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The Creativity Turn in Media and Communications Studies) and that is that traditional forms of media studies are no longer applicable.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. According to the above context, choose the correct option to answer the following question. Question: After the end of this story, David probably is Options: - A Speaker - A Published Writer - not enough information - An Analyst
A Published Writer

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... According to the above context, choose the correct option to answer the following question. Question: What do the Democratic senators most likely think? Options: - That Trump is hiding information - That Trump may fire Mueller - That Trump is impatient - not enough information
That Trump may fire Mueller

Jenny and I were twins, and we were always close growing up despite our very different personalities. Besides a birthday and a couple dead parents, there wasn't much else we shared in common. She was an over-achiever and a bit of a kiss-ass, always trying to make mom and dad proud, which she seemed to pull off with ease. She was the girl in high school who played every sport, joined every club, ran the student council, and somehow still managed to pull A's without breaking a sweat. Intense doesn't even begin to describe her. I could never compete with that, so instead I decided to build an identity for myself as the rebel. Unfortunately, I somehow equated rebelling with turning into a giant asshole. We grew up in a middle-class suburban family. Our father was a teacher and our mother an architect. They were the kind of couple that kept a date night to go dancing every Friday for the 31 years they were married. They died when Jenny and I were twenty-two. We sold the house where we grew up and split the cash; neither of us wanted to set foot in it again. Jenny used the money to pay for her Master's. After school she went to work for James McPherson, one of the most powerful and richest men in the city. Aside from owning the St. Augustine, McPherson had interests in real estate, land development, venture capital, and other things I really should've known more about. The McPherson family was old money here going back to when this valley was nothing but orchards. If I said that at one time or another the McPherson family had owned every single square foot of land in our city, I'd probably be exaggerating - but not much. Jenny ran the McPhersons' charitable foundation, which basically meant that not only did they have so much money that they had to start giving it away, but they even had to hire someone else just to get rid of it for them. According to the above context, choose the correct option to answer the following question. Question: How did Jenny have the money to pay for her Master's? Options: - Her parents put it in her inheritance. - Her dead parent's house was sold. - She met James McPherson - not enough information
Her dead parent's house was sold.