College Suspensions Presentation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQQQPQ_7L3s

Brief Background:

Ohio St star receiver Davier Posey is re-suspended for four more games after apparently being paid too much (matter of 60-700 dollars) this past summer and hiding evidence in the initial investigation.

However, Posey’s attorney states all the evidence was already provided; hence he should be exonerated of all charges.

The debate in the video questions the NCAA Judicial process because it seems to ignore the rule, innocent before proven guilty. The experts in the video argue whether independent arbitrators are needed to approve suspensions, and diminish discrepancies within the system.

How it is presented?

·      The way it’s presented with 5 experts analyzing and debating the topic suggests that it is an unresolved and controversial issue.

o  They argue whether arbitrators are needed or not. This highlights two issues that appeal to everyone and includes innocent before proven guilty problem, and punishments not fit for crimes.

·      The reporters also use frustrating tone that speaks for all viewers of college sports that the NCAA’s punishments don’t fit the crimes.

Selective exposure and perception- NCAA looks at evidence against Posey with an existing belief. They initially just think it proves what they had always suspected.

True Enough: Selective exposure/perception

What I found most influential to me after reading True Enough by Farhad Manjoo was the insights that Manjoo opened my eyes to. Although I favored reading the topics about controversial events like the attacks on September 11^th, I connected more strongly to the text with a focus that I could relate to my own everyday life.

The basis of this focus that Manjoo covered involved his theories on selective exposure and selective perception. Just to restate these definitions, Manjoo defines selective exposure as being “we simply steer clear of information that contradicts what we think we know” (30). Therefore, growing off this term he defines selective perception as, “that even when two people of opposing ideologies overcome their tendency toward selective exposure and choose to watch the same thing, they may still end up being pushed apart from each other.” (78). After having been exposed to these explanations of sociology, I’ve realized how frequently they apply to my outlooks and the perspectives of others. Similar to how Manjoo describes the way certain people that possess a strict political view only watch a certain television station, I have a strict preference to a certain sports pre-game show. Every Sunday morning-afternoon whether I’m trying to do homework or not, ESPN’s NFL countdown must be playing on the television. For one reason only, to watch reporter Chris Berman share his analysis on the upcoming games that afternoon. This is because like myself, Berman focuses more on analyzing the underdogs best chances for victory. Growing up in a family with no severe preference for any sports teams, I root for the underdog team to pull an upset in most games. The neutral, yet somewhat selective style of game viewing is what Berman offers that many other broadcasting stations like CBS and Fox don’t with most their reporters being former coaches or players.

I also felt that the Dartmouth versus Princeton football game example that Manjoo used to highlight selective perception demonstrated this concept well. Whenever there’s any form of competitiveness between two sides, there’s an initial opinion of each side whether it is good or bad. I feel Manjoo is trying to show is that people from opposing sides will always have different perspectives before and after the game, but more times than not, the before and after don’t change the perspective. In the case of the outcome of Dartmouth and Princeton game, the Dartmouth fans just thought Princeton was just as whiney as they’ve ever been. Likewise the Princeton fans felt the Dartmouth players were only on a mission to hurt others. Whether these accusations are true or not doesn’t matter, as long as the fans on each side felt that their pre-existing beliefs were supported.

Lou Dobbs a part of the system

Finally I come across a section in the reading that doesn’t explain how America is being brainwashed and lied to by the government and other large bodies of media in the public sphere. Rather, Manjoo explores a great example of the dynamic in the public sphere, where news outlets must change their focus in order to satisfy audiences in a culture of niches. As an example of this, he presented news anchor Lou Dobbs. Dobbs primetime news reports exemplify the change that occurred following the attacks on September 11^th. He was able to veer the point of focus of his show from the cold rationality of markets, to the topic of the United States’ loss for national sovereignty. Considering the status of the economy before and after 9/11, both topics captured the majority of businessmen at each time. That’s why he became one of the CNN’s highest-rated anchors, and attracted viewers up to eight hundred thousand a night.

            “But Lou Dobbs is not a raving idiot. He just plays one on TV. Given the circumstances, he’d be a fool not to”, Manjoo wrote about Dobb’s performances (148). I think the message here is that Dobb’s is less of a famous figure, than he is a character of the system that’s objective is to attract viewers.

When in Doubt, Scream “Fake”

“The pictures show how fakery- or, really, the mere possibility of fakery, the ever-present suspicion of digitally abetted fraud- will weaken all images and sounds supporting stories that many would prefer not to know” (80).

            Manjoo makes a good point here when highlighting his overall theme of the story concerning the controversial Iraqi children/US marine picture. If this picture had stood alone in the media without fakes to diminish its validity, there would have been seriously consequences to the U.S. – Iraqi relationship. But because the Naval Criminal Investigative Service was able to intervene with the situation before it blew up, the severity of the images were weakened. This shows me that the selective perspective Manjoo describes applies in this case. The public expects the government to tell the whole truth, so when the service raised skeptics the tensions are rested.

            On the other hand for some people that post controversial pictures that don’t have a government body supporting them, like Anthony Weiner per say. When he claimed his nude picture was fake, it was only a matter of time until pressure breached that lie. A blatant lie to the public can only withstand so much time before the truth is uncovered. The same could apply for me, or anyone that doesn’t have an affiliation with a bigger body (aka the government).