HomoColloquioBiblio

Every year, the National Book Week is being held. One of our School's program is to write a reading poem. It is actually a contest. And this will be my last piece.

The wind that blew with bliss as its sting
Is the breath of tomes seemly sing
That sage's wisdom to me out bring
A sense to once a foolish evening

Ample trees feed a lovely enchantress
With eyes on mended words, illusion never displeases
To a pond can be heard a greeting fishes splashes
After a crunch of unwavering memories

Deprive not me from visage I see
That virgin syllables though they're merely
But clutched a brilliance illuminating intensely
Juvenile minds led to a path progressively

Much to the gaiety they give as to heaven
gentle reasons refined as it's spoken
How man will struggle when Armageddon coming
It's the only sparkling that can ne'er be stolen nor forgotten.

Memories!!!!

I was really wondering how my bestfriend Miyu cried after she lost her wallet. It only contain nothing but pictures. When i asked her, she said it was memories. Well, I didn't paid much attention to it because she was, as far as I know, is an emotional one. The heart of group, the feeler.
But when I borrowed her USB, which also contain "memories", I got to understand her.
I skimmed over my photos and found its significance. It had struck me in the sense that it reminded me of my junior life and come to access myself today through the years. It deeply flashed back to my unconciousness and woke me to its relevance.
Indeed, it was all memories!

Rage of Typhoon Ondoy

The distance between Luzon and Mindanao has never been a hindrance for the inhabitants of Davao del Sur not to undergo the rage of typhoon Ondoy aside from the expected typhoon Peping following him. Heavy are the rains and strong gales are inevitable. The streets were flooded even only with undescribable minute pools of rainwater, still made us suffer quite enough and urging us to think of the situation of those who are affected. Even in some simple ways, we cannot give because we don't have any. I'm just a mere student but still inside me is the urge to pray for them. We never know that to those who cannot give is where the powerful help emanates. I hope this entry will influence those who have nothing to pack themselves with faith and concern through tightly holding their rosaries as well as praying with the family.

Mass Communication Course Descriprion

I am a 4th year high school now and part of it was to decide what course you are up to and wanted to pursue... I decided, why not this one.. or maybe other course instead.. but for now, I consider this as my first choice.

Mass communication is the term used to describe the academic study of the various means by which individuals and entities relay information through mass media to large segments of the population at the same time. It is usually understood to relate to newspaper and magazineradio, television and film, as these are used both for disseminating news and for advertising.
publishing,

Field of study

Tuba Nacar - Mass communication research includes media institutions and processes such as diffusion of information, and media effects such as persuasion or manipulation of public opinion. In the United States, for instance, several university journalism departments evolved into schools or colleges of mass communication or "journalism and mass communication". In addition to studying practical skills of journalism, public relations or advertising, they offer programs on "mass communication" or "mass communication research." The latter is often the title given to doctoral studies in such schools, whether the focus of the student's research is journalism practice, history, law or media effects. Departmental structures within such colleges may separate research and instruction in professional or technical aspects of mass communication.

With the increased role of the Internet in delivering news and information, mass communication studies and media organizations tend to focus on the convergence of publishing, broadcasting and digital communication.

The academic mass communication discipline historically differs from media studies and communication studies programs with roots in departments of theatre, film or speech, and with more interest in "qualitative," interpretive theory, critical or cultural approaches to communication study. In contrast, many mass communication programs historically lean toward empirical analysis and quantitative research -- from statistical content analysis of media messages to survey research, public opinion polling, and experimental research. Interest in "New Media" and "Computer Mediated Communication" is growing much faster than educational institutions can assimilate it. So far, traditional classes and degree programs have not been able to accommodate new shifts of the paradigm in communication technologies. Although national standards for the study of interactive media have been present in the U.K. since the mid-nineties, course work in these areas tends to vary significantly from university to university.

