TOW #20 (IRB): Picking Cotton Pt. 1

             Picking Cotton is one of those books that is able to capture something in this world and explain it in full detail. The book is able to describe the emotion behind torture, innocence, and forgiveness. It recreates the events of a true story, and with first person point of view, is able to retell it without skipping a single detail. Jennifer Cannino, the main character and writer, faced an unfortunate event during the summer of college. She was raped in her dorm room, being forced to take part in sexual acts. Even while going through something as traumatic as this, Jennifer still manages to look the rapist straight in the eye and remember everything about his physique. She studies him up and down making sure that after he is finished, he will never get away with the torturous act he just committed. This is the part in the book where Jennifer really describes the emotion of torture. She makes it feel so real and alive as if it has happened to you. You feel so connected to her, so sorry for her. While looking in a line up, Jennifer is asked to pick out her attacker. 100% sure on who he was, Jennifer picks Ronald Cotton, who turns out to not be the attacker. The point of view now switches over to Ronald's perspective as he tells about his innocence. We learn the struggle of how hard it is to prove they have the wrong guy. As a reader, you start to develop this understanding of Ronald. You start to see that sometimes people don't want to hear your side just because of how you look or in this case, the color of your skin. Everybody was so sure that Jennifer had picked the right person just because Ronald was black; they never even gave him a chance. Picking Cotton is an amazing book so far as it lets you understand the characters based on three simple feelings of torture, innocence, and forgiveness.

TOW #19 (Article): Brian Williams

In recent news, a lot of talk has been going on about Brian Williams and his 6 month suspension from NBC. Apparently, Williams lied when telling a story about how his crew's helicopter was forced down after being hit with an RPG. This spread like wildfire in the media and many people were outraged. "As being one who delivers important news, Brian should have known better; we trusted him," many people say. However, the Rolling Stone seems to disagree on the subject matter. There is a fine line between a lie and a misunderstanding according to this magazine, and Brian Williams is not at fault here. In fact, in a recent article, Rolling Stone writes " TV news is smoke and mirrors. We are supposed to forget that. It is presented to us so seamlessly. Here is a man we trust, an omniscient man (sometimes a woman, but not often), telling us the story of the days' events. In many ways, it is a cultural role as old as language. Brian Williams is the storyteller, the bard. He possesses special knowledge. He imparts the oral history. But it is an illusion" (1). What the magazine is hinting at is that there is a lot of things that go on behind the scene. For example, Williams is not just saying this story from memory; he's reading off a teleprompter. Also, many writers, producers, broadcast techs, and operators are in charge of reading over the script, verifying the story, and setting up Brian for his hour or so of news. Therefore, NBC can't just blame him solely for the wrongful sentence that was said on air. Also, if so many people look over the work, and there was still an error to be found, wouldn't it be considered a mistake instead of a lie? A mistake is something that happens by accident and is not intentional. However, a lie requires thought beforehand in order for it to be successful. So, if Brian was reading from a teleprompter, where would he have just made up this lie of the helicopter crashing down? Obviously it was an error in the script or the studio wanted him to lie for a greater effect. If that is true then Williams should not be facing a suspension for something he didn't do without the studio's approval. Ultimately, Rolling Stone does not think Brian Williams is to blame here. 

TOW Post #18 (Visual): Turkish Air

           This picture, which was featured on National Geographic's photo of the day, represents a beauty we don't see often in the world as humans. Photographed by Francois Nadeau, this photo uses perspective and creativity to create a magnificent view of Turkish air. Starting with the height, the photo was definitely taken at an angle above ground. Using this technique was actually effective because it created a panoramic view instead of just a close up. This allows the viewers to take in the overall Turkish land. Having a close up would result in a smaller view of landscape, which wouldn't cause as much as a "wow" effect from the audience. Evoking pathos is a great part in creating a beautiful picture. The photo needs to create an emotion in order to be seen as artistic, and perspective helps to create that feeling. Along with this, Nadeau uses creativity as a strategy to get the best picture of Turkish landscaping. By finding a location that is a bit brighter color wise, Nadeau had the advantage of effectively capturing Turkey. Also, notice the difference in objects. There are houses, hills, roads, and all vary in size. This variety adds to the creativity because it allows the photo to speak for itself: it adds to the unspeakable beauty Turkey has. This was the reaction Nadeau was hoping to get from using such a unique location. He stated that “you cannot go to Cappadocia without taking a trip in a hot-air balloon and making some pictures—it's a must! Most of the photographers were taking shots of the sunrise, the landscape, etc. But I was also attracted to what was under me—the patterns, the little villages. So while I was taking pictures of other balloons and the sunrise and filming at the same time, I was keeping an eye under me for the best shot." Using perspective and creativity, Nadeau was able to capture something so beautiful and breathtaking. 

TOW Post #17(Article): New York Times Review

    Taylor Swift's new album, 1989, has been creating serious talk in the music department. Earning a mere $20 million, Swift's album is referred to the sensation of 2014 music. Fans are loving it, and believe it or not, critics also have great things to say. In fact, in a New York Times review, author Jon Caramanica praises the album by describing its magnificence and contrasting it to other pop music available on the market. He says that Taylor Swift's "idea of pop music harks back to a period — the mid-1980s — when pop was less overtly hybrid. That choice allows her to stake out popular turf without having to keep up with the latest microtrends, and without being accused of cultural appropriation" (Caramanica 1). By calling Swift's version of pop "less overtly hybrid", Jon is able to refer to it as original and not a mix. This gives the album a great review as Taylor is seen as a genius for reflecting her music to the past rather than current styles, which aren't as greatly appreciated. In fact, today's music is seen as a bit too much. " Modern pop stars — white pop stars, that is — mainly get there by emulating black music. Think of Miley Cyrus, Justin Timberlake, Justin Bieber. In the current ecosystem, Katy Perry is probably the pop star least reliant on hip-hop and R&B to make her sound, but her biggest recent hit featured the rapper Juicy J" (Caramanica 1). The relentless effort to be a this hot-shot, gangster music-pop star is starting to become a bore. Every music video nowadays has the same beats, inappropriate costumes/clothes, and meaningless lyrics. However, Swift's new album brought hope. "Swift, though, is having none of that; what she doesn’t do on this album is as important as what she does. There is no production by Diplo or Mike Will Made-It here, no guest verse by Drake or Pitbull" (Caramanica 1). Swift keeps things simple with an album that features none of the usual garbage crap included in every other artist's music. It is for this reason that her album was a grand success.