Producers Sometimes Distort Reality and Undermine the Value of Reality TV

      Andy Dehnart, author of the article, "Producers Sometimes Distort Reality and Undermine the Value of Reality TV" dives right in to the controversy behind reality television, if what is being categorized as reality TV is real or not, and the rules and regulations in creating a "reality" television show. In the beginning of his article, Denhart creates a strong start with an appeal to ethos in that he has claims from former participants on HGTV's hit show House Hunters, with individuals claiming that most of their episodes have been staged or edited to vary from their actual experiences. Which right away allowed an interesting to hook to get readers interested, and following that he dives into everything you need to know about reality TV. 

     

      Denhart begins to define what reality television actual is, "Labeling a television show as "reality TV" represents a contract with the audience that the program has consequence to its real-life cast members." He then begins to give a list of shows that do qualify as real reality TV such as Deadliest Catch, and Whale Wars. He also throws in a key example on how Chef Gordon Ramsay's show Kitchen Nightmares, which is run by two different TV companies in two different countries, vary quite drastically proving to the audience that each director or television channel has a big impact on reality TV. "Both capture a reality: Gordon Ramsay helping troubled restaurant owners, yelling at them, and fixing their problems. But on the Fox edition, Ramsay works much harder to create conflict, and so do the editors; the show's credits note that footage may appear out of order, and that's often used to construct reactions or moments that may never have occurred." 

     One huge point that Denhart makes is that it is not worth it for some of the strenuous work that reality producers have to fake in order to make people believe that their show is still real; and to this I will have to agree as well. Why waste such a time trying to fake in order to keep viewers attached? Personally I find the entertainment in reality TV is the actual part of reality. Seeing what real life individuals have to go through or what is actually going on in their lives. I get slightly irritated when i can tell that scenes are staged or when claimers like the individuals on House Hunters come out and say this is not really what happened. Then that is not the point of reality television plain and simple. If producers have to constantly stage scenes in reality television than their show was not interesting enough to even begin to make a reality show about it.

    A show that I personally just recently watched was a show on the discovery channel claiming that they have found evidence that real life mermaids actually exists. This show has had a few episodes every year or so that they use to tie together to make it seem like this is real. I am not going to lie the show and everything about it was interesting. They had great pieces of evidence, scientists and ex-navy seals explaining why the government is hiding the proof of mermaids from the world, and all sorts of other pieces to really make people believe it is real. After watching this show i had such a determination to find out the truth. After reading articles on Google from cast members of it claiming they are not actually scientists or ex-navy seals, and also explaining that this reality TV program is just a big lie for views. Yes I know it is kind of dumb to believe in such a topic about mermaids anyways but that is not the point. The point is what Denhart said about reality TV and this is not at all. It is just another staged program falsely leading people to believe it is real. 

     With reality TV being such controversy now a days, it is hard to determine what is real and what is not. I believe that producers and major TV corporations don’t understand that some people just want to watch what happens in other people’s lives just like them, plain and simple. Reality television would be a lot better without the falseness and fraud inputted by the producers. 

Reality Television Benefits Society More than Scripted Television Does

The article Reality Television Benefits Society More than Scripted Television Does discusses the controversy surrounding the supposed social value that reality television (TV) has over scripted TV. This article raises the question of whether this claim is actually well-supported, and more importantly, whether this argument even matters.

Hirschorn states that reality TV contains the best factors of scripted TV and documentaries, without the downsides of both.

He claims that scripted TV is not realistic, and does not contain the "emotional truths" that reality TV contains, which are derived from the truths of real life. However, this claim is opposed by the actuality that most people view television for entertainment, not to gain some sort of moral or emotional guidance.

Additionally, he states that documentaries are not objective, since they are designed to support a certain view, while reality TV is objective. This is another misconception, as producers of reality television programs influence what portions of the actors' lives make it into the show, and to an extent, producers influence the contents of the show by manipulating the situations that actors are placed into, in order to make more interesting shows. This is hardly objective.

The cost difference between producing reality and scripted TV is a point that Hirschorn uses to point out the benefits of reality TV. Reality TV has much lower production costs than scripted television programming, so networks are able to allocate the saved money to better fund scripted programming.

