Respond to two original responses thoroughly in a manner that invites an extension of the conversation. In other words, “I totally agree with you” is NOT a sufficient response. Each peer response should be approximately 6 – 7 sentences, or a paragraph in length. Response needs strong structure and a logical flow. You don't need to answer the original questions. Part C Original Questions Why do you think that talk radio is one of the most popular formats on radio? Do you listen to talk radio?  Should talk-radio hosts be able to say anything they want on the radio? Is it important to air all potential issues over the airwaves, even if those issues might upset some listeners? Are radio talk shows just silly sideshows of extreme views and shocking behavior, or do they appeal to listeners in unique and significant ways? Do all potential topics contribute to democracy? What kinds of things shouldn’t be said or discussed on the radio? Student A's post I think that talk radio is one of the most popular formats on the radio for a few reasons. One reason is because the only other popular option would be radio stations that play music, but nowadays why would someone choose to listen to the radio’s random selection of music when they could listen to their own playlists on Apple music or Spotify. Radio’s are being less and less used for actual music. Radio talk shows are great for the people who don’t necessarily like to listen to music on their drives, or prefer to listen to something more informative while they're in the car. This could be a number of different ages or people not necessarily "older people" but generally adults would prefer that over young adults who don’t view listening to music as a waste of time where some people might. Young adults usually view listening to music on their drives as more enjoyable rather than listening to someone talk on the radio.    I see both perspectives as to why talk radio show hosts should and should not be able to say anything they want on the radio. On the one hand, there’s freedom of speech which they should be able to do and additionally, having your own talk show should permit the host the privilege of being able to express their own opinion; if someone who listens disagrees they could switch the station they are listening to. However, being able to say really anything with no restrictions could be a risky thing to do depending on who’s listening. For instance, if a Father is driving his 6 year-old son to school and the Father is listening to a radio station where the talk show host uses vulgar language, if the Father was unaware of this or unable to stop it before his young impressionable child could hear, this is where it wouldn’t hurt for talk show hosts to have some guidelines. In this circumstance, radio talk show hosts having basic rules to abide by doesn’t seem like a bad idea in case they are speaking about a political topic for example where things could get heated quickly. That being said, I do .

1. Respond to two original responses thoroughly in a manner that
invites an extension of the conversation. In other words, “I
totally agree with you” is NOT a sufficient response. Each peer
response should be approximately 6 – 7 sentences, or a
paragraph in length. Response needs strong structure and a
logical flow. You don't need to answer the original questions.
Part C
Original Questions
Why do you think that talk radio is one of the most popular
formats on radio? Do you listen to talk radio?
Should talk-radio hosts be able to say anything they want on the
radio? Is it important to air all potential issues over the
airwaves, even if those issues might upset some listeners?
Are radio talk shows just silly sideshows of extreme views and
shocking behavior, or do they appeal to listeners in unique and
significant ways?
Do all potential topics contribute to democracy? What kinds of
things shouldn’t be said or discussed on the radio?
Student A's post
I think that talk radio is one of the most popular formats on the
radio for a few reasons. One reason is because the only other
popular option would be radio stations that play music, but
nowadays why would someone choose to listen to the radio’s
random selection of music when they could listen to their own
playlists on Apple music or Spotify. Radio’s are being less and
less used for actual music. Radio talk shows are great for the
people who don’t necessarily like to listen to music on their
drives, or prefer to listen to something more informative while
they're in the car. This could be a number of different ages or
people not necessarily "older people" but generally adults would
prefer that over young adults who don’t view listening to music
as a waste of time where some people might. Young adults

