Every so often I see a scenario play out that I find rather disappointing. It works like this: someone posts a topic to their blog that is critical or controversial. This person can either be a community member, commentator, employee or otherwise; it doesn't matter who the person is. Then what happens is a series of comments are posted to that blog entry from readers that are critical of the post, thus challenging the author on their views. The author then either deletes the blog entry or disables the comments based on the feedback. In other words, a viewpoint is shared, an invitation for comment is provided, but that invitation is then revoked when the author of the blog post is dissatisfied with the response from their readers. I have seen this happen countless times over the years and I don't like this. I believe we should all be accountable for our words. Our words have the ability to inspire, to entertain, to challenge, but to also hurt. Actions have consequences, and so do words. As such, when I see someone openly share their thoughts on their blog and invite their readers to provide comments, I see that as a wonderful demonstration of accountability and engagement; debate is a beautiful thing when executed with politeness and respect. To then close that door, seemingly because people disagree with you, is in my mind the equivalent of walking out of a room in the middle of a debate. The excuse when folks are criticized of this behavior is typically "it is my blog and I can run it how I like". This is true: it is your blog, and you can run it how you like, but the true measure of a person is not just in what they say, but also in the conversation and discourse that follows. Question: What is probably true about the author? === The answer to the above question is
OPTIONS:
- he doesn't read blogs
- not enough information
- he hates blogs
- he likes blogs
he likes blogs

The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee approved a bill Thursday that would protect from arbitrary dismissal the special counsel investigating Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election. The measure, backed by 10 Democrats and four Republicans, would codify Justice Department regulations that the special counsel can only be fired by the attorney general or a designee for "misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or other good cause." The proposal would give the special counsel 10 days to challenge a dismissal in court. If a court determines the firing was not for "good cause," the special counsel would be reinstated. The measure would also require the Justice Department to notify Congress when a special counsel is appointed and to report the findings of an investigation. While marking a strong show of support for Special Counsel Robert Mueller who is under frequent attack by President Donald Trump and some Republicans, the bill is unlikely to become law in the face of Republican opposition. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said last week that Trump will not fire Mueller and that there was no need to bring the measure to the Senate floor for a vote. House Speaker Paul Ryan has also opposed the idea. The legislation was introduced by four Senators earlier this month after Trump's sharp criticism of an FBI raid on his personal lawyer's home and office rekindled fears that Trump may fire Mueller and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who supervises Mueller. Mueller is heading the federal investigation into Russia's electoral interference and possible collusion with the Trump presidential campaign. Trump has said there was no collusion and repeatedly denounced the probe as a "witch hunt." Despite his harsh criticism of the Special Counsel and the Justice Department, Trump has dismissed reports that he's privately talked about firing Mueller. He told the cable show Fox and Friends on Thursday that he'll "try and stay away" from the Justice Department, but "at some point, I... Question: How long did it take to enact the bill protecting the SC from arbitrary dismissal? === The answer to the above question is
OPTIONS:
- three days
- a week
- Part of a day
- not enough information

Answer: Part of a day

Question: My daughter was away at college preparing for her final exams and nursing boards. I knew that my daughter's cat, who has been part of our family since my daughter was in second grade, was dying of a fast growing cancer. I couldn't tell my daughter because I didn't want to upset her and take her mind off her studies and impending graduation. Once our Vet determined that there was nothing further that could be done she showed me how to give pain meds and fluids at home to keep her comfortable in hopes that she would live long enough to allow my daughter to say goodbye after her graduation. The entire week I stayed with our cat around the clock. She had completely stopped eating and drinking and was slowly dying before my eyes. She slept most of the time except when I had to put the needle in between her shoulder blades to give her fluids. Then she would cry quietly and look at me with pleading eyes. Her breathing was becoming so shallow that I had to get close to her and listen to see if she was still alive. After a week of this I began to realize that the most unselfish thing I could do for this beautiful creature was to let her go. I wrapped her in her favorite blanket and and drove her to our Vets office after they had closed for the day. She was so skinny and frail but when I held her close she still purred. I thanked her for the 14 years she had been one of my daughter's closest companions and I held her as she took her last breath. I was afraid my daughter was going to be angry with me when I told her that i made the decision with out giving her time to say goodbye. She was sad but understood that I did the kindest thing I could have done for her kitty. Question: Who took the cat to the vet === The answer to the above question is
OPTIONS:
- The mom
- The daughter
- The dad
- not enough information
Answer: The mom

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: What is probably true about author David Gauntlett? === The answer to the above question is
OPTIONS:
- He likes Tim Ingold's book
- not enough information
- He hates Tim Ingold's book
- He never reads books
He likes Tim Ingold's book