smart. Karaim reminds us to “Make judgments based on the material, the way you are using it and whether your child is ready for it.”