2. usually view listening to music on their drives as more
enjoyable rather than listening to someone talk on the radio.
I see both perspectives as to why talk radio show hosts should
and should not be able to say anything they want on the radio.
On the one hand, there’s freedom of speech which they should
be able to do and additionally, having your own talk show
should permit the host the privilege of being able to express
their own opinion; if someone who listens disagrees they could
switch the station they are listening to. However, being able to
say really anything with no restrictions could be a risky thing to
do depending on who’s listening. For instance, if a Father is
driving his 6 year-old son to school and the Father is listening
to a radio station where the talk show host uses vulgar
language, if the Father was unaware of this or unable to stop it
before his young impressionable child could hear, this is where
it wouldn’t hurt for talk show hosts to have some guidelines. In
this circumstance, radio talk show hosts having basic rules to
abide by doesn’t seem like a bad idea in case they are speaking
about a political topic for example where things could get
heated quickly. That being said, I do think it is important to air
all potential issues over the airwaves even if those issues could
upset some listeners because it’s impossible to please everyone,
so no matter what some listeners will disagree and that’s okay,
but it makes a significant difference if when the host is talking
about a sensitive subject where they are aware that listeners
may disagree, to stay calm, be cautious with the words they
choose to use, make sure they have the correct facts, and use
appropriate language as well.
It’s hard to say whether or not radio talk shows appeal to
listeners in a unique and significant way because every person
has a different view and opinion which means that to one person
it may seem more appealing and to another they might prefer
watching the news instead of listening to someone’s
commentary about politics. In addition, not all radio talk shows
are “silly sideshows” of extreme views and shocking behavior
but there definitely are radio stations that discuss unimportant

3. things that are a waste of time, relating to celebrity news or the
latest drama going on in Hollywood for instance.
There are several topics for different types of radio talk shows
such as sportscast, news, weather, call in shows, radio drama,
entertainment or comedic, live music and more that don’t
necessarily contribute to democracy and how we the people run
our own government. However, radio talk shows that consist of
politics and even call in shows where the people can be heard
are contributing in a way to democracy. I personally think that
topics or things that should not be discussed on the radio
include gossip and other forms of drama that serve no purpose
but to let others feed off of rumors and other people’s misery.
Student B's post
Personally, I don’t listen to talk radios. Personally, I don’t want
to spend my time in a car listening to talk radio, I’d rather listen
to my own music or radio music. I think in general people don’t
listen to talk radio quite as often anymore because of other
alternatives they prefer. However, I also think it depends on the
person’s interest and likes. Additionally, I think people listen to
talk radio as a form of companionship. Unlike music stations, it
gives somewhat of a “human touch” and allows listeners to call
in which definitely can be an appeal to some.
I do not think talk-radio hosts should be able to say anything
they want on the radio. They do have the power of free speech,
but somethings like insulting a particular group or making
offensive comments shouldn’t be said to such an extent.
However, society is very biased and no matter what, they have
the freedom to say whatever they want. Despite my beliefs, I
still think it is important to air all potential issues over the
airwaves, even if those issues might upset some listeners. Even
if some listeners will not particularly like the comments, some
issues are too big to hide. For example, one thing many talk
radios will bring up is anything related to Trump. Some people
will not like what he has to say or what the radio says, but some
topics and problems need to be brought up even though it can

4. hurt some listeners.
In today’s society, I do think some radio talk shows are just
silly sideshows of extreme views and shocking behavior,
however there are many that can appeal to listeners. There are
some radio talk shows related to things such as sports, news, or
maybe even a particular religion that can appeal to listeners.
However, there are certainly such radio talk shows that have
extreme views and show shocking behavior. These radio shows
are probably trying to appeal to a particular group despite
having such biased thoughts.
In reality, most of the potential topics contribute to democracy,
due to its important relevance in major discussions regarding
American Politics. Somethings that shouldn’t be said are surely
curse words and honestly things that are not 100% correct
shouldn’t be discussed. To me, I think they shouldn’t discuss
something that isn’t true or something that is uncertain. There is
radio censorship, but that refers to mostly general words that
cannot be said.
Respond to two original responses thoroughly in a manner that
invites an extension of the conversation. In other words, “I
totally agree with you” is NOT a sufficient response. Each peer
response should be approximately 6 – 7 sentences, or a
paragraph in length. Response needs strong structure and a
logical flow. You don't need to answer the original questions.
Part B
Original Questions
Consider the impact of the Internet on music. Please answer the
following questions.
Do you think the Internet as a technology helps or hurts musical
artists? Why do so many contemporary musical performers
differ in their opinions about the Internet?
How has the Internet changed your musical tastes? Do you
listen to a wider range of music because of the Internet?

