In my opinion, OWS was not successful. Success is measured by how far a person, group, or organization's ability to reach their goal. That doesn't mean that OWS cannot be successful, however the status of the OWS movement is still progressing in order to claim being successful. The Occupy protest movement was designed to expose social and economic inequality in the United States and elsewhere by exposing greed, corruption, and the undue influence of corporations on everyday life. As OWS were able to have succeeded to call out the reputation of a few corporations, they happen to jeopardize their own reputation as well, by creating fake stories to keep consumers on their side. Therefore, OWS thought they were not succeeding and begun to lie to there audience. This gives me the impression that OWS are hypocrites, and will do the same as the corporations they are fighting against. I would apologize to the people that reputations were ...
In my opinion, Scott McClellan is responsible for being ethically irresponsible to his former boss and the White House organization. Even if he spoke up about the secreted things that Bush and the White House has done. He mainly spoke up out of pettiness and selfishness. His intentions was to get back at the people that battered him. If he really wanted to do the best ethical choice, he should've step down from his position and spoke about what was happening when it was happening. McClellan never considered doing the right thing because he knew it was right either, he did it for money as well. Actions speaks a lot louder than words. McClellan speaking about the things that happened, showed a lot about his character and how he treat his so call friends. He does not treat them the way they want to be treated.
MSNBC handled the Romney Wawa moment poorly. They could've had a better article but instead "snipped" it into a completely different and misinterpret the main focus of what was trying to be talked about. If I was Andrea Mitchell I would write another article in his own words explaining MSNBC's point of view and what the point of view was really referring too. This allows both sides to be heard and for the public to have different points of views and opinions to choose from. Instead of just the story MSNBC publish, which tarnishes its reliability.
Comments
Post a Comment