Group items tagged

This is very true! Most times when there is game changing evidence that could be the key to a case, the only way it will be acknowledged is if the presenter can properly express themselves.

I agree. It is much harder to take a piece of evidence seriously if it is just shown in an ordinary manner. If the piece of evidence is well presented to a person, then the person is more likely to interpret the evidence as significant. 

I agree with this completely. The way you present the information or evidence is crucial to how useful it will be. It's not worth anything if you don't understand it and present it in a way that others will understand it as well. 

I also agree with this, it is very important how people present their evidence and details in odder to swade an audience. if it is really good evidence, but presented poorly... it will be looked passed. The only way i disagree with this statement and idea is when people are so set on their ideas and view points that not matter what the evidence is or how it is presented they will still think the same. 

Absolutely agree.  If used in the wrong context, it wont really do much for you.  If you are able to utilize it properly, it will be taken seriously.

Also, we live in a society where we expect everything to be "sold" to us.  We are such a consumer based society that if something doesn't look appealing or isn't eye catching, we will not pay attention or just completely tune out.  I think that is why a lot of evidence is presented as a scare tactic, they argue that if you don't pay attention to something, then horrible results will come out of not knowing the evidence.

just like in the presidential debates where the candidates were saying completely opposite statements, yet both were somehow mostly true.

This is one problem I see with the use of evidence and data. It is like statistics, you can make the results say bascially whatever you want depending on what you measure. It is like the saying we learned that measuring is scientific but what we measure is political. Politicians and the media can give evidence for what ever they want to support by manipulating it. Just watch a fox then msnbc they will have evidence for two very different sides.

This is true because if a person cannot apply the evidence or just have basic evidence to support their topic, they wouldn't be held credible to others. I feel that the words they say would turn people away, knowledgeable or not, because people would talk and turn others against them. This would make the 'changemaker' have difficulties to try and make changes.

Having evidence can be very helpful for change makers but we kind of just got done discussing how people do not necessarily respond to accurate and well put across evidence. To put evidence across in its most well thought out way requires thought to understand it. The average voter probably is not very intelligent and do not make decisions based off of well thought out evidence. They make decisions off of symbols that are vague and not really explained to a full extent. Symbols are probably a more effective toll for change makers than evidence backing up claims. Almost like lying sort of to appeal to a voter's likes and dislikes. People do not always want the truth but want they want to hear. (these are all just different ways of phrasing my opinion)

This makes me think of the lady who called Obama a communist on national television and then when asked about it she simply told the reported to "study it out" and "look it up" repeatedly without giving any sort of evidence to the fact that he is a communist and not an American despite being born here.  She is just a popular youtube video now because she had no knowledge of any real evidence and was looks like she is just there hopping on the Kenyan communist bandwagon and shouting out random things but doesn't really know what she is talking about.

Without evidence you would just be saying random ideas. You have to be able to back up your ideas and prove that they will work or else people wont care what you "think" will help. You must prove yourself because it is the peoples job not to be too trusting and take people for what they say. We need to make them prove their ideas are the right ones.

Technologies should never be assumed to solved problems. When we have problems, we have them with other people, specifically relating to using evidence. Technology is a medium to which we can derive specific numbers, communicate faster, make projects go faster, etc. It is a convenient way to do all these things but the responsibility for figuring out these issues lies with people themselves. I believe that it is a very naive way of looking at life if we just think we can off load our problems on technology and think it would automatically be fixed. The reason technologies tend to amplify real-world problems is because we take less responsibility to fix them and instead us technologies to make ourselves, our ideas, our motives, look better than others instead of collaborating with other to solve an issue. In relation to inequality, maybe people who DON'T have access to technologies are the ones who have presented the real-world problem. This takes their ability to solve their problem out of their hands and into someone else's who has the technology. When it is out of the hands of those to which the problem lies, the motive is not personal and the issue can become skewed and potentially inaccurate. 

I agree with Hayley's statement that we take less responsibility to real-world problems through technology.  I recently read an essay called "Small Change: Why the Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted" by Malcolm Gladwellsince.  In summary it's an argument that the posts on social networks (technology) that ask us to do something that we typically wouldn't be motivated to do in a small form (1 million likes = 100 dollars to charity) is going to eliminate us from doing large things like the civil rights movements because we will already have the satisfaction of doing the small thing.

