Peer Response-Carrie Jo

I recently read Carrie Jo's blog regarding anti-smoking ads published in France. These two ads formed the basis of a much heated discussion not only in France, but around the world, in regards to young people smoking. I felt that Carrie Jo also did a swell job of noting the issue of smoking, but also the fact that the issue of child pornography was brought into the discussion as well. The reason this facet was brought into the scene was because of the way the media portrayed the ad. Unfortunately, something was made of nothing in regards to this issue; something that is not uncommon when it comes to the media. I feel that the media should keep their nose out of ads regarding the well-being of people. However, I understand this is their job. I would like to see, which I'm sure Carrie Jo would also, more regulation placed on media coverage. In conclusion, Carrie Jo did a very fine job in her blog and I felt that she covered all necessary material in order to give a complete report on the issue.

A Tail of Two Stories

Recently there has been much interest regarding the BP oil spill off the southwest coast of Louisiana in the Gulf of Mexico. I found two articles, on two very different sites, that had their own facts and input about the story. The articles I found were on msnbc.com and foxnews.com, two highly publicized news media outlets that share different political views. For the most part both websites contained the same factual knowledge, with a surprisingly small number of instances where I found differences in opinion. I was satisfied to see that neither of these popular news sources decided to add their thoughts into the articles and that they left it at a matter of fact. I always become frustrated when one of these two websites feels inclined to let the public know what they feel is important, instead of what truly is. Since this is such a serious incident it is important that America and the world hears the truth about what happened and what is going on to hinder the situation.
The first article I read was on msnbc.com and was titled, Obama: Spill could be unprecedented disaster. The article started off by saying how the Obama administration was doing all it could to contain the spill and that it was acting quickly and promptly. Another facet of the article stated that the oil company BP would be covering all costs associated with the spill, including environmental and economical expenses. Furthermore, the article stated how BP was building domes to contain the spill.
The second article was found on foxnews.com and titled, Obama Administration presses BP to settle oil spill cleanup costs. In this article, foxnews did a tremendous job of saying how BP will be covering all costs and how they were completely responsible and also to blame for the spill. Moreover, it outlined how the National Guard had become involved in helping to direct the situation in the right direction.
Personally, I felt that the msnbc article was more convincing because it gave me more facts and first hand analysis in the form of interviews than did the foxnews article. Still further, it gave a broader scope of the incident, retrieving facts from scientists who were working on determining the overall severity of the incident. Overall, the articles were both suffice in giving the public the information that was needed to be said. We will see in the weeks to come what the overall outcome is from this fallout, and msnbc and foxnews will be there with coverage.