Thursday, March 25, 2010
Reflection 2.2
For my second draft I’m aware that I didn’t make a whole lot of changes. I realized in my first draft that though I thought I had included research from scholarly journals, I did not. My main goal for my second draft was correctly formatting my paper. The confusion that I received from my classmates encouraged me to clear up my papers format so it would be easier to identify where a paragraph starts and where it finishes. I also went ahead and added my works citied section to my essay this go round. I attempted to find scholarly journals that are relevant to my topic, but I haven’t had much luck. I noticed that maybe I have careful research broader ideas that revolve around my topic and not just my topic alone. I can search journals that encompass the ideas of things like freedom of the press, just freedom in general, the justice system, and also find out what type of court cases are not allowed to be televised for the viewing of the public. Once I find two scholarly journals to include into my essay I will cite those in my works cited section as well. I also want to work more on the language of my essay to make sure it gives of a rogerian attitude. I feel like I can organize my paper a little better as well to give it a smoother flow for my audience to read, so I will work on make sure that I address certain ideas continuously throughout the essay.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
(Essay 2.2) Court TV
Whenever someone sits in front of a television; man, woman, boy, girl, the young, the old they are viewing the broadcast mainly for entertainment. It is possible that the entertainment can be interpreted differently, depending on the knowledge of that person. With that thought, I can understand that cameras in the courtrooms can have a positive effect on Americans, but I simply do not agree. An editorial in the March 13, 2010 edition of the New York Times titled “Your Reality TV” states, “Cameras in the court would allow Americans to see for themselves how an extremely powerful part of their government works” (“Your Reality TV” par 3). It’s possible that knowledge can be gained from viewing court cases on TV, but I kind of see it differently.
The publicity placed on a court case seems more like fake politics to me, I would just take it in as pure entertainment. The court case would lack the sense of fairness. An article that talks about Oklahoma laws says, “Television coverage, the court said, threatens ‘the atmosphere essential to the preservation of a fair 'public' trial – the most fundamental of all freedoms" (Lee par 2). We are all humans, and when we are put on the spotlight or are in front of a camera we have a tendency to pretend and be deceiving. We automatically set a fake atmosphere because we feel that our image is very important, and we can’t mess it up in front of an audience of people, it’s just our nature. So, I feel that is not a good idea to televise these cases because I can predict society uproars and chaos due to them.
What will the citizens of other countries think of Americans? Do we have to televise everything? In 1965 the case Estes v. Texas stated that media is allowed in the court room; but items like typewriters, presses, or other tools of transmitting the story are not allowed to be brought in by reporters. I feel that it should be the opposite thing, the media shouldn’t be allowed in the court room. Now that we know what is and isn’t allowed in the court room, I feel that we should know why the media is actually allowed in the court room, what purpose does it serve. I rather get justice in the courts; we don’t need the entertainment factor in this situation. A scholarly article states that, “One of the main arguments against cameras in the courtroom is that they would sensationalize trials” (“Cameras in the Courts” par 4) Do we feel it will be necessary to televise court cases so we can keep an eye on our government system?
Shows like Judge Judy, People’s Court and Judge Joe Brown are definite examples that court cases on TV are not taken seriously, and just used for entertainment. Are those cases real or are they staged? These cases seem like a huge ongoing advertisement of reality TV. If we as a society view these court cases at first, they will set the stage for how we view other, even actual court cases that are televised. Are those cases able to help Americans gain knowledge of their government? In a New York Times article, Judge Kozinski says that allowing cameras in the court rooms is “an ‘experiment’ that is designed to help us find the right balance between the public's right to access to the courts and the parties' right to a fair and dignified proceeding''( Schwartz par 2). So we see that even a judge is a little rocky on the decision of having cameras in a court room.
I can see that televising court cases can be educational for youth, used as examples in history or government classes’ to be a visual aid for students. I myself am a visual learner, and many other students are as well. I find it important to use all the different skills and ways of learning in the classroom. It will be okay that the reason for recording important court cases is for proper educational usage. I also feel that if government court cases are televised that the media will go hay wire and blow stories out of proportion. Things will only be based on what is seen in the court room, and not what heard or said.
Televising these court cases is pretty understandable, but there is no necessity in the situation. I have not found a legit reason to televise any court cases. The only thing I can find is the excuse that it is part of our freedom of speech. We can watch actual reality TV to get our entertainment.
Works Citied
“ Cameras in the Courts.” New York Times. 15 May 2007. Web. 14 March 2010.
First Amendment Research Information. Illinois First Amendment Center, 2010. Web. 14 March 2010.
Lee, Douglas. Oklahoma Court Makes Dubious Assumptions about Cameras in Court. Freedom Forum, 29 June 2000. Web. 14 March 2010.
Schwartz, John. “Ninth Circuit to Test Use of Cameras in Civil Cases.” New York Times. 19 December 2009. Web. 14 March 2010.
“Your Reality TV.” New York Times. 13 March 2010. Web. 14 March 2010.
The publicity placed on a court case seems more like fake politics to me, I would just take it in as pure entertainment. The court case would lack the sense of fairness. An article that talks about Oklahoma laws says, “Television coverage, the court said, threatens ‘the atmosphere essential to the preservation of a fair 'public' trial – the most fundamental of all freedoms" (Lee par 2). We are all humans, and when we are put on the spotlight or are in front of a camera we have a tendency to pretend and be deceiving. We automatically set a fake atmosphere because we feel that our image is very important, and we can’t mess it up in front of an audience of people, it’s just our nature. So, I feel that is not a good idea to televise these cases because I can predict society uproars and chaos due to them.
What will the citizens of other countries think of Americans? Do we have to televise everything? In 1965 the case Estes v. Texas stated that media is allowed in the court room; but items like typewriters, presses, or other tools of transmitting the story are not allowed to be brought in by reporters. I feel that it should be the opposite thing, the media shouldn’t be allowed in the court room. Now that we know what is and isn’t allowed in the court room, I feel that we should know why the media is actually allowed in the court room, what purpose does it serve. I rather get justice in the courts; we don’t need the entertainment factor in this situation. A scholarly article states that, “One of the main arguments against cameras in the courtroom is that they would sensationalize trials” (“Cameras in the Courts” par 4) Do we feel it will be necessary to televise court cases so we can keep an eye on our government system?
Shows like Judge Judy, People’s Court and Judge Joe Brown are definite examples that court cases on TV are not taken seriously, and just used for entertainment. Are those cases real or are they staged? These cases seem like a huge ongoing advertisement of reality TV. If we as a society view these court cases at first, they will set the stage for how we view other, even actual court cases that are televised. Are those cases able to help Americans gain knowledge of their government? In a New York Times article, Judge Kozinski says that allowing cameras in the court rooms is “an ‘experiment’ that is designed to help us find the right balance between the public's right to access to the courts and the parties' right to a fair and dignified proceeding''( Schwartz par 2). So we see that even a judge is a little rocky on the decision of having cameras in a court room.
I can see that televising court cases can be educational for youth, used as examples in history or government classes’ to be a visual aid for students. I myself am a visual learner, and many other students are as well. I find it important to use all the different skills and ways of learning in the classroom. It will be okay that the reason for recording important court cases is for proper educational usage. I also feel that if government court cases are televised that the media will go hay wire and blow stories out of proportion. Things will only be based on what is seen in the court room, and not what heard or said.
Televising these court cases is pretty understandable, but there is no necessity in the situation. I have not found a legit reason to televise any court cases. The only thing I can find is the excuse that it is part of our freedom of speech. We can watch actual reality TV to get our entertainment.
Works Citied
“ Cameras in the Courts.” New York Times. 15 May 2007. Web. 14 March 2010.
First Amendment Research Information. Illinois First Amendment Center, 2010. Web. 14 March 2010.
Lee, Douglas. Oklahoma Court Makes Dubious Assumptions about Cameras in Court. Freedom Forum, 29 June 2000. Web. 14 March 2010.
Schwartz, John. “Ninth Circuit to Test Use of Cameras in Civil Cases.” New York Times. 19 December 2009. Web. 14 March 2010.
“Your Reality TV.” New York Times. 13 March 2010. Web. 14 March 2010.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Reflection 2.1
In writing my rogerian argument, I had to use different techniques than in my rebuttal argument. I drastically changed my vocabulary. I wanted to sound more like I had a gentle understanding attitude towards the author’s argument. In my rebuttal argument I was able to argue my point without showing the author sympathy. Well it’s a little more challenging writing the rogerian argument because I have to think about where the author is coming from, find common ground, and make some compromises. I think I took on a pretty good point of view for this argument.
For this process I researched past court cases that were televised and the reactions that people shared about televised court cases. I found great articles through the library website and other historical cases. I would like to add some pathos to my argument, so I plan on maybe adding some personal stories from people that actually experienced having the court case televised if possible. I will also look for other types of evidence such as statistical and personal attributions to include in my next draft. I might also try to change up the format and structure of my paper in my second draft. My goals for my next draft included working on my works cited section, and adding more points to my argument. I want my audience to say that my argument is clear and it provides a lot of reasons. When I receive comments on my argument I will deeply take them into consideration, because I’m sure there are some other changes that I can make.
For this process I researched past court cases that were televised and the reactions that people shared about televised court cases. I found great articles through the library website and other historical cases. I would like to add some pathos to my argument, so I plan on maybe adding some personal stories from people that actually experienced having the court case televised if possible. I will also look for other types of evidence such as statistical and personal attributions to include in my next draft. I might also try to change up the format and structure of my paper in my second draft. My goals for my next draft included working on my works cited section, and adding more points to my argument. I want my audience to say that my argument is clear and it provides a lot of reasons. When I receive comments on my argument I will deeply take them into consideration, because I’m sure there are some other changes that I can make.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Essay 2.1(Court TV)
Whenever someone sits in front of a television; man, woman, boy, girl, the young, the old they are viewing the broadcast mainly for entertainment. It is possible that the entertainment can be interpreted differently, depending on the knowledge of that person. With that thought, I can understand that cameras in the courtrooms can have a positive effect on Americans. An editorial in the March 13, 2010 edition of the New York Times titled “Your Reality TV” states, “Cameras in the court would allow Americans to see for themselves how an extremely powerful part of their government works” (“Your Reality TV” par 3). It’s possible that knowledge can be gained from viewing court cases on TV, but I kind of see it differently.
The publicity placed on a court case seems more like fake politics to me, I would just take it in as pure entertainment. The court case would lack the sense of fairness. An article that talks about Oklahoma laws says, “Television coverage, the court said, threatens ‘the atmosphere essential to the preservation of a fair 'public' trial – the most fundamental of all freedoms" (… par 2). We are all humans, and when we are put on the spotlight or are in front of a camera we have a tendency to pretend and be deceiving. We automatically set a fake atmosphere because we feel that our image is very important, and we can’t mess it up in front of an audience of people, it’s just our nature. So, I feel that is not a good idea to televise these cases because I can predict society uproars and chaos due to them.
What will the citizens of other countries think of Americans? Do we have to televise everything? In 1965 the case Estes v. Texas stated that media is allowed in the court room; but items like typewriters, presses, or other tools of transmitting the story are not allowed to be brought in by reporters. I feel that it should be the opposite thing, the media shouldn’t be allowed in the court room. Now that we know what is and isn’t allowed in the court room, I feel that we should know why the media is actually allowed in the court room. I rather get justice in the courts; we don’t need the entertainment factor in this situation. A scholarly article states that, “One of the main arguments against cameras in the courtroom is that they would sensationalize trials” (“Cameras in the Courts” par 4) Do we feel it will be necessary to televise court cases so we can keep an eye on our government system?
Shows like Judge Judy, People’s Court and Judge Joe Brown are definite examples that court cases on TV are not taken seriously, and just used for entertainment. Are those cases real or are they staged? These cases seem like a huge ongoing advertisement of reality TV. If we as a society view these court cases at first, they will set the stage for how we view other, even actual court cases that are televised. Are those cases able to help Americans gain knowledge of their government? In a scholarly article, Judge Kozinski says that allowing cameras in the court rooms is “an ‘experiment’ that is designed to help us find the right balance between the public's right to access to the courts and the parties' right to a fair and dignified proceeding''( Schwartz par 2). So we see that even a judge is a little rocky on the decision of having cameras in a court room.
I can see that televising court cases can be educational for youth, used as examples in history or government classes’ to be a visual aid for students. I myself am a visual learner, and many other students are as well. I find it important to use all the different skills and ways of learning in the classroom. It will be okay that the reason for recording important court cases is for proper educational usage. I also feel that if government court cases are televised that the media will go hay wire and blow stories out of proportion. Things will only be based on what is seen in the court room, and not what heard or said.
Televising these court cases is pretty understandable, but there is no necessity in the situation. I have not found a legit reason to televise any court cases. The only thing I can find is the excuse that it is part of our freedom of speech. We can watch actual reality TV to get our entertainment.
