never acceptable

I feel like hate crimes and violence is never acceptable.  I know that every one comes from different backgrounds and has different perceptions of things but that will never give any one the right to abuse another person whether it be physically or verbally.  I know I don't agree with a lot of things but I would never torture another person based off of their beliefs, looks, or sexuality.  I think the article about Matthew Shepard pointed out a lot of key and important things but I also think it put emphasis that the brutality and the boys image is the only reason it received national recognition and the response that it did from people. I agree but at the same time I also think that is just how media is.  Media does not cover and broadcast every crime and murder that takes place no matter what the conditions or motive is behind it.  I'm disgusted with any type of murder or hate crime and if media or news outlooks covered every hate-crime that takes/took place I would be disgusted with all of them whether it was based off of race, culture, sexuality, or beliefs.  That case may have received more recognition because of the brutality and Shepard's image but I don't think it means that America would only be upset about that crime and not upset about a homosexual being shot at point blank range.  They still may be upset and appalled no matter what their beliefs.

Matthew Shepard's Media Framing: Who's to blame?

Matthew Shepard’s story has an interesting take on media framing. It is easy to see the power of the media and the way it is able to “frame” the story. I found that the naming of the event was what stuck out to me. I thought it was interesting that most of the titles from the media included the words “gay man” beaten to death. However, the gender of those who beat him was not mentioned. I think that this can be summed up best by looking at what the media gives the public. The public was interested in the support of Matthew Shepard but not in support of gay rights. So, the media framed the story to cater to the audience. I like how the article looked at other events that shapes or caters to the public opinion. The article showed how media frames and helps the public see terrible events like Columbine. I think public opinion plays a huge role in the media’s framing of the story. My question would be “Should we blame the media for framing a story to cater to our opinions? Or “Should we blame ourselves for the opinions that the media frames so that it will parallel public opinion?” The way that this was framed caused Americans to feel guilty yet still feel prejudice and hate. Can we re-frame how the media frame’s a story? What ideologies can be changed to help?  Overall, the article gave some great insights into the way that media is able to frame stories and influence public opinion. It all comes down to is the framing that is done by media our fault or theirs?

Matthew Shepard

   Although I know how corrupt man is I am still shocked at many things that I hear today. The hatred that people have for one another amazes and perplexes me because I cannot imagine myself hating someone so much for something, like homosexuality, that it would bring me to the point of murdering that person. The article we read about Matthew Shepard's murder has left me a bit speechless and it did not even go into great detail as I am sure the case file does, or perhaps even articles on the event.

   It is so saddening and grieving to see the way people treat each other simply because they do not agree with life choices that others make. Of course everyone has the right to associate with whom they want, or not associate with whom they do not want to. And that very well may be based upon a disagreement on beliefs and/or life choices. For example, I do not agree with smoking or drinking alcohol because I believe it harms the body and is ultimately a waste of money, a silly and pointless pleasure (for some), and I simply believe one could never go wrong with not smoking or drinking. However, many of my friends and family smoke and drink, and do other things I do not agree with, but I still associate with them and I am still close with many of them, regardless. Their lifestyles have never harmed me so I do not have a good reason as to why I would not associate with them.

   I do not know what the two men, McKinney and Henderson, who murdered Shepard, confessed to when they were convicted of murdering him, so I do not know that their reasons for murdering him were because Shepard was an open homosexual. However, that is what people have come to believe of the incident. So if that is the case, I cannot fathom why these two men would have thought that murdering Shepard for being gay would benefit them, or anyone else, more than being put in prison for life. Murdering one person for being gay did not stop other homosexuals from coming out of the closet, nor did it keep the gay movement from escalating. Someone could argue that it may have even strengthened the cause for gay rights and acceptance among society. No matter what the circumstance, no one should be murdered for living a certain lifestyle or for belonging to a certain race, gender, sexual orientation, and the like.

   Personally, I do believe homosexuality is wrong but I still associate with homosexual people and I still love and accept them even though I disagree with the lifestyle. However, not every person who claims to be homosexual actually lives that lifestyle. Many people claim to be such but try to change because they do not want to be homosexual, and who can condemn someone for that? I love what Shepard's father, Dennis Shepard, said after the trial, "this is the time to begin the healing process. To show mercy to someone who refused to show any mercy." He is spot on with that! The article also says that the public dehumanized McKinney and Henderson for what they had done, and although prison is the legal consequence for such an act of murder, even they still needed to be shown love and mercy, regardless of the seemingly unforgivable crime they committed against an innocent person.

Is "Castle" going in the right direction?

I've really been enjoying this season of Castle, but the recent development in the show has disappointed me. When Beckett got the job in D.C. at the end of last season, I was all for it. After all these seasons of this will-they-won't-they tension, and then Castle and Beckett finally getting together (and the relationship progressing beautifully, in my opinion), I totally thought a long-distance relationship could work between these two. And it did in the beginning of the current season. Yes, it was a strain being so far apart, but both Castle and Beckett are mature adults who have really worked for this relationship. The long distance thing was totally working, Beckett was enjoying her job at the FBI, Castle was generally interfering at the 12th precinct but things were even going okay on that front--and then the writers felt the need to put in the tension of, "Is Beckett really happy at her D.C. job?"