One of the main reasons he believes that reality television is better than scripted television is the content: reality TV discusses sensitive real-world subjects. For example, shows such as Real Housewives provide insight into the upsetting actualities of the seemingly perfect upper middle class. The families also face similar issues as other classes. This does prove to be beneficial to society, but it still goes beyond the main point of reality television: entertainment.

Hirschorn states, "The best moments found on reality TV are unscriptable, or beyond the grasp of most scriptwriters." He attempts to show the positives of reality TV compared to other forms of television, as well as reality TV's supposed moral superiority, by stating that it is the only form that truly connects with viewers actual lives. However, this disregards the fact that producers of the reality TV shows specifically select which content to air, in order to attract more viewers attention. Although they may not be scripted, they are still not exactly representative of real life.

Although reality TV may provide societal benefits through its discussion or real-world issues, that is not the main reason they are so popular. The entertainment value of reality television has led to the skyrocket in viewership. It is up to the viewers to decide what they watch, and if they choose to view reality television, so be it.

Ultimately, producers create reality television in order to attract more viewers, and to make more money, not for any sort of moral guidance for viewers. Therefore, the issue of whether reality television is beneficial to society is a pointless issue.

Reality TV Presents Rural Americans as Skilled and Serious Workers

In the article “Reality TV Presents Rural Americans as Skilled and Serious Workers,” written by Robert Lloyd, a television critic for the Los Angeles Times, readers are shown that many reality TV shows are starting to involve ordinary people who make a living off of their job. These new reality television shows better represent the typical American rather than showing the wealthy get handed money like they did in the past. Lloyd lists a number of shows that are following the trend of casting ordinary people doing extraordinary jobs. For example, some reality TV shows that have come out recently are Gold Rush, Deadliest Catch, and Buck Wild just to name a few. These new shows seems to take place away from major cities, typically down south, where the average man has to work there way through life with a little added drama of course. Although all of these shows have added drama and other things, all these shows are about getting the job done.

Lloyd continues to speak about the new trend of reality TV shows by stating that they include “real people” with “meaningful work.” He goes on to show readers that in this new trend of shows, financial struggle is good. He later goes on to write that work actually does matter, meaning that there are consequences or rewards for either failing or completing a task at work. Lloyd writes that these new shows want to expose that failing to do something or if something goes wrong, then money and other things can be lost. Lloyd uses examples of several shows that all have the similar structure that rural Americans are in fact skilled and serious workers.

Throughout the article, Lloyd makes his appeal to logos when he provides factual evidence showing that this trend of new reality TV shows exploits the average man working hard to get by. Although I am not a huge fan of these reality TV shows myself, I do appreciate them more than others. I would rather watch people working with drama then wealthy celebrities getting handouts. I think that this trend of new shows should continue, appealing to the typical middle class citizen. These new shows are helping people see that working hard is necessary, even for television stars.

A Lack Of 'Intervention'

The show Intervention is well known for following individuals with substance abuse, alcoholism and other addiction related issues, and documenting their daily lives. This article, however, raises the concern that the producers should be obligated to prevent the individuals from committing potentially harmful acts to themselves and to other civilians.

The particular instance that sparked the debate on the topic involved allowing one of the subjects to enter their vehicle and proceed to drive around intoxicated. Allowing any individual to commit drunk driving is condemn-able and incredibly irresponsible and dangerous. Unfortunately, A & E, the producers, did not take any action to prevent this from happening in an attempt to increase their ratings. The particular subject, Pam, is a well known alcoholic, who unfortunately, was allowed to drive her vehicle while being blatantly intoxicated on camera. The cameramen made an offer to drive, but did nothing more when the request was brushed off.

The producers defend themselves by stating that they are treated like witnesses: they bear no responsibility to intervene. The notion that “Television producers are not policemen,” is also brought forward, hoping that it absolves them from scrutiny. Regardless of whether they have legal obligations, do the producers not feel like they have some moral responsibility to save people’s lives? The subjects may have committed the acts regardless of whether they were being filmed or not, but as they were being filmed, is it ethical to allow them to go through with it? The subject may not have been a friend or relative of the producers, but that shouldn't absolve them of any obligations.

The sentiment is likely shared with any pedestrian near Pam when she was driving. Would they approve of the producers allowing her to drive intoxicated in the community? The bystanders have every right to feel angry towards the show for putting their lives in danger; had the driver fatally wounded or killed an pedestrian, the outcry would have been much worse. Unfortunately, since they only observe these circumstances and do not intentionally place the subjects in these situations themselves, making a case for negligence is very difficult.

