Reading Synthesis 2
In Rebecca Solnit's essay, "When the Media Is the Disaster," she highlights on how media in the world causes more damage than the disasters itself. First, she is able to illustrate how members of mass media use the word "looting" in the wrong context. She runs through certain disasters in time such as Hurricane Katrina, and the Disaster in Haiti and their lasting effect on the use of media. With her strong ideals and powerful words, she is able to convey the message that something must be done and if somebody is trying to survive they should not be ridiculed.
Throughout the course of this written work, Mrs. Solnit provides key evidence to prove that something must be changed. She claims how the word "looting" should be …show more content…
Rebecca has shown time and time again that she will give anybody the benefit of the doubt whether it be taking food from an abandon grocery store taking a carpet for somebody in need; she feels as if a person is exercising their rights then it is ok. Another important example is when she points out Father Tim Jones of York. During a sermon, he was addressing "That shoplifting by the desperate from chain stores might be acceptable behavior." While Rebecca agreed with the father, she wanted to go in depth to find out why these people are so desperate to make shoplifting an acceptable activity in this society. This shows how she would not condemn these student protesters and she would rather listen to them and learn why they are upset to the point of protest. Another example would be how this woman asks the questions of"Why were so many people in Haiti hungry before the earthquake?" And "Why do we have a planet that produces more than a billion of us don't have a decent share of that bounty?" With her asking these questions I believe that she would try to be a part of the student movement and be proactive to satisfy the needs of the students as well as the rest of the …show more content…
At first after reading through the Daily Emerald and New York Times articles about this incident I immediately sided with the students because they were in their right to protest and they were fighting for the student body which I am a part of. As time went on and I began writing this paper I found strengths and weaknesses in both parties which causes me to agree with both sides. To start, I would agree with Rebecca Solnit's solution which would to be to side with the students. This would ease student to administration tension and would cause a great impact on me personally. I also disagree with her point of view as well. If student relations were too strong then we would miss the whole point of these protests which is to cause debate and get the best resolution to our problems and as I thought more and more about it, I understood Michael Schill's side of reasoning. He was bombarded by these protesters and as the used their right to free speech, they took away Mr. Schill's right to perform his speech. Although he was able to release his speech by other means they basically contradicted his basic human rights. Now moving to his consequences for the students who were involved, I disagree entirely. As we spoke about in class Mr. Schill was told by many ranking officials in the school system to drop the case but refused time and time again and leading to the ultimate decision to punish
In Rebecca Solnit's essay, "When the Media Is the Disaster," she highlights on how media in the world causes more damage than the disasters itself. First, she is able to illustrate how members of mass media use the word "looting" in the wrong context. She runs through certain disasters in time such as Hurricane Katrina, and the Disaster in Haiti and their lasting effect on the use of media. With her strong ideals and powerful words, she is able to convey the message that something must be done and if somebody is trying to survive they should not be ridiculed.
Throughout the course of this written work, Mrs. Solnit provides key evidence to prove that something must be changed. She claims how the word "looting" should be …show more content…
Rebecca has shown time and time again that she will give anybody the benefit of the doubt whether it be taking food from an abandon grocery store taking a carpet for somebody in need; she feels as if a person is exercising their rights then it is ok. Another important example is when she points out Father Tim Jones of York. During a sermon, he was addressing "That shoplifting by the desperate from chain stores might be acceptable behavior." While Rebecca agreed with the father, she wanted to go in depth to find out why these people are so desperate to make shoplifting an acceptable activity in this society. This shows how she would not condemn these student protesters and she would rather listen to them and learn why they are upset to the point of protest. Another example would be how this woman asks the questions of"Why were so many people in Haiti hungry before the earthquake?" And "Why do we have a planet that produces more than a billion of us don't have a decent share of that bounty?" With her asking these questions I believe that she would try to be a part of the student movement and be proactive to satisfy the needs of the students as well as the rest of the …show more content…
At first after reading through the Daily Emerald and New York Times articles about this incident I immediately sided with the students because they were in their right to protest and they were fighting for the student body which I am a part of. As time went on and I began writing this paper I found strengths and weaknesses in both parties which causes me to agree with both sides. To start, I would agree with Rebecca Solnit's solution which would to be to side with the students. This would ease student to administration tension and would cause a great impact on me personally. I also disagree with her point of view as well. If student relations were too strong then we would miss the whole point of these protests which is to cause debate and get the best resolution to our problems and as I thought more and more about it, I understood Michael Schill's side of reasoning. He was bombarded by these protesters and as the used their right to free speech, they took away Mr. Schill's right to perform his speech. Although he was able to release his speech by other means they basically contradicted his basic human rights. Now moving to his consequences for the students who were involved, I disagree entirely. As we spoke about in class Mr. Schill was told by many ranking officials in the school system to drop the case but refused time and time again and leading to the ultimate decision to punish