Skip to main content

2021/5/12

    Today Mr. Paterson showed us an article from BBC News. The title was “24 people killed including 9 children in Gaza as Israel strikes Hamas following rocket attacks”. The problem with this title is that usually people only read the headline and not the whole article, so with this wording people won’t know if Israeli children or Palestinian children were killed. If the viewer didn’t know the reality in Palestine, they may misinterpret the article. Then Mr. Paterson explained to us with a demonstration with Ayana. He took Ayana's computer and to get it back she punched him. However, his fellow journalists only reported the part where Ayana punched Mr. Paterson. With no context, readers will assume that Mr. Paterson is the victim because most people don't do their own research. Like this example, BBC News started with Ayana, Palestine, punching Mr. Paterson, Israel. They don't cover the "why", what happened before Palestine's rocket fire. I learned that the media only tells us bits of information on purpose in order to manipulate us.
    My reaction to this class as a whole was that I was shocked. First of all, I didn't know that BBC and other big newspapers that I trusted, and thought credible were the most biased. I knew what was going on in Palestine by scrolling through Twitter and TikTok. Especially TikTok, many young creators are very active on this topic so my first impression of this topic was we need to help Palestine. So I immediately assumed that the children that were killed would be Palestinian. I was very surprised that the media we are using to educate ourselves are the ones who target the uneducated to manipulate their thoughts. Also, when Mr. Paterson told us that Israel is using their religion to justify their actions and to justify Jerusalem as their land, I thought about the freedom of religion. When Mr. Paterson mentioned that he could make a new religion and use it to justify crimes, it sounded ridiculous but it was about the same as Israel. I think the true meaning of freedom of religion and belief is that you have the freedom to believe but at the same time you have the right to not believe. It goes both ways, so no one has the right to use the bible to justify interfering with someone's life.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

9/30 Reflection

Today Mr. Paterson introduces us to a tool that shows us if our choices of color are color-blind friendly. I never thought of the color choices that deeply. I knew that some combinations of colors are hard to see but just for normal people. When we checked our site, there wasn’t that much to fix but I learned that there are choices that normal people can’t notice.  Today the class was supposed to start the presentations but we were given more time. I hope that we can do a better presentation than the last one. 
Post a Comment
Read more

2021/1/14

    Today, Mr. Paterson told us about an article about paper textbooks and digital textbooks that sparked debate.       When he showed us the news article, I recognized the professor immediately and I was surprised to hear this from him. I've read a few of his books about the Japanese language (since he studies Japanese) and seen him on TV multiple times, and I liked him. I'm all in with digitalizing textbooks since it's much more efficient and most of all it's so much lighter.       Mr. Paterson told us about vertical and horizontal reading. With digital textbooks, students can do horizontal reading. When I read books I note down the words I didn't understand and search them up later. But when I forget which page I got it from, I can't consider the context clues making it harder to understand the word. I like paper books but I find this really inconvenient.            I couldn't really get why he disli...
Post a Comment
Read more

2021/10/12

    Today in class, we were introduced to the world-systems theory. This theory was developed by Immanuel Wallerstein. Mr. Paterson showed us a graph with Kondratiev waves, when the graph goes up the monopoly of the technology and when it goes down the monopoly ends. This suggests that the world is divided into 3 countries, ①core countries, ②semi-periphery countries, and ③periphery countries. It argues that technology gets passed down through generations; rich countries get to use the new high-tech stuff first and when they are done with it, the poorer countries get to use it, when it's not high-tech anymore. The richer countries don't like it when other countries infringe on their monopoly and they try to come into the "core countries". They don't like sharing so it's very rare for semi-periphery countries to bump up to the core countries. One example was when the US was developing rapidly and becoming a bigger country, Britain, France, and Spain fought in th...
Post a Comment
Read more