Graduates of Mass Communication programs work in a variety of fields in traditional news mediapublishing, advertising, public relations and research institutes. and

Such programs are accredited by the Accrediting Council on Education in Journalism and Mass Communication^[1]. The Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication^[2] is the major membership organization for academics in the field, offering regional and national conferences and refereed publications. The International Communication Association^[3] and National Communication Association (formerly the Speech Communication Association) include divisions and publications that overlap with those of AEJMC, but AEJMC historically has stronger ties to the mass communication professions in the United States

The terms 'Mass' and 'Communication'

The term 'mass' denotes great volume, range or extent (of people or production) and reception of messages.^[4] The important point about 'mass' is not that a given number of individuals receives the products, but rather that the products are available in principle to a plurality of recipients.^[5]

The term 'mass' suggests that the recipients of media products constitute a vast sea of passive, undifferentiated individuals. This is an image associated with some earlier critiques of 'mass culture' and Mass society which generally assumed that the development of mass communication has had a largely negative impact on modern social life, creating a kind of bland and homogeneous culture which entertains individuals without challenging them.^[6] However, with the advancement in Media Technology, people are no longer receiving gratification without questioning the grounds on which it is based.^[7] Instead, people are engaging themselves more with media products such as computers, cell phones and Internet. These have gradually became vital tools for communications in society today.

The aspect of 'communication' refers to the giving and taking of meaning, the transmission and reception of messages. The word 'communication' is really equated with 'transmission', as viewed by the sender, rather than in the fuller meaning, which includes the notions of response, sharing and interaction. ^[8] Messages are produced by one set of individuals and transmitted to others who are typically situated in settings that are spatially and temporally remote from the original context of production. Therefore, the term 'communication' in this context masks the social and industrial nature of the media, promoting a tendency to think of them as interpersonal communication.^[9]Furthermore, it is known that recipients today do have some capacity to intervene in and contribute to the course and content of the communicative process.^[10] They are being both active and creative towards the messages that they are conveyed of. With the complement of the cyberspace supported by the Internet, not only that recipients are participants in a structured process of symbolic transmission^[11], constraints such as time and space are reordered and eliminated.

'Mass communication' can be seen as institutionalized production and generalized diffusion of symbolic goods via the fixation and transmission of information or symbolic content. It is known that the systems of information codification has shifted from analog to digital.^[12] This has indeed advanced the communication between individuals. With the existence of Infrared, Bluetooth and Wi-Fi, cell phones are no longer solely a tool for audio transmission. We can transfer photos, music documents or even games and email at any time and anywhere. The development of media technology has indeed advanced the transmission rate and stability of information exchange.

Characteristics of Mass Communication

Five characteristics of mass communication have been identified by Cambridge University's John Thompson. Firstly, it "comprises both technical and institutional methods of production and distribution"^[13]. This is evident throughout the history of the media, from print to the Internet, each suitable for commercial utility.

Secondly, it involves the "commodification of symbolic forms",^[14] as the production of materials relies on its ability to manufacture and sell large quantities of the work. Just as radio stations rely on its time sold to advertisements, newspapers rely for the same reasons on its space.

Mass communication's third characteristic is the "separate contexts between the production and reception of information",^[15] while the fourth is in its "reach to those 'far removed' in time and space, in comparison to the producers".^[16]

Mass communication, which involves "information distribution". This is a "one to many" form of communication, whereby products are mass produced and disseminated to a great quantity of audiences.^[17]

^{courtesy of wikipedia}

Writing an Effective Editorial

Admittedly, I wasn't a good writer at all. That's why, when I was accepted to be a part of our school paper it became difficult for me... And that's also the reason why i will put this page on my blog... I hope this will help...

Writing a Convincing Editorial

By Robert W. Tracinski

Writing an editorial for your campus newspaper is one of the best ways to introduce Objectivist ideas to a college audience. The paper's editorial page is a very prominent and (usually) well-respected forum. Moreover, an editorial is long enough that you can make a self-contained, substantive argument, but short enough that most people will take time to read it. It's a good way to influence your school's intellectual climate and to show that Objectivists have valuable ideas to offer.

The following guidelines will help you to write more convincing editorials. These principles apply to all writing--but they also involve problems that are unique to this format.

1. Focus on a central theme.

The single greatest error made by beginning writers is that they try to say too much. This error comes from the belief that, in order to be convincing, an argument must be utterly comprehensive, addressing every possible issue that relates to it. But no argument is effective unless it can be absorbed and remembered by the reader. An effective editorial must be essentialized, focusing only on the most important issues and integrating them into one graspable whole.