There are some recorded instances of intervention by producers, fortunately. The camera men have had situations where they prevented others from drunk driving, as well as talking a man out of potential suicide. Regrettably, this isn't always the case, as seen when one of the subjects overdosed on pills she took off camera. The producers may not be entirely negligent, but allowing any instance where they allow the subjects to put their own lives and the lives of others in danger should be penalized.

I do feel like negligence from the producers involving the safety of the individuals being filmed and those of innocent pedestrians should not be tolerated and penalized. From the legal standpoint, the producers are doing nothing wrong. From an ethical and moral standpoint, however, they leave much to be desired.  

The Producer of Intervention Was Not Legally Obligated to Prevent an Impaired Person from Driving

This article overviews a serious debate on the obligation of reality TV show Intervention to stop the subject of one of their episodes from getting behind the wheel of a car while intoxicated, without an “intervention” as the show name would mislead.

Drunk driving is a serious offense and I strongly defend the position that if the subject was to cause an accident, the producers who willingly allowed the subject to drive should also be penalized. The reality TV show strived to create excitement for the audience by watching the subject weaving between lanes and the suspense of possibly being caught by law enforcement. Besides being provocative reality television material, the subject was at high risk of causing an accident that could seriously injure or kill an innocent bystander or themselves.

The subject of one of the Intervention episodes, introduced as Pam, a known alcoholic that takes her turquoise Pontiac Sunfire on the road while being filmed by the Intervention film crew. The production crew did attempt to assist Pam by offering to drive for her, but she refused and they watch as she swigs some hard alcohol on the way out the door.

At a production standpoint, this would be an unplanned and real event to expose the severity of alcoholism and drunk driving to viewers. Although the producers argue that Pam would have driven in this state regardless if they were filming her or not, it is about equivalent of saying, we watched someone fall into the ocean and nearly drown, but we will leave them be because we didn’t push them in. I’m sure if the subject attempting to drive intoxicated were someone close to the producer such as a sibling or friend, they would not allow him or her to put their life in danger like they had allowed Pam.

What about the opinions of the bystanders who unknowingly put themselves in danger by being on the road at the same time as the Intervention reality TV subject, Pam? If this intoxicated woman was to cause a fatal accident or plow down pedestrians, the Intervention producers should receive some liability for the accident and rightfully sued by victims. The Intervention production team knowingly put the public in danger when they allowed an intoxicated subject to drive solely to benefit their reality TV show.

The Intervention reality TV show should hold responsibility of the subjects while being filmed in their show. If the subject attempts to drive intoxicated, the producers should not allow the subject to put lives in danger. They could also inform law enforcement of the situation, which teach viewers the consequences of DUIs and the serious repercussions. Having a subject arrested for a crime they committed, or intervening like their show title would suggest they do, is much more appropriate than following around intoxicated drivers waiting for tragedy to occur. The Intervention producers will likely have trouble sleeping at night knowing that they allowed the show subject to kill innocent bystanders when they could have easily prevented the tragedy by actually "intervening".

Should Reality TV Producers be Responsible for Participant Well-Being?

The article, written by Linda Holmes, editor of Monkey See on NPR, and titled "Reality TV Producers Should Be Responsible for Participant Well-Being", details a code of ethics that she has come up with to supplement the tragic exploitation of the reality television business. Underlying the emotional distress put on participants of said reality shows, she continues to use Russell Armstrong, a husband of a woman starring on “The Real Housewives”, and his suicide as an example of a possible result of reality television’s psychological tendencies on those involved. After this description she proceeds to nominate a voluntary code of ethics for the producers of the reality shows to use on their programming, in an effort of being more responsible for their participants and in my opinion, to treat them more like human beings than props being utilized for monetary gain. The code describes a list of requirements that the producers will have to follow in order to properly reach a set ethical goal. Assuredly the proposed requirements wouldn’t be forced down the throats of the producers, but Linda rather suggests that they will be encouraged and optional, in order to spread a more vast and ethical standpoint when making reality television.