There are many different ways to get evidenec, so why aren't they all used? Its mainly only numbers used as evidence.

I believe that the black noise project would generate different results if done in the United States. I believe culturally the people are attracted to different things. Women dressed more provocatively will have a much higher change of being sexually harassed. In India women wouldn't normally dress like that

It is sad really. The West feels that it needs to industrialize, modernize, and stabilize developing nations - a goal which is objectively not plausible - and there is a definet focus on Africa. While many other developing nations receive aid, African countries are singled out and lumped into one group of "african", where s south east asian countries for example would be listed by their specific names. Africa is a large continent with a VAST array of cultures, languages, races, and governments. The nations of Africa differ greatly in their levels of modernity, and to assume that the governments of Africa are corrupt or unable to fix their domestic problems, is in a subtle way, racist and ethnocentric.

Every time i see an ad or commercial about the white celebrities trying to "help Africa" a thought like this goes through my mind. I highly doubt that a celebrity with such high ratings in today's society truly wants to save Africa's poverty or starving people. I feel as if they do it more for the social attention and positive reputation rather than for their souls and well being.

I would not go so far as to say that all celebrities vie for attention by doing the "help Africa" stuff, but I would agree that a large majority do it. I don't really feel it is asserting cultural superiority or dominance as just being selfish in their own right.

I think it's really interesting how charity has become a social appeal. People don't donate because they want to help out, they donate because other people will think higher of them. A point this article is trying to make is that the publicity of "helping" is so overwhelming it almost takes away from the action itself. 

I really agree with the above statement that people help now because they feel like everyone is and not because they are really into the cause and want to help. I think this is also why so many stars have their own foundation, they feel like more people have them then people who do not.

Does it really matter what inspires the help? As long as the people that need help get help that's what is most important. Help is help no matter how you look at it or the reasons behind it. 

i think that it does matter. I don't think the people want others to pity them. Yes, they are receiving help but it is demeaning if people are going to help and have no passion for it. "here, take this because it will make me look good and i want to follow the trend." i don't think anyone would feel very good about getting that. 

The basic premise that the author appears to be making is that of the egoism that we as "first-worlders" have in regards to Africa. The author feels that we do not help Africa typically out of genuine want to see good happen. but out of our own want to feel good about ourselves and have other perceive us as good people. Sometimes even when I do "good" things, I wonder if this is the case. Especially when I was applying for college. Did I do 200 hours of community service out of the goodness of my heart, or the want to get into a good college? The truth may lie somewhere in-between. 

It is obviously a bit of both but I think how the media plays it, it leads us to lean towards the cultural superiority

I understand how his "mood is dampened".  I can't stand when people feel they must talk about how amazing they are and what they have done. Whenever people do that it becomes evident that the reason they did whatever they did was to acquire more attention from others. "You have to speak to be heard, but sometimes you have to be silent to be appreciated".

I think this is the main point of the article

But isn't that the point, these people are helping just to help and the other people are often helping to gain media attention.

I would have to agree with this point of the article as the media will portray what they want the people to focus on. If the media does not believe that certain aspects of a situation will grab the people's attention then they will not show it, even though that point could be significant in pointing out the true heroes and their actions. I find this unfortunate as the article mentioned earlier that the media portrays celebrities that help, but why not the ordinary people, especially those of Africa. The media should really get to focus on the true aspects of a situation.

I think it's important to note that all the media cares about is the bad things that happen. They only report how Africa needs to be saved but there is no information of all the good that is being done right now.

i agree that the media only focuses on what they want us to see, not everything in africa is as terrible as the media may portray it to be. yes situations in other countries are extremely hostile but the media tends to focus and just the negative to gain sympathy and attention to that subject. the opinions are then skewed.

Something about using this word doesn't seem appropriate in the context of people who are active. Whenever a writer uses this word, depending on its context, I usually think less of the author. 

I dont understand why this word is used in this article, it doesn't seem to fit. I agree with the above person it makes me think less of the author. 

I feel like this word was used in this article to represent the current generation. Our current generation is basically to the extent that sex sells. So the author was just probably trying to make it known. I think the word, 'sexy' also had to do with the fact that the author was talking about celebrities in relation to the main topic.

