input: OPTIONS:
- not enough information
- David's son
- David's father
- David's boss Now, answer this question: 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The Creativity Turn in Media and Communications Studies) and that is that traditional forms of media studies are no longer applicable.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 is Tim? === The answer to the above question is
A:
output: not enough information

I was 35 weeks pregnant when I had my stroke. For weeks prior to the event I kept experiencing 'visual disturbances.' I felt when I was reading a newspaper or book a sense that my eyes were crossing. I'd feel aware right before it would occur and I would rush to look in a mirror only to discover my eyes were not crossing. I informed my OB who blamed it on the blood vessels in my eyes enlarging due to pregnancy. Ummm ok. You know more than me. Later I was told by a surgeon what I was experiencing was 'textbook' for the passing of blood clots through my occipital area of the brain! The feeling would eventually subside. I awoke one morning feeling 'kind of fuzzy' headed. Like I had slept too hard. I sat with my husband at the kitchen table for our morning coffee and newspaper and for no reason I could imagine I was unable to swallow my coffee and it dribbled out the left side of my mouth. My husband asked me what was going on and I apparently told him, I was 'stroking' out. He got up from the table assuming I was OK and went off to take his morning shower. While in the shower it occurred to him something might not be right. He came back to the table where I was struggling to lift myself from the chair. I put my hands on the table to lift my body and my left hand kept sliding off the edge. He finally got behind me and tried to lift me under my arms and I crumbled to the floor. He then called my OB and told him he thought I'd had a stroke. My OB immediately expressed his doubt but my husband was advised to call an ambulance to get me to the ER. I never really experienced pain from the stroke. Question: How long has the couple been married? === The answer to the above question is

OPTIONS:
- 35 weeks
- right before getting out of the shower
- right before calling the OB
- not enough information

Answer: not enough information

Voting is underway in the southern U.S. state of Alabama in a tightly contested Senate election between Democrat Doug Jones and Republican Roy Moore, a campaign roiled by charges from women who accused Moore of sexual misconduct four decades ago when they were teenagers and he was in his 30s. Tuesday's special election was being watched nationally, both as an indicator of how midterm congressional elections might play out next November and also as a barometer of President Donald Trump's political clout. Trump endorsed Moore, who has denied the women's allegations, and called for the defeat of Jones, whom he said would be a political "puppet" of liberal Democratic lawmakers in Washington. The election winner will serve the last three years of the seat left vacant by Jeff Sessions when he joined Trump's Cabinet as attorney general, the country's top law enforcement position. If Moore wins, Republicans will retain their 52-48 majority in the Senate, but a Jones victory would pare the margin to 51-49, possibly further complicating Trump's efforts to pass his legislative agenda. Pre-election polls at various times have shown both Moore, 70, and Jones, 63, in the lead, but the history of elections in deeply conservative Alabama runs against Jones. No Democrat has won a Senate election in the state since Richard Shelby did in 1992, and two years later he switched parties to become a Republican. Still a senator, Shelby said Sunday that he voted absentee for "a distinguished Republican" as a write-in choice, but could not bring himself to vote for Moore after one woman, now in her 50s, said Moore abused her when she was 14. Moore, twice deposed as a state Supreme Court justice for failing to follow federal court rulings, has accused journalists, Democrats and establishment Republicans in Washington of trying to undermine his campaign. Some Republican lawmakers, a number of whom said Moore should drop out of the contest after the women's allegations surfaced, said they would try to expel him from the Senate if he won. Question: At the end of the story, Richard Shelby probably still is === The answer to the above question is
OPTIONS:
- Happy with Doug Jones
- not enough information
- Unhappy with Roy Moore
- A political puppet

Answer:
Unhappy with Roy Moore