Q: 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The Creativity Turn in Media and Communications Studies) and that is that traditional forms of media studies are no longer applicable.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: How long does it probably take to read David Gauntlett's book? === The answer to the above question is

OPTIONS:
- not enough information
- 20 minutes
- a few days
- a week

A: a few days

input: OPTIONS:
- not enough information
- Because he had mental issues.
- Because he was abusive.
- Because he refused to get help. Now, answer this question: I really struggle to feel bad for people who actively choose to be miserable and manipulative. I'm dorky and like to use little proverbs all the time. One of my favorites is this: "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink." At the end of the day, if someone has a problem, they can never resolve it if they don't truly wish to. You can give someone all the resources in the world, but you can't force them to utilize them. When I was 16, I dated a horrible guy. He was abusive verbally, emotionally, and sexually. He was an incredibly troubled young man and refused to seek help for his severe mental health issues. I eventually came to understand that he reveled in his misery. It was his identity. He acted like he wanted a cure and I'd set him up with resources, but he refused every single one. He may have struggled with serious mental illnesses, but being miserable perversely made him happy and he loved to use his struggles to justify his inexcusable behavior. He wanted to drag as many people into his fiery pit of anguish as possible. I later suffered from severe depression myself, and I never once used it as an excuse to hurt other people. My ex wasn't struggling with his mental health in terms of deliberating and carefully harming others. He was simply exhibiting a personality trait, one he chose to cultivate and it wasn't my problem. I ended up cutting him off completely in spite of all the threats. I will never feel bad for the awful plight he refuses to help himself out of. I have no patience for that type of person. Know what we call them? Toxic. Poison. A waste of time. Question: Why did the author leave her boyfriend at 16? === The answer to the above question is
A:
output: Because he refused to get help.

Problem:OPTIONS:
- Before he was fired
- After the pentagon meeting
- not enough information
- after a disagreement

Just minutes after Donald Trump fired Rex Tillerson on Tuesday, the president was blunt about his long-standing differences with his former secretary of state. "We disagreed on things," Trump told reporters outside the White House, specifically pointing to friction over the Iran nuclear agreement. "I wanted to either break it or do something, and he felt a little bit differently," Trump said. "We were really not thinking the same." Trump reportedly had considered firing Tillerson for months. But the decision - and the abrupt way it was executed - represents a dramatic end to a strained relationship. Tillerson learned of his firing by an early-morning Trump tweet, according to Steve Goldstein, undersecretary of state. White House officials disputed that notion, and promptly fired Goldstein. The move left some of Trump's staunchest defenders with mixed feelings. "It's all very Trumpian," said James Carafano of the conservative Heritage Foundation, who helped staff the State Department as a member of Trump's transition team. "When the president makes changes, he just abruptly makes them." During his 14 months at the State Department, Tillerson had numerous policy differences with Trump - and the friction frequently played out in public. The animosity peaked in October, when news surfaced that Tillerson reportedly called Trump a "moron" following a July Pentagon meeting. Tillerson never explicitly denied the account. Tillerson also publicly disagreed with Trump's decision to pull out of the Paris climate accord. He reportedly opposed Trump's decision to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. And Tillerson sometimes took a tougher stance than Trump on Russia including this week, when he blamed Moscow for a suspected nerve agent attack in Britain. In return, Trump on numerous occasions publicly undermined his top diplomat, including in October when he tweeted Tillerson was "wasting his time" trying to negotiate with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. When Trump ultimately made his decision last week to... Question: When did Tillerson call Trump a moron? === The answer to the above question is
****
A:
After the pentagon meeting