Parents Fear Hunger Games

This article was very interesting in explaining the struggle between parents and their children to see the movie "Hunger Games". It made good points in showing why the movie may be inappropriate for children who want to see it. although the children have read the book, i agree that a movie would be much more terrifying and traumatic to children than words on a page. Reading about horror may be hard for children as well, but seeing the violence take place right infront of them could be so much harder to handle. The article also made the point that one child wanted to see it because if their parents did not take them to see it, it meant that they weren't 'cool'. The struggle of peer pressure shows up at that age and when a child hears that their friends saw a movie and their parent wont let them, they don't feel like they can do what their peers can, which makes them feel left out. I agree that this movie may be inappropriate for younger kids because so many of them could not handle the graphic nature of this movie. Even in the UK, they required the distributor to cut out a part of the movie in order for them to allow twelve year olds see it. without cutting that part out, they would have increased the age to fifteen.

Do's and Don'ts of Storify

Storify is a website that allows people to post their news stories. It allows you to pull media from Twitter, Youtube and Facebook to help substantiate your story. it provides space for you to give background about your story and introduce what you would be showing. I defiantly agree with this authors opinions about the two provided sources of Storify posts. The student post is much more affective as she explains posts and explains what happened at the rally so that the reader understands what happened. Not having known about this story and reading her post I definitely learned from her post what happened and was not confused. Reading the professional post, I thought that it was a little bit confusing. As the author of the article pointed out, he did not give much background information about what had happened. It was boring to read Tweet after Tweet with no opinion and no information. This form of journalism could be helpful in forming a story because it allows you to use direct substantiation from websites where most people these days go to post what they see as they see it. You could also get direct quotes from many different people on many different sides of the story you are covering. This could also, in turn, provide bad stories because, like the profesional story provided in the article, people could just relly on Tweets and not explain the story fully like the student reporter did.

The actual Bridgewater incident could have been seen as supporting freedom of speech as apposed to what they orriginally were fighting for, gay rights. I think that many people joined the rally for the freedom cause rather than to fight for gay rights. It also may have allowed journalists to feel more free with posting things about the rally -- quotes from people and pictures. It could have given them the freedom to post whatever they wanted about their own opinions of the rally and what happened to the girl who was attacked.