Connecting Dots to Terrorism

Tony Cai

AIM102.02

Analysis to Connecting the Dots … to Terrorism

It has long been a proven fact that the media slightly alters the stories or that they choose what to expose to the media; Bernard Goldberg admits that himself, exposing the facts after working for CBS for over 30 years. On September 11, 2001, the mass media had no time to alter or choose what to change on because the event was so catastrophic; it was not hidden from us through the norms of media filtering. “For a change, they gave it to us straight.” However, give it some time and the media would soon take control of our TV’s, newspapers and magazines again and that’s exactly what happened.

Did you ever notice on days where there isn’t much going on, the news features headlines from sports or an investigation about a how to save gas that goes on for days? Well according to Bernard Goldberg, it is a simple tactic that the media uses to keep its current viewers every night. It is when the real news comes up that we actually get news that really matter. In post 9/11, there was a nation wide coverage about Chandra Levy, news about a sex scandal. Meanwhile, terrorists were plotting to fly planes into the twin towers. It was a way to keep it’s ratings up. Then 9/11 happened.

There isn’t a better way to attract viewers to the media if the media gave us a clue about who was to blame for the attacks. Right after 9/11, all the focus was steered towards the Middle East. In just a couple of days, the media released the list of terrorists that hijacked planes on 9/11, they happened to be Arabs. Before you knew it, the news was full of “anti-American hate in the Middle East”. The news featured for some time; Palestinians celebrating the deaths of thousands of Americans killed in terror attacks, and frequently still do remind us of their hatred against Americans which they posses.

The media played a big role with racism against people with a Middle Eastern background. After the media portrayed Arabs and Palestinians celebrating the tragedy of 9/11, many Americans developed a sense of hate against all Arabs and Palestinians. This racist idea towards Arabs is wrong but it is very understandable seeing as how the media portrays them. What was interesting to me was when Goldberg, found that one network which put a Muslim women on the news who blamed Christianity in Timothy McVeigh’s attacks in Oklahoma; having failed to realize that he did not do it for religious reasons. I’d assume that people in the Arab world probably see American doing what we do for religious purposes, but they most likely put her on the air for the simple fact of telling the story from another point of view. Nobody really cared about what she said because we didn’t agree.

Then there is this whole thing about politics and the media. A war exists between the liberal left and the conservative right. The liberal left showing a more democratic point of view and the conservative right showing a more republican point of view. Goldberg says that an anti-government created by conservative politicians played a role in spawning Timothy McVeigh in the bombings which means that it plays a role in everyday culture. I can see where this anti-government view is coming from, conservatives should be more liberal. This is an ever-changing world and we should not live strictly by what the document says.

Goldberg talks a little about what goes on in the mind of a terrorist. The terrorists of 9/11 lived by the Koran. Does the Koran really teach the “religion of peace” or are followers interpreting the wrong thing? I’m pretty sure there isn’t anything in there saying that killing yourself and killing innocent others will grant you entry into paradise. The terrorists must be interpreting it the wrong way; there is “no apparent shortage of Muslim suicide bombers” and no suicide bombers of any other religions. There is definitely something wrong with this picture.

At first glance, we thought that the media was just a simple system to tell us the news everyday but there is so much more to it. Politics and religion surrounds and controls the media almost telling you what they want you to see. There is so much conflict that goes on which defines what you see or read. I’m glad that Bernard Goldberg took the time to write this, it really shows how controlled and clueless we really are. Take it from someone in the news business for over 30 years.

AIM Yale Assignment

Tony Cai

AIM 102

College Life verses My Moral Code

1) Hack believes that her traditional moral code is threatened by Yale’s freshmen/sophomore residency requirements. College living culture is not what is wanted by his religion. This can be backed up when he says that his fundamental principals has been taught for as long as he can remember with the Torah going back 3,000 years.

2) A potential solution to the problem is having the university wave the residential requirements however Yale has a strict policy. Yale is justified in that they want freshmen and sophomores to live on campus so they can be acquainted with the new environment. If no other freshmen or sophomore can have the right to live off campus then, there should be no reason for people of a certain religion to live off campus.

3) They could claim that they have stuck with the strict guidelines of their religion for all these years, and they are about to break it when entering the university.

4) If a sexual living setting is not suitable for certain groups of people, they should still be living on campus but in another location where all parties agree on the same things.

Yale is one of the top colleges of the United States and living conditions should be one of those less concerned subjects. During the 1950’s, it was prohibited to have an opposite sex enter your dorm room, however cultural values have changed and now, there is no policy to restrict that. This does not mean that the university encourages it at all; in fact, males and females are placed on different floors. It is each individual that chooses to enter a room of another gender and if society accepts it, then it is okay as long as there is no definite rule that prohibits it.

Yale’s own “residential religion” has an anything goes policy. Yale argues that an individual’s sexual morality is none of the university’s concern and in today’s society it shouldn’t be. To promote safe sex, Yale provides condoms which seem to be a concern for Hack, he believes that they are promoting sex. This is not so, with sexual freedom, if one were to engage in sex, they should at least have safe sex rather than not being protected at all. Yale recognizes the inconveniences that their residential policies might have however they cannot just establish a policy against the culturally accepted idea of sexual freedom for the sake of a certain religious group. I think this is a situation of “majority rules”. I’m pretty sure the majority will reject the ban of sexual freedom in today’s society.