I also agree that this was a reasonable use of the word. The lovely irrational citizens of America are much more likely to get behind something that's trendy and "sexy". And that's exactly what the author is calling us out on. Many people arent (perhaps subconsciously) 'helping' out Africa out of humanitarian love, but because it has become trendy lately. you see "sexy" people helping out kids in Africa, and you want to be "sexy" like them.. I've done a terrible job explaining the use of this word, but hopefully y'all get what I'm trying to get at.

See, this is one of the problems with widepread media campaigns... they often give people the wrong idea about what is really happening and what is the real state of people. It won't be easy to integrate into campaigns, but people need to be aware of the big picture, not just segments of it. 

I sometime catch myself falling into this trap as well, I get convinced by the media campaigns that africa is just filled with disease and starving people. 

This is definitely a problem with media.  Obviously not all of Africa is as bad as we make it and it leads all of us to believe that everyone needs help.  It paints a different picture than what is actually going on.

Media blinds us from seeing the actual problem going on in Africa. I do find myself believing that these campaigns are true. The only focus on certain things that attract us to think the worst. This is a major problem in the social media campaigns

I think that the major problem with these ad campaigns is that they only show poor run down villages. The towns that have actual success in their businesses are never shown. The play to society's emotions to raise revenues, which may or may not be helping. Although I'm sure there is corruption in Africa, the West may be trying a bit too hard to fix the problems. Social media leads society into believing they need to make a change radically, when a gradual change is probably going to help more. 

This really illustrates the majority of the college liberals who say they want to save africa, I think that if we just gave the same sympathy that we give to africa to the destitute in our own country then more people would help because it would  bring that same fame and self fulfillment as someone who is making a difference for someone.

I don't think that this statement is really appropriate for the author to say. I also think that if they are trying to help those that need help then that should be respected.

We already have a picture in our mind that Africa is not the safest place to live but of course blood usually sells over the good things that happen over there. 

Just because parts of Africa are in poverty, doesn't mean that all areas are. Those people should still be acknowledged and recognized for the hard work they are doing. Some parts of Africa are actually capable of going far and are going to be very successful. People there still have the opportunity to make a change. 

I never really understood why news does this. Why do you focus on the negative? I feel like society has become increasingly negative. But the negativity makes sense because when things become frustrating you get discouraged and give up. There needs to be a balance between negative and positive. When there is positive it is up lifting and gives people hope. The news shouldn't focus on just negative because that contributes to the discouraging factor.

A classic ad company ploy..

I like the last line, "we ourselves are capable of unprecedented growth." It's nice to think about ourselves in that light, and its an optimistic picture for the future, but what are we actually accomplishing and what are we falling short on?? Words can only go so far, sorry to be sort of hypocritical, but action must be taken if change is your goal.

In some cases celebrities are using the struggles of people in Africa and their help they are giving them as a publicity stunt. 

Stuff like this bothers me. I am all for people wanting to help out in places that need it even if it is for self gratification and all of that. But the situations are much more complicated than the media leads people to believe. There are religious clashes in many of the central African countries and in the Northern African countries like Mali we are seeing Al-Qaeda and similar organizations set up Islamic radicalism. Feeding the poor and helping the people that are displaced by these things is not fixing the problem. And for the people who are saying the the US is just sending money to these countries and their 'corrupt dictators' is just wrong. We are trying to do much more than that. We have US Special Forces in many of these countries like Somalia, Mali, and many of the other central African countries. The US is putting some of our best soldiers in there to help the people. The media does not cover that part, they rather highlight the Pitt's and Clooney's. 

I think part of the reason we only hear about what celebrities are doing is because we feel more connected to them than to people we have never heard of. Because we feel connected to them, publicists feel that we are more likely to respond to pleas for help from people we feel more connected to. 

African citizens just want to be seen as individuals that are equal to us, who have simply been born into more difficult circumstances, as opposed to some diseased animal that can only survive out of the goodness of some person's heart.. it's very similar to people who are crippled and are treated as less than human. this is kind of a reminder that we need to treat everyone as equally human, because we don't know what they're going through, we just know that they're people who deserve their same God-given rights.