Listed in order identical of the code’s draft thought up by Linda Holmes, the ethical requirements go as such; counseling for up to three months after appearance on the show, public contracts, alcohol limitations, a sleep requirement of at least six hours, maximum help for minor participants, limitations on isolation by familial contact, access to medical care or any substitute they deem worthy with the responsibility of penalization for missing time on the show, appropriate background checks to prevent violence, additional fees in favor of repeat participants, lack of requirement to express themselves in interviews, follow-ups, damage control on participant reputation, and refrain of showing footage of participants who have died during the shooting process unless noted otherwise by the family.

Some of these are blatantly obvious and I honestly have a hard time they aren’t already commonly practiced in the reality television scene. I haven’t recently watched many reality shows, except for my ironic interest in The Kardashian Show with a few of my friends, but I can’t see the downside of these being used as a common ethical code when producing these shows. On the other hand, the product could be affected when implementing any sort of limitation on the ability to produce the show more effectively, but the participants in the said show aren’t props, they are human beings. As a civilized nation, and a commonly civilized species, we cannot abuse other people for monetary gain or any other sort of valued accruement. The producers of the show DO in fact have an innate responsibility for the people they are employing, and though I am one to usually favor the employer to know what is best in the idea of wages and how his company (or television show) should work, certain human rights cannot be essentially violated in order to produce. The idea of creating this voluntary code is great, because shows that promote it will be in a way praised by some, possibly upping their ratings and the shows value. This in return will help the spread of the code, and eventually it will become more and more common, avoiding tragic incidents of psychologically harshened participants. 

Article Source: Holmes, Linda. "Reality TV Producers Should Be Responsible for Participant Well-Being." Re ality TV. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2013. At Issue. Rpt. from "Ethical 'Reality': A Proposed Code for Producers to Live By." Monkey See 31 Aug. 2011. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 25 Jan. 2014.

Should They Go to Prison?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/24/faith-healing-parents-charged-with-murder-for-refusing-kids-medical-care-should-they-go-to-prison/

In the article “Faith-healing Parents Charged with Murder for Refusing Kids’ Medical Care – Should They Go to Prison” the author, Billy Hallowell, writes about Herbert and Catherine Schaible, a couple in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania who put all their trust in God and refused to give their son, Brandon Schaible the medicine needed to save his life.

Brandon Schaible suffered from pneumonia and did not receive any medication. His condition got worse to the point where medical attention was desperately needed. He had diarrhea, breathing issues, and was not eating. Because his parents did not take him to the doctor and he did not get any medical treatment, Brandon passed away in April when he was just 8 months old.

Brandon was not the Schaibles’ first child to die from the refusal of medical care. Their son, Kent Schaibles, passed away in 2009 when he was two years old for this very exact reason. The Shaibles at this time were found guilty of “involuntary manslaughter and child endangerment” . They were told that medical care must be provided to their children and if they deny it to another one of their children, they could be in prison for at least fourteen years. They did not follow this order so when Brandon passed away, they were charged with third-degree murder.

The Schaibles attend the First Century Gospel church in their city, which are against doctor visits and medicine because trust must be put in faith rather than in medicine.

Due their religious beliefs, they thought that refusing to give their children medical attention was justified. The bail was set at 250,000 each and the rest of their seven children were put in foster care.

The question of whether or not putting the Schaibles in jail due to their religious beliefs is fair and justified is one of major concern and has created conflicting views and opinions. Although there is freedom of religion, is there an extent where religious practices should not be allowed? If so, when should the line be drawn?

I believe that if someone’s life is in danger, medical attention needs to be given, regardless of if your religious belief is that faith is all you need to be healed. Life is too sacred and sacred things should not be gambled when medical recourses are readily available.  Relying on faith alone is too risky when dealing with a life or death situation. In the Schaibles’s situation, they already had one of their children die and they should have realized their mistake then and there. Rather than seeing that faith alone did not save Kent, they put Brandon’s life on risk when they continued with a plan that did not work the first time. Because of this, they lost two children. How many more of their children will need to suffer for the Schaibles to realize that faith-healing is too risky when someone’s life is on the line. What they should have done was use faith and prayer as a supplement to medicine because God put doctors and medicine on earth for a reason. Overall, although they did not intentionally murder their children, I think that what they did was illogical and putting them in jail was the right decision.  