In writing an editorial on the global warming crusade, for example, there are at least a dozen separate points that might be relevant to the issue. One could discuss: the various scientific arguments against claims of global warming; the nature of the alleged scientific consensus on global warming; the effect on human life of restricting fossil fuels; the environmentalists' past record of promoting bogus doomsday claims; the admissions by some prominent environmentalists of their willingness to sacrifice factual accuracy to promote their agenda; the role of government funding of science; the meaning of the "red to green" switch from the pro-industrial Old Left to the anti-industrial New Left; the benefits to human life of the industrial revolution; the environmentalist attacks on nuclear power, which is the only real alternative to fossil fuels; the environmentalists' belief in the intrinsic value of nature; the connection between environmentalism and religion; the connection between environmentalism and altruism. And so on.

To present all of these points in one article would overwhelm the reader. Remember also that a typical newspaper editorial is between 700 and 800 words--at the longest, up to 1,100 words. To present all of the possible issues in such a short space, one would have to condense each point into a few cryptic assertions.

To essentialize the material, it is necessary to organize it around one central message or theme. Which theme you choose depends, to some extent, on your knowledge and on your readers' context. In our example, the candidates for a theme would include: "global warming claims are refuted by the scientific facts"; "there is no real scientific consensus on global warming," "the global-warming campaign is a product of the politicization of science"; "limits on fossil fuels would cause massive damage to human life"; "global-warming campaigners are motivated by hatred of industry rather than concern for human life."

You have to decide which of these potential themes is the most important. The theme, "there is no real scientific consensus on global warming", for example, does not address the most fundamental issue involved. First, it is primarily a matter of reporting--e.g., naming some of the scientists who reject the alleged consensus--rather than analysis. Second, it does not prove much; the truth is determined by the facts, not by consensus. Another theme, "global-warming campaigners are motivated by hatred of industry rather than concern for human life," should be rejected because it is too difficult to prove in a short article covering a single subject. It would be easier to demonstrate in a longer article that discusses several different environmentalist crusades.

The theme you choose determines which points you include, how you cover them and what you leave out. For example, if you choose the theme "the global-warming campaign is a product of the politicization of science," you would focus most on the political machinations behind the alleged consensus; you would also have to include something about the role of government funding, and (perhaps) the past record of other environmentalist hysterias. You would certainly discuss the scientific arguments against global warming, but the scientific arguments would be subordinate points, included only to indicate that something other than science must be driving the global-warming campaign. Finally, certain other issues would be dropped: The left's switch from "red" to "green," for example, is too tangential.

Having a clear grasp of your central theme allows you to organize and integrate the article, making it more comprehensible to the reader. You do not need to name the theme explicitly in the article, but it is important to name it to yourself.

2. Know the viewpoint you have to refute.

Although your emphasis should always be on the positive point you are trying to convey, every editorial is also trying to answer or refute a commonly held position. In fact, you are usually trying to answer two positions: the liberal and the conservative, or the subjectivist and the intrinsicist, or some other false alternative. It is important to understand what those positions are, so that you can provide the evidence that will be most convincing to your audience.

For example, on global warming, you can expect that the average person accepts the scientific claims of the environmentalists. More important, though, he believes these claims to be the impartial product of an objective scientific process. To present a convincing argument, therefore, you have to present evidence that will lead him to question the process by which environmentalist claims have come to be viewed as "settled science." This would lead you to select, as your central theme: "the global-warming campaign is a product of the politicization of science." Why is this so important? If you choose only to address the specific scientific arguments against global warming, you will face the following objection: "How can all of the scientists who say global warming is a fact be wrong? Can't we trust the integrity of scientists? And doesn't your skepticism about global warming put you in the same camp as the alternative-medicine types who are hostile to science?" The only way to answer this is to argue not just that the environmentalists are wrong on the facts, but that they are actively rejecting an objective scientific approach.

The basic principle is that, to convince your reader, you must provide him with the information that he needs, to correct his existing errors.