5. Student A's post
I definitely think internet helps musical artists because of how
easy it is to make playlists as well as creating music that will
appeal to the larger public community. Without the internet,
people would have to go out to a music store to buy a record,
CD, or album but thanks to advanced technology and the
internet today we could find any song to listen to at the click of
a button. Thanks to companies such as Spotify, Apple Music,
YouTube, and Soundcloud we are given access to countless
songs, and gives us the opportunity to listen to almost anything
we want at any time. I believe one of the reasons why many
contemporary musical performers differ in opinions is because
although the internet is quick access, convenient, and could go
viral easily, the downside includes not creating original content
or other issues regarding the making of "real music." In
addition, many artists nowadays create a bunch of beats put
together and call that a song, but it's really lost the true
meaning of what a song conveys through beautiful soundtracks
and meaningful lyrics as a result of using the internet. I also
think that the internet could actually have a negative affect on
music. One example being that artists make much less money
due to the fact that there are so many ways to get access to their
music for free compared to the past where you would have to
actually make a purchase to listen to a song.
The internet has undeniably changed my musical tastes. Due to
many different apps such as Apple Music, Pandora, Spotify and
more, I am able to explore different types of musical artists and
genres. I would have never discovered new music and would not
have known about certain artists or songwriters without the
internet as well as technology giving me that opportunity. In
addition to these great music apps, something I personally enjoy
listening to and think is a great way to discover new music is
through a playlist I follow on Spotify called “New Music
Friday.” On the Spotify playlist “New Music Friday” every

6. week, Spotify composes a new playlist filled with the latest
hits, and a variety of different style songs and artists. The
beauty of this playlist is its diversity that caters to many
different types of music listeners. This is one of the many
amazing ways there are today to uncover new musical tastes and
have a wider range of music to listen to thanks to the Internet. I
personally have multiple playlists filled with a variation of
different types of music which I prefer to listen to depending on
my mood or what I’m doing. For example, when I want to
exercise I will listen to more hype, upbeat, motivating music, or
if I’m doing school work I’ll listen to calmer music that will
help focus myself, and allow me to concentrate better.
Student B's post
1. Often times, I see the Internet as a beneficial tool to society
as a whole. Regarding musical artists, I also see the Internet as
beneficial. It allows artists to explore different genres or lyrics
to songs of popular or upcoming artists. This can inspire other
musicians to create and pursue their passions. Furthermore, the
Internet allows musicians to publish their work for the world to
see. This is how a lot of people are discovered and later become
“big.” The availability of music across the Internet helps artists
grow their fandom globally and transform into something even
greater. Additionally, upcoming artists can market their own
work and grow on their own without the help of a label
company. They would then be able to keep all profits to
themselves and not have to share it with the label company.
This can be a way for artists to reach their success. In contrast,
I think a lot of contemporary performers differ in their opinions
about the Internet because there is also a lot of negativity out
there. People have the power to use the Internet to make
negative and harmful comments about one’s work. This may
prevent one from pursuing their dreams or it may hinder their
success. Even if somebody has loads of confidence and believes
in their abilities, they can still be impacted by the comments

7. people make. Another reasons contemporary performers may
have differing opinions is because the accessibility of music has
made it more difficult for artists to make money. People can
illegally download and freely listen to both popular and
unpopular music.
2. The Internet has allowed me to explore different genres of
music. More specifically, once I found my preferred genre, I
have been able to find remixes or covers to the songs I enjoy
listening to. I can also find similar artists to the ones I like and
then start listening to their music, as well. Therefore, I don’t
necessarily listen to a wider range of music because of my
Internet access, but I do expand the list of songs I do like within
the music I prefer.
Respond to two original responses thoroughly in a manner that
invites an extension of the conversation. In other words, “I
totally agree with you” is NOT a sufficient response. Each peer
response should be approximately 6 – 7 sentences, or a
paragraph in length. Response needs strong structure and a
logical flow. You don't need to answer the original questions.
Part A
Original Questions
1. What kinds of content - if any - should not be in electronic
games? (You may want to consider misogyny, violence, and
advertisements in games).
2. Are you concerned about certain kinds of gaming content that
children might see?
3. What are some positive and valuable uses of electronic
games?
Student A's post
Personally, I believe that misogyny, violence, and the use of
women in advertisements should not be associated with
electronic games. The concept of women being a “decorative