The publicity placed on a court case seems more like fake politics to me, I would just take it in as pure entertainment. The court case would lack the sense of fairness. An article that talks about Oklahoma laws says, “Television coverage, the court said, threatens ‘the atmosphere essential to the preservation of a fair 'public' trial – the most fundamental of all freedoms" (… par 2). We are all humans, and when we are put on the spotlight or are in front of a camera we have a tendency to pretend and be deceiving. We automatically set a fake atmosphere because we feel that our image is very important, and we can’t mess it up in front of an audience of people, it’s just our nature. So, I feel that is not a good idea to televise these cases because I can predict society uproars and chaos due to them.
What will the citizens of other countries think of Americans? Do we have to televise everything? In 1965 the case Estes v. Texas stated that media is allowed in the court room; but items like typewriters, presses, or other tools of transmitting the story are not allowed to be brought in by reporters. I feel that it should be the opposite thing, the media shouldn’t be allowed in the court room. Now that we know what is and isn’t allowed in the court room, I feel that we should know why the media is actually allowed in the court room. I rather get justice in the courts; we don’t need the entertainment factor in this situation. A scholarly article states that, “One of the main arguments against cameras in the courtroom is that they would sensationalize trials” (“Cameras in the Courts” par 4) Do we feel it will be necessary to televise court cases so we can keep an eye on our government system?
Shows like Judge Judy, People’s Court and Judge Joe Brown are definite examples that court cases on TV are not taken seriously, and just used for entertainment. Are those cases real or are they staged? These cases seem like a huge ongoing advertisement of reality TV. If we as a society view these court cases at first, they will set the stage for how we view other, even actual court cases that are televised. Are those cases able to help Americans gain knowledge of their government? In a scholarly article, Judge Kozinski says that allowing cameras in the court rooms is “an ‘experiment’ that is designed to help us find the right balance between the public's right to access to the courts and the parties' right to a fair and dignified proceeding''( Schwartz par 2). So we see that even a judge is a little rocky on the decision of having cameras in a court room.
I can see that televising court cases can be educational for youth, used as examples in history or government classes’ to be a visual aid for students. I myself am a visual learner, and many other students are as well. I find it important to use all the different skills and ways of learning in the classroom. It will be okay that the reason for recording important court cases is for proper educational usage. I also feel that if government court cases are televised that the media will go hay wire and blow stories out of proportion. Things will only be based on what is seen in the court room, and not what heard or said.
Televising these court cases is pretty understandable, but there is no necessity in the situation. I have not found a legit reason to televise any court cases. The only thing I can find is the excuse that it is part of our freedom of speech. We can watch actual reality TV to get our entertainment.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Prewriting Essay 2
Topics that involve entertainment and lesiure time are great topics for a rogerian argument. Its easier to find common ground in less controversial. I want to find a topic with these aspects so that I make sure that I'm able to have understanding towards the other side of the argument. I have to try to be prepared to switch gears from the last argument.
Reflection 1.3
I did a lot of editing for my final argument paper. Not only did I include my works cited section for my paper, but I cut out a couple of paragraphs so have space for necessary information. The information that I added was important because I made more references to the movie itself, this created a stronger connection for my audience. I feel very comfortable with the way my final paper turned out. Now that the rebuttal section of the class is over we are moving on to the rogerian section. This is a transition from a distinct argumentive tone to a gentle understanding tone of an argument.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
1.3 (No Glamour in Teen Pregnancy)
Dear Elizabeth Baugh,
On the night Lifetime premiered the original movie Pregnancy Pact viewers from every state, every college campus and every neighborhood were tuned in. Pregnancy Pact portrayed the realities of being a teen mom or basically just being a citizen of motherhood. The fact that it was inspired by a true story even made the story less glamorous; the movie screamed “these hardships can happen to you”.
In your editorial from the January 25, 2010 edition in The Breeze, I understood that you wrote A Perfectly Planned Pregnancy to claim that “Teen pregnancy was depicted as far more glamorous than it really is” (Baugh par 6). You felt that this movie was more than likely using its message to promote teen motherhood. I on the other hand, as well as many other viewers, did not see the so called glamour at all. A James Madison University student, Traffy Taylor, commented on your article stating that “everyone knows that having a baby at 15 is anything but glamorous”. Traffy Taylor disagrees with your claim based on her own view of the real world. I feel that this movie really got a true life message across to its audience.
A variety of scenes from Pregnancy Pact were definitely cues for teen girls to open their eyes to the issues that our generation is facing. The pregnant teens in the movie had so many challenges thrown at them the moment they became knowledgeable of their own pregnancies. Troubles came upon their families and many of their relationships dissolved in all the commotion. Teen pregnancy turn offs were wrapped all up in the movie. This movie was used as a tool to help its audience make correct smart decisions, a way to just look out for the viewers.