3. Make inductive arguments.

An all-too-common writing error--an especially seductive one for those who value reason and logic--is a reliance on deductive arguments. A deductive argument is one that derives a specific conclusion from abstract principles--principles which are already accepted as proved. A deductive argument starts with abstractions and reasons toward concretes. An inductive argument, by contrast, is one in which an abstract conclusion is established by reference to a range of concrete facts. An inductive argument starts with concretes and reasons toward abstractions.

The weakness of a deductive argument is that it assumes the reader already accepts your abstract principles. Even worse, it assumes that the reader understands your basic principles in the same way that you do. Consider, for example, a deductive argument against affirmative action. Such an argument might proceed along the following lines: "Racism, we know, is evil. Racism is defined as judging people and dispensing rewards and punishment on the basis of race rather than individual merit. But affirmative action is just such a policy of racial preferences. Therefore, affirmative action is evil." The problem is that some readers will say: "I don't agree with your definition of racism. I think racism means the oppression of blacks by a white majority. After all, blacks aren't a majority and don't control the government. How, then, can they be racists?" Or another person might reply: "You are oversimplifying. If someone has been injured by racial prejudice in the past, isn't it right to repair the wrong by giving him preferential treatment now? Isn't this required out of justice to the victims of racism?" A deductive argument does not answer these objections because it does not address a whole range of concrete facts. It rests its entire validity on the reader's agreement with a single definition.

To build an inductive argument, you would have to make observations of the following type. First, you might point out that affirmative action often injures non-racist whites or even Asians, none of whom are responsible for past wrongs, while its beneficiaries are not required to prove that they have suffered from racism. A poor white with a good record might lose out to a middle-class black with a weaker record. From this, you can conclude that the program is not concerned with individual justice. Second, you might point to the increased racial divisions caused by affirmative action. Look, for example, to the fighting over President Clinton's recent "Race Commission"; members of various minorities clashed over how much representation each group had on the Commission, with Asians, Hispanics, and American Indians complaining that the panel was dominated by blacks. From this and other examples, you can conclude that when the government hands out racial favors, it splits people into warring racial factions, each fighting for its share of the favors. Finally, you could cite examples of how affirmative action rewards the less competent at the expense of the more competent. You can point to the fire department that was forced to hire more women, even though they couldn't lift the heavy equipment needed in emergencies. Or you could point to the elite universities which admit less-qualified minority students, who then fail, putting pressure on the university to lower its academic standards. You can then conclude that affirmative action, rather than helping its supposed beneficiaries to achieve, really has the effect of undermining objective standards of achievement. From these types of observations, you can finally draw your broadest conclusion: that affirmative action promotes racial group warfare over individual justice and should be opposed.

Presenting an inductive argument does not mean that you always state the facts first and your conclusions second. It may be perfectly acceptable--and often more dramatic--to start an article by asserting an abstract conclusion, e.g.: "Affirmative action is an insidious attempt to perpetuate racism." What an inductive argument requires is that you provide the concrete examples and show how they lead to your conclusion.

Making an inductive argument based on concrete examples puts your broad, abstract conclusions on a solid foundation. You have to be selective; you cannot give every fact on which your conclusion is based, because that would include the whole sum of your concrete knowledge. The reader has to provide that complete range of facts for himself, based on his own observations. But by grounding your arguments in well-selected concrete examples, you can indicate to the reader the basic steps that validate your conclusion.

4. Base moral evaluations on the facts.

This is an extension of the point about induction. Just as factual statements must be based on induction, so moral invectives must be justified by factual arguments. Otherwise, such invective will be interpreted, understandably, as name-calling and dogmatic zealotry.

There is one simple rule for justifying a strong moral tone: Remember that there is no is-ought gap. If you can show that the global-warming scare is based on an assault on objective science, then you can call its proponents "dishonest." If you can show that affirmative action punishes the competent for no other reason than the color of their skin, then you are entitled to call the program "vicious." If you can indicate the facts that make a given person or action evil, then you are entitled to your epithets.

5. Rely on the reader's implicit knowledge and values.

The flip side of the need for induction and for fact-based moral judgments is that you do not have to validate everything from the ground up. If you did, even the simplest argument would require a lengthy essay. There are certain ideas and values that you can take for granted--if they are widely accepted and if they are not fundamentally at issue in the debate.