8. character” teaches males that it is okay to treat them with little
to no respect. According to the clip from Anita Sarkeesian,
“women are minimally interactive sex objects to be used and
abused”. This statement captures the harsh reality of the use of
women in video games and the intention of them. If men are
taught this from a young age, then their perception of women
will determine how they are treated. Also, the “used and
abused” statement suggests that men have the ability to take
advantage of women. The clip also suggests the difference of
power between men and women. Specifically, the video states
that the women in the game are “non-playable sex objects” and
have “no personality or identity”. Showing women as having no
purpose or personality leads to men thinking it is allowed for
women to be taken advantage of. This source of power
difference is also shown by the statement “men are sexual
subjects and women are sexual objects”. By having men be the
subject, it suggests that they are the center of attention and
deserve the power given to them. By having women be the
objects, it is like comparing them to a piece of furniture that
men are allowed to sit on. Connecting to these concepts, women
should also not be used as advertisements for video games. It
suggests that their only purpose is to bring attention to
themselves and exploit their bodies in exchange for attention
from men. Video games continuously reinforce sexual
objectification “representing a human being as a thing or mere
instrument to be used for another’s sexual purposes”. Lastly, I
believe that violence should not be allowed in video games
solely because it teaches men that killing and violence is okay.
They are given rewards for killing and become manipulated into
doing so. According to the video “Game Over: Gender, Race,
and Violence in Video Games”, “90% of households with
children have video games”. This percentage is frightening
considering the fact that young children are being taught to
shoot guns and use violence in a normal setting. The video also
discussed a video game that soldiers use to rehearse the act of
killing. This justifies the fact that video games are used to teach

9. real violence, hence teaching kids real-life scenarios.
I am very concerned about the kinds of gaming content children
might see. As stated previously, children are being taught that
sexual objectification and violence are normal. Since video
games are a common thing in 90% of households, more children
than not are taught that using violence and women to their
advantage is okay. These aspects can cause psychological and
societal problems as children develop.
Some positive and valuable uses of electronic games are that
they are now being used in “workforce training, for social
causes, and in classrooms”, as stated in the reading (Media &
Culture). The technology of gaming is continuously advancing
and because of this many more purposes are being valued. For
example, kids with disabilities can use electronic games to help
them with their coordination and functioning skills. Also, it can
be used as a form of teaching or training.
Student B's post
1. The content that should not be in electronic games are
violence, sexual content, women who are portrayed as
prostitutes, the brutal killing of another character, the profanity,
and any other negative impact it may have on a person or a
child. Hard core gamers love this stuff and this could possibly
effect their life, in other words, criminals that are inspired by
the games they play. For example, in 2008 a video game called
"Halo" was introduced and became popular the moment it was
released. Daniel Petric, a huge fan of the violent video game
need up killing his family, his influence was the video game.
Being 17 years old and spending the rest of your life in prison
over a video game is not worth it. We are curious human beings
and we want to see how things work in life, and having these
violent video games be easy access is not good for our children,
and your adults rather.
2. I have to admit that I am not into video games. I have played
them in my past but never had any interest due to the violence,

10. sexual content, and the negative picture they paint when it
comes to women's sexuality. While watching the video "Women
as Background Decoration: Part.1," Anita Sarkessian sates that
when It comes to the women in the video games they are
classified as "background decoration." I defiantly agree with
that statement, the creators of these video games are pretty
strategic for men who play these violent video games.
According to Statistica, in 2018 alone 45% of gamers are
women and 55% are men. Yes, there is a 10 % difference which
is pretty significant due to the fact that men are more interested
in the violence and sexual content that the video games consist
of. Being a women, these video games are humiliating because
of how they portray women. The women characters I like to
think are prostitutes. For example, a women character in the
video game "Call of Duty" takes off her clothes for no reason
and the guy gives her money and calls her an inappropriate
name. What type of game is this?
In today's society many young children are playing these video
games which is not appropriate for them to play nor see. Little
do they know, the creators of these games are making a huge
profit, on other words, advertising.
3. I unfortunately, don't have too many positives in regards to
electronic video games, however, learning videos games that
will benefit children and young adults is a positive and valuable
outcome.
Another positive and valuable outcome would possibly be that
people who lack social skills can turn to video games to exit out
the world.