Read this article and summarize it. How do you think the internet changes Clear Channel's ability to control media? Should there be a governing body that regulates internet content?
Interview Goes Viral
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
English 1 Course Blog
Welcome to the English 1 Course Blog. This blog will serve as a forum where we can discuss the course readings and other topics related to our class discussions.
You will be expected to post on this blog at least ten times during the semester. To receive credit for your post, you must write at least one paragraph (5-7 sentences). You do not have to worry about spelling, grammar, or punctuation.
You will be expected to post on this blog at least ten times during the semester. To receive credit for your post, you must write at least one paragraph (5-7 sentences). You do not have to worry about spelling, grammar, or punctuation.
6 comments:
i think that there is no way for anything to be kept quiet anymore and this is proved through that article. once one person finds out about anything, it only takes that one person to put it on the nternet and let it spread across states. to question whether or not we need a goverment to control the internet, that would go against freedom of speech. for those people who are against freedom of speech and think that some things should be censored whether it's on the tv or on the internet, there is no way that can actually happen in a counttry like america. america is land of the free and if youre worried about what youre children might find than thats where parental controls come in tact. speaking from experiance i have been under serious parental control up until this year. which meant certain websites were banned, i wasnt able to recive email or IM with ppl not on my buddy list and those ppl on my buddy list had to be sent for my father to approve of and add. certain channels on tv are controlled as well. just because america is free, doesnt mean you have to let your kids be exposed to these kinds of immoralities. so yes there is no way to keep news a secret, but there is a way to protect your chldren and your self from being exposed to things.
i think the main point of the argument is in the first statement of the article which is anything released to the internet not only that it cant be stopped from spreading, but it spreads like the fastest disease. questioning whether or not there should be a govt body to regulate internet content is an important topic. but before we decide to act upon this we must first ask oursleves if this even possible to control whatever is posted on the world wide web. i am all for censorship. i think kids should be refused some ability to access certain internet web sites. however this might be impossible. although people might argue to say it will violate our freedom of speech. this is still the response and rebuttal that we will always hear from people. another point is that regulating internet can also conform the web into a certain categories.
honestly i beleive that no matter what people do, if something goes onto the internet it is basically impossible for it not to spread as fast as lightening. As for having someone changing this, i dnt think that there is any body of government big enough to monitor the amount of stuff that goes into the computer everyday. If you do not want anyone to know your business, best bet is to stay quiet and not to give anyone a chance to put ur name or picture on the computer
censorship on the internet, or anywhere is a very slippery slope. i believe there should be some type of censorship on alot of things, but that parents should also stop skirting their responsibility's and raise their children. the biggest problem with censorship is that some of the same people that scream for censorship are the ones that complain the most when they are censored, but there has to be some sort of give and take. the point that i feel got lost in this article is that the interview was clear channels property and all these other websites were basically stealing by playing it.
The internet definately inhibits the clear channel's ability to control the media. Once something is put on the internet, it can be copied and pasted to many other sites and once that happens, it can never truly be deleted. i think that their should not be a governing body regulating internet content. This is because they would take away or restrict the power that an individual has to use the internet as they choose. also, at this point in time, it would be pretty much impossible to establish a governing body with the way that technology has advanced. people would just find a way to get around it.
I think ideally, there are some things that shouldn't get out and maybe it should be censored. However, as we see from the story about Mr. Dodd, the internet is just not something we could control. These days, everything is public information. Anything can end up on the internet, and once it's on the internet, it has the potential to reach millions and millions of people. People have literally become famous because of one little video posted on you tube. Once something's out there, it gets spread around and you just can't take it back. It spreads out too far and too fast to control. In a way, it's good that people can find out anything they want to know. On the other hand, some things just shouldn't be out there. As far as controlling it though, as much as we may want to, it's a moot point because it's just not possible. So, in my opinion, there's no reason to debate whether things should be censored or not because on the internet, if you want to get something out there, there's always a way, there's just no way to stop that.
Post a Comment