In today's context, unfortunately, you cannot assume your reader will agree that industrial civilization is progress. But you can assume he will acknowledge that living to the age of 70 is better than dying at 35. There is no need to argue the point. After all, if someone openly declares that dying is good, what can you say to him? Similarly, you can assume that on some level your reader values reason and knows that he has to accept the facts. Once again, if he doesn't, what can you say to him? No argument you offer can do any good if he places his wishes above reality.

Generally, you can rely on basic Aristotelian epistemology (e.g., "facts are facts and cannot be wished away") and basic Western values: individual judgment vs. conformity; individual happiness vs. total self-abnegation; work vs. parasitism; freedom vs. total state control. You can also rely on more concrete conclusions that have been thoroughly demonstrated by historical fact, such as: socialism is an economic failure; Communism was an evil totalitarian ideology; the Dark Ages are an example of an era ruled by religion; the Nazis were bad guys. By reading the newspapers and conversing with the people you meet every day, you can get a good feel for what implicit ideas and values you can rely on.

The importance of this point is that you do not have to validate the whole of the Objectivist philosophy--all the way down to meta-ethics and concept-formation--in order to establish your point. So long as you can appeal to these basic, implicitly accepted facts and values, you have sufficiently demonstrated your point.

6. It is more important to be clear than to be eloquent.

Most beginning writers feel that it is important for them to attempt a colorful, engaging, or eloquent writing style. This attitude can create two problems. First, it paralyzes your mind. Instead of giving yourself the simple instruction "come up with an example of a negative effect of affirmative action," you give yourself the impossible instruction "come up with a ringing phrase that will impress my audience." Second, this approach tends to produce writing that sounds brilliant or witty on a superficial level, but which doesn't deliver a clear message. A standing example of this problem is provided by conservative college newspapers; in my experience, these papers habitually rely on ridicule of the left's gaudier absurdities (which is not difficult) in place of substantive arguments.

The primary goal of one's writing is to be clear: to convey one's conclusion and the evidence for it in a manner that the reader can easily understand. Eloquent phrases, vivid images, and humorous examples are only valuable if they advance that goal. For example, in response to a proposal for a new law against "hate crimes" you might use sarcastic humor to highlight the absurdity of the name. "Hate crimes--as opposed to what? All the robberies and murders committed out of benevolence and good will toward the victim?" But you would have to use this comment to highlight a serious issue--in this case, the fact that the hate crimes law would punish criminals, not for their hatred, but for their ideas.

In time, you will develop a more eloquent and engaging style as you get more practice at writing clearly. In the meantime, however, a prosaic editorial that persuades the reader is better than a colorful collection of "sound bites" that add up to nothing.

7. End on a call to action.

The purpose of an editorial is not merely to inform the reader but to motivate him to take action. That action may range from rejecting a widespread idea, to changing his lifestyle, to opposing new legislation or voting for a presidential candidate. But always bear in mind that editorials are not a forum for mere abstract, academic observations. You are offering practical guidance. You are advising the reader to oppose restrictions on fossil fuels, to speak out against affirmative action, or to call his congressman to register his disapproval of a proposed law.

8. Good writing comes from exhaustive editing.

The writing instruction--or lack of it--given in today's schools leads many people to think that writing is a stream-of-consciousness process, in which one waits for "inspiration" and, when it comes, passively transcribes the product onto paper. In reality, the process of writing consists of the methodical examination and re-examination of ideas. Just as you can't expect to come up with a right answer to every problem off the top of your head, so you can't expect your first draft to be brilliant. In fact, most first drafts are pretty bad.

By and large, good writing is created through exhaustive editing. Editing consists of asking a whole range of questions pertaining to every aspect of the article. On the highest level, this includes: Is my theme the best one, or am I ignoring a more fundamental issue? On the lower level: Is the second point of my argument necessary to demonstrate my theme, or does it divert the reader's attention onto a tangent? And on the lowest level: Is the grammar of this sentence too complicated? Is this the right word, or is there another one that captures my meaning more exactly?

These questions are the process by which you create the final, finished product. When you have completed that process, you will have achieved an inestimable value: You will know that you have produced, not a hodge-podge of whatever ideas came off the top of your head, but a carefully crafted argument that is logically structured, clearly expressed, and convincing to your readers.
Courtesy of Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights.