Q: Read the following context and choose the correct option to answer the question. Context: David Gauntlett makes a good point in his newest book (Making Media Studies: The Creativity Turn in Media and Communications Studies) and that is that traditional forms of media studies are no longer applicable. Gone are the days of massive institutions and production companies, gone are the traditional audiences and simplistic texts. In, is the new age media companies, the everyday media makers, the consistent consumers and the fantastical mess of The WWW. While universities are pumping out the same content areas since the 1980's (e.g. institutions, production, audiences and texts) that are only relevant to a handful of media forms (cinema, television, online broadcasting and publications), the rest of the world is moving on. David Gauntlett so rightly says that creativity in media, should also refer to thinking creatively about the subject. What are the new ways of running media and communication studies? How has the subject itself changed? What approaches and methods can help media and communications studies to become innovative and useful in spheres beyond itself? David Gauntlett encourages a kind of call to arms, an acquiescence of the incapacities of the old system and a redirected gaze to the future needs of media students and media studies programs. Inspired by Tim Ingold's book Making, David believes media studies should have making at it's front and centre. He also believes the ability to do things with media should be embraced over and above the ability to talk about what others do with media, or what media does to us. The notion is that media studies should be hands on, that it should be all about ideas and critical engagement and this should be expressed through actual making. To borrow three key distinctions from the anthropologist Tim Ingold: 1. It's about learning WITH media rather than ABOUT media. 2. There is an intent to move FORWARD rather than looking BACKWARDS at how things are. 3. It's aims are TRANSFORMATIONAL rather than DOCUMENTARY. Question: Who has been pumping out the same content areas since the 1980's? Options: - Tim Ingold - Universities - David Gauntlett - not enough information
A: Universities

Q: Read the following context and choose the correct option to answer the question. Context: Yes I had. In a domestic violence case (in which I was the accused, but by God I was innocent) with my ex girlfriend, the lawyer whom I hired and paid his dues, openly played a wheeling and dealing game for two and a half years with the prosecutor and had mercilessly thrown me in front of the prosecutor. My ex girlfriend was sexually abused by her own uncles at the age of 5 to 9, had a lot of illusions and psychological problems, along with Bi-Polar Disorder, however, dispite my requests, she never had ever visited a psychologist or psychiatrist in her then 24 years of lifetime, fearing she would be forced to unveil the uncles' child sexual abuse act and this would cause her dismissal from her immediate family. Although I mentioned this to my "so called" lawyer, he refused to mention her unstable psychological condition in the court. I believe by doing so, he also committed a crime by preventing a child sexual abuse case go unveiled. After all these and after having me pushed into loosing my otherwise strong case, I was sentenced with restriction order to my own home, loosing all I had paid for it, loosing my stuff inside home, aforced probation and a forced domestic violence course for no good reason, my so called bloody lawyer also sent to the court a paper indicating that I owed to him and never had paid his dues. Disgusting wheeling and dealing quite often happen between such disgusting lawyers and greedy, heartless prosecutors; unfortunately! My psychologist friend at the time said, "If you are in Illinois, in Champaign County and you have a penis, you are already accepted as guilty by birth to start with dude". They say "Sharks wouldn't attack and eat Lawyers after a ship sunk". Why? It's professional courtesy! Question: who sexually abused the girl? Options: - her dad - her uncles - not enough information - her friends
A: her uncles

Q: Read the following context and choose the correct option to answer the question. Context: What are the worst examples of false advertising you've seen? Did you fall prey to their claims? Rather that vouch for myself - my story is trite, and not particularly interesting - I'll relay the tale one of my nurses shared with me when I was laid up in the hospital for a few weeks. Call her R. R was from an Eastern European country. We chit-chatted a lot, while she was taking my blood pressure readings and stuff. Lots of fun stories! But she relayed to me one of her first U.S. memories: She wanted to lose weight. She was impressed by some things the U.S. had to offer - "you have actual nutritional information on everything!" - and thus figured everything she encountered was on the level. And she found a "miracle cure" company who was along those lines! "These are AWESOME miracle shoe inserts! Wear them, and the pounds will melt away!" She saved her pennies and dimes; she sprung for the inserts. She received them... and they were shoe inserts; that much was true. But then there was their documentation: "using these insoles, combined with a 1200 calorie-per-day diet...." Like a 1200-calorie diet won't likely involve weight-loss, no matter what else you did, shoe inserts aside. The inserts did nothing, obviously. It was a sham. At which point she knew she was snookered, but really had no recourse. She wasn't explicit about it, but I got the feeling that it was a leading factor towards her chosen profession. "I might not have been the most sage medical person ever, but I'm gonna rectify that, and if ever I hear someone falling for that sort of gambit again, I'll be there to nip those sentiments in the bud with my own anecdotes." Which is awesome. I still feel for her. I wish I had contact information, so I could touch base, and express those thoughts personally. But that's the most personally resonant version of false advertising affecting someone that I've seen. Question: Why was R impressed? Options: - not enough information - The large selection of available goods. - Clearly labeled prices. - Actual nutritional information on everything
A: Actual nutritional information on everything