I highly doubt that the producers and directors for the movie, Pregnancy Pact, wanted to be advocates in urging teen girls to get pregnant. Through the commercials, internet blogs and sites, and in the actual movie it is very clear that the movie production is a campaign for teens to not become part of the pregnancy statistic. On the Lifetime website, the page for Pregnancy Pact includes a PSA that the characters from the actual movie created; it “encourages open dialogue with teens about sex and pregnancy” (“Camryn Manheim” par.1). Teens should be made to felt comfortable so they can express their own opinions. Other helpful gadgets such as discussion boards for teens and parents, teen speak up videos, in-depth information behind the movie can be found on the page dedicated to the Pregnancy Pact movie. Everyone involved with the movie wanted to get a clear message across and this was done in so many ways. David Hinckly, a Daily News staff reporter, stated his own opinion in an entertainment article. In David’s article called Lifetime's 'Pregnancy Pact' treats surge in teen pregnancy with kid gloves in the January 23, 2010 edition of Daily News, David feels that the efforts of the movie says “ the message seems to be that babies are great, but don't have them until you're ready, and that doesn't mean in high school”(Hinckly par.13). Most people feel that the movie did a great job of displaying the harsh reality of being a teen mom, a majority of viewers felt that the glamour was edited out.
The premiere of this Lifetime movie is a depiction of the well known fact that the rates of teen pregnancy are pretty high. MTV’s Teen Mom is a reality show that shows the trouble and hardships of a few moms that are between the ages of 16 and 19. The moms in the show are constantly dealing with problems like not receiving support from their child’s father, balancing school and motherhood, and the option of giving up their child for adoption. Common statistics state that the chances of finishing high school or college is very unlikely for teen mothers, and a large percentage of teen mothers have to apply for welfare (“Statistics on Teen Pregnancy” par.5) Almost all of these facts were directly or indirectly displayed in Pregnancy Pact , where is the glamorous life in those situations? Do you feel that teen pregnancy is always depicted as a glamorous life in all of media?
I personally have friends that became moms at a young age. They always had a full plate on their hands once they became mothers. Most of them were able to finish high school but they did not get the chance to go to college, they couldn’t even take a course at a community college. Obstacles occurred when they were barely able to find jobs that they could maintain so they could support their children financially. They strongly depend on the support from their families and close friends. It’s like once they became mothers not only did their lives change, but they had to become a better person, a stronger person to be exact. My friend, 17 year old Shakeera Johnson told me “Motherhood seems so much easier from a far, but when you get up close and personal it’s a whole other story”. Struggles occurred constantly for a while, but they have basically gotten familiar with these hardships and responsibilities.
When many people look at movies, they kind of have a sense that less reality is going to come forth in the movie, even with movies that are based on a true story. If inspiration is to be found in the movie it can be captured in many different ways. A person can be inspired not to partake in a certain behavior in a movie, due to the consequences the movie presents. In the Lifetime presentation of Pregnancy Pact young girls are able to find inspiration in the movie. With the struggle and turmoil that the characters in the movie went through, I know many girls decided not to follow in their footsteps.
Sincerely,
Tekeya McDonald
Baugh, Elizabeth., A Perfectly Planned Pregnancy. The Breeze. January 2010. Web. 2 March 2010.
“Camryn Manheim from "The Pregnancy Pact" on Teen Pregnancy.” My Lifetime. 2010. Lifetime Entertainment Services. Web. 1 March 2010
Hinckley, David., Lifetime's 'Pregnancy Pact' Treats Surge in Teen Pregnancy with Kid Gloves. NY Daily News. January 2010 Web. 2 March 2010.
“Statistics on Teen Pregnancy.” Pregnancy-info.net. 2009. Pregnancy-info. Web. 15 February 2010.
On the night Lifetime premiered the original movie Pregnancy Pact viewers from every state, every college campus and every neighborhood were tuned in. Pregnancy Pact portrayed the realities of being a teen mom or basically just being a citizen of motherhood. The fact that it was inspired by a true story even made the story less glamorous; the movie screamed “these hardships can happen to you”.
In your editorial from the January 25, 2010 edition in The Breeze, I understood that you wrote A Perfectly Planned Pregnancy to claim that “Teen pregnancy was depicted as far more glamorous than it really is” (Baugh par 6). You felt that this movie was more than likely using its message to promote teen motherhood. I on the other hand, as well as many other viewers, did not see the so called glamour at all. A James Madison University student, Traffy Taylor, commented on your article stating that “everyone knows that having a baby at 15 is anything but glamorous”. Traffy Taylor disagrees with your claim based on her own view of the real world. I feel that this movie really got a true life message across to its audience.