Now, I know the writing on Castle has never been that great, but I thought it was the best it's ever been at the beginning of the current season because of Castle and Beckett being apart. Beckett was off doing her dream job while also maintaining a happy, healthy adult relationship. She wasn't letting a man or woman or situation or anyone hold her back in any way, but she also wasn't a bitch (which is what women are always worried about being when they're strong and independent). It was probably near-perfect writing.

She was the ideal role model for women and girls everywhere, right? I thought so. And then the writers or producers or whoever involved with the show felt the pressure to bring Beckett back to New York so the old dynamic of the show could be established. I love the old dynamic, but I had already gotten used to the new one, and loved it too. It felt right, and more importantly, it felt real. Their relationship was an example of something that could happen in real life.

I wish the writers hadn't written in a contrived way to get Beckett back to New York. Her storyline showed a woman living her own life while also being in a healthy relationship with a man. Castle was always very supportive and respectful of Beckett's wishes and decisions, and taking away what Beckett wanted most with sub-par writing seems like a step in the wrong direction to me.

My Issue with Pretty Little Liars

I've noticed that Pretty Little Liars does what a lot of other TV shows do, which is show its characters living the best in life without showing what they do to get there. When we discussed this in class, I thought of PPL right away. There are plot lines concerning money issues in different seasons, but these issues aren't backed up in the presentation of the show. All four of the girls are very fashionable, and they never wear the same outfit twice, even when their parents are going through money issues. None of the girls have jobs except Emily, who is the poorest of the four (although this isn't really addressed until season four). I understand that this is a TV show, and one that has characters that live higher class lifestyles, but it doesn't even attempt to be realistic. If Hannah's mom doesn't have money to pay the bills, how is Hannah still dressing in a different, expensive outfit every day although the viewer can clearly see that her closet isn't exploding with backed up outfits she's saving to wear? As Joanne Laucius cites, ""A princess...[i]s someone who is living a fabulous life with the latest stuff. But she really can't afford it.""" While all of the characters are made to be likeable (so no "narcissists" here, whom no one likes), I at least don't feel a connection with the characters because their lives are so different from mine. My favorite character is Emily because I can relate to her the most; her struggles with money are something that seems real to me. But even her struggles are glossed over in favor of the more interesting plot. "Real life" is only brought up in the show if it has some relation to the overall plot. The girls of Rosewood seem to live in a world that needs the extra drama that is the central plot simply because everyday life is too boring to focus on, while everyday life is idealized past the point of realism.

A Proper Role Model

Growing up, my father left my family when I was of the age of fourteen, therefore I never really had a father figure in my life. Leaving only my mother to take care of the family, we were mostly baby-sat by our television. Without a father, I didn’t really have a sense of direction as to how a man should conduct himself or treat women in general, surely my own mother couldn’t be the one to do this, she was a women. However, she is the one person in my life who I have complete trust and faith in and look to for advice on just about anything in life.

Being baby-sat by the television I grew to love shows from the 90’s such as “Rugrats,” “Hey Arnold,” “Cat & Dog,” “Angry Beavers,” “Courage The Cowardly The Dog,” “Ed, Edd, and Eddy,” and “The Fairly Oddparents.” However, all these shows depicted the male leads, or the father figures as idiots who couldn’t even remember their wife’s birthday or they were to whiny and consistently made fun of fact that they showed any emotion or care to anyone out of the ordinary. My mother being the awesome person that she is, would instruct me that these were not people that I should look up to and that it was ok to express yourself no matter the consequence. She would teach me and help me learn that these male leads did not make for a good inspiration of how men should treat their wives or how to act in person. It’s funny to think about, but I owe it all to my mother.

Here is this person I thought couldn’t teach me how to be a real man, but it’s because of her that I learned to properly treat a women. She taught me how to properly share my feelings and how communication and passion is key to a successful relationship. My own mother, and not some idiotic father figure on a 90’s cartoon. When, I’m praised for how I treat women or how I’m such an older soul, I always give her thanks; it makes me wish that there were more people that had someone with a similar upbringing.

Ellen

On the days I didn't have sports after school, I would always come home to find my mom glued to the TV at around 3. Why? Ellen DeGeneres was on. I never gave much thought of this show until I actually sat down and watched it with my mom. I actually found my self intrigued into the program and also found myself busting out a laugh quite a bit. I think what also captivated me to the program was that not only was it a show that gave you a break from your day to give you a few laughs but I also found out that Ellen truly does care about her fans and people in general.

When we talked about Ellen in class, we mainly focused on the daring movie of her coming out of the closet. I do believe she took a huge risk in doing this and I respect her a ton for taking that step but I believe that was just the beginning to her endless steps of bravery. Ellen has found a way to teach people that life is not always that bad. She has found a way to help out families that never that they would be able to afford anything and bless them with a check that brings them to tears. Along with the help to families, she has found programs and donated money to them including schools that need help in desperate times. Let's also not forget the fact that Ellen believes in dancing so that's also a great way to cheer someone up.

Overall, I find Ellen as true icon. She has found a way to break away from the mold that forced her to be scared of admitting her sexuality to becoming a hero in some people's eyes. She uses laughter and positive motives to show that life will always get better. Now whenever I get the chance, I love sitting down and watching Ellen with my mom knowing that Ellen is changing someone's life...one dance move at a time.