A variety of scenes from Pregnancy Pact were definitely cues for teen girls to open their eyes to the issues that our generation is facing. The pregnant teens in the movie had so many challenges thrown at them the moment they became knowledgeable of their own pregnancies. Troubles came upon their families and many of their relationships dissolved in all the commotion. Teen pregnancy turn offs were wrapped all up in the movie. This movie was used as a tool to help its audience make correct smart decisions, a way to just look out for the viewers.
I highly doubt that the producers and directors for the movie, Pregnancy Pact, wanted to be advocates in urging teen girls to get pregnant. Through the commercials, internet blogs and sites, and in the actual movie it is very clear that the movie production is a campaign for teens to not become part of the pregnancy statistic. On the Lifetime website, the page for Pregnancy Pact includes a PSA that the characters from the actual movie created; it “encourages open dialogue with teens about sex and pregnancy” (“Camryn Manheim” par.1). Teens should be made to felt comfortable so they can express their own opinions. Other helpful gadgets such as discussion boards for teens and parents, teen speak up videos, in-depth information behind the movie can be found on the page dedicated to the Pregnancy Pact movie. Everyone involved with the movie wanted to get a clear message across and this was done in so many ways. David Hinckly, a Daily News staff reporter, stated his own opinion in an entertainment article. In David’s article called Lifetime's 'Pregnancy Pact' treats surge in teen pregnancy with kid gloves in the January 23, 2010 edition of Daily News, David feels that the efforts of the movie says “ the message seems to be that babies are great, but don't have them until you're ready, and that doesn't mean in high school”(Hinckly par.13). Most people feel that the movie did a great job of displaying the harsh reality of being a teen mom, a majority of viewers felt that the glamour was edited out.
The premiere of this Lifetime movie is a depiction of the well known fact that the rates of teen pregnancy are pretty high. MTV’s Teen Mom is a reality show that shows the trouble and hardships of a few moms that are between the ages of 16 and 19. The moms in the show are constantly dealing with problems like not receiving support from their child’s father, balancing school and motherhood, and the option of giving up their child for adoption. Common statistics state that the chances of finishing high school or college is very unlikely for teen mothers, and a large percentage of teen mothers have to apply for welfare (“Statistics on Teen Pregnancy” par.5) Almost all of these facts were directly or indirectly displayed in Pregnancy Pact , where is the glamorous life in those situations? Do you feel that teen pregnancy is always depicted as a glamorous life in all of media?
I personally have friends that became moms at a young age. They always had a full plate on their hands once they became mothers. Most of them were able to finish high school but they did not get the chance to go to college, they couldn’t even take a course at a community college. Obstacles occurred when they were barely able to find jobs that they could maintain so they could support their children financially. They strongly depend on the support from their families and close friends. It’s like once they became mothers not only did their lives change, but they had to become a better person, a stronger person to be exact. My friend, 17 year old Shakeera Johnson told me “Motherhood seems so much easier from a far, but when you get up close and personal it’s a whole other story”. Struggles occurred constantly for a while, but they have basically gotten familiar with these hardships and responsibilities.
When many people look at movies, they kind of have a sense that less reality is going to come forth in the movie, even with movies that are based on a true story. If inspiration is to be found in the movie it can be captured in many different ways. A person can be inspired not to partake in a certain behavior in a movie, due to the consequences the movie presents. In the Lifetime presentation of Pregnancy Pact young girls are able to find inspiration in the movie. With the struggle and turmoil that the characters in the movie went through, I know many girls decided not to follow in their footsteps.
Sincerely,
Tekeya McDonald
Baugh, Elizabeth., A Perfectly Planned Pregnancy. The Breeze. January 2010. Web. 2 March 2010.
“Camryn Manheim from "The Pregnancy Pact" on Teen Pregnancy.” My Lifetime. 2010. Lifetime Entertainment Services. Web. 1 March 2010
Hinckley, David., Lifetime's 'Pregnancy Pact' Treats Surge in Teen Pregnancy with Kid Gloves. NY Daily News. January 2010 Web. 2 March 2010.
“Statistics on Teen Pregnancy.” Pregnancy-info.net. 2009. Pregnancy-info. Web. 15 February 2010.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