The Controversy Surrounding Jahi McMath

Link to article: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/31/oakland-girl-brain-dead-life-support-judge

            The Guardian’s article, “Oakland girl declared brain dead to be kept on life support for another week”, discusses Jahi McMath- who went brain dead after a routine tonsillectomy on December 9, 2013. Jahi McMath has been on life support since she was pronounced brain dead and her family is pursing legal action to keep Jahi alive. Furthermore, Jahi’s family and attorney are leaving it up to a judge to decide when Jahi should be taken off of life support. Currently, Jahi McMath is at the Children’s Hospital Oakland, but many facilities are not willing to take her under their care and she could possibly be transferred to New Beginnings Community Center in Medford, New York if a judge decides to extend her time.

            Being from Pleasanton, a city that is only 30 minutes away from where the incident took place, I have been able to develop a deeper understanding of the situation since it is all over the news. In my opinion, Jahi should be taken off of life support at this point. Since she is legally dead and her family has been able to get through the holidays with her still being “alive” it is now officially time to let her go.

            The situation is very heart breaking, do not get me wrong, but I feel that her family is trying to make money off of her condition and that they are getting bad legal advice as well. The reason I believe they are trying to make money off of her is because they keep blaming all these hospitals she has been transferred to for making her condition worse, hence why many hospitals are refusing the admittance of Jahi McMath. The family is also all over the news and it seems like they are trying to get attention from this. I think her family should have handled the whole situation differently by not being in the media by constantly pointing fingers, but by rather accepting the fact that Jahi is gone and that there is nothing they can do to bring her back.

            It’s understandable that her family is in grief and they are willing to do anything to keep Jahi alive, but Jahi needs a feeding tube and she is on a ventilator. Does her family want her to rely on that forever? The family has also argued that she is not brain dead because she has had muscle movement, but multiple doctors have confirmed that Jahi is legally dead and that involuntary muscle movement is normal. What more evidence does the family need that Jahi McMath will never be fully functioning again?

The incident is so sad and I cannot imagine that happening to a member of my family, or even a friend, but I am a strong believer that everything happens for a reason and that it is her time to go. However, letting Jahi’s body decompose on a hospital bed, while being attached to a ventilator and feeding tube is even more heart breaking to me.

A Life for Life Equation

Twenty-one years ago, Ronald Phillips was convicted of raping and beating his girlfriend's three year old daughter to death. However, a few months ago, Ohio's governor, John Kasich, postponed Phillips' execution after his request to donate his internal organs. He requested to donate a kidney and his heart to his mother and sister – as his mother has kidney failure and his sister has a heart condition. Kasich said that although Phillips committed an unspeakable crime, his inclination to donate has the potential to save another life and should be accepted by the state. Phillips' claims his intentions were not to delay the inevitable, but in order to make a final gesture with honorable motives.

THIS particular blog post, by NBC News, is simply a collection of multiple opinions of this event.

Governor John Kasich believes that Phillips' intentions were genuine, as he would be providing another with the ability to live. Some believe that simply, every organ helps. Sally Satel, a psychiatrist from the American Enterprise Institution claims that a donation policy would be human, for those desperately waiting for organs and for those prisoners desperately waiting to make ammends.

However, more often people did not agree with those, such as Governor John Kasich. Many ethicists believe that there is no life for life equation and see the situation as “ethically troubling.” Cases may arise where allowing condemned prisoners to donate internal organs may create an incentive to execute more prisoners. Which, in result, would lead to human rights violations as taking organs from these condemned prisoners is not an appropriate way to to expand the availability of organs for future transplant patients.

One of the most common oppositions of death-row organ donations is the process of harvesting the organs. After death, the organs are only viable after a specific amount of time. Arthur Caplan, a professor of medical ethics at NYU explained, “The only option for executing someone to obtain vital organs is to either shoot them in the head or chop their head off and have a team of doctors ready to step in immediately.” He claims that, in order to harvest the organs, the method of execution could, theoretically, undergo from the use of anesthesia. A problem arises when finding a doctor willing to become the executioner.

Ultimately, the state denied Phillips' request and his execution was rescheduled for July 2, 2014. Instead, the state gave Phillips' family the decision to whether the organs will be harvested once his body is turned over to them. Although, the state of the organs may no longer be viable at that point.

I found it quite interesting to come across a blog post that had a multitude of opinions -- especially arguments coming from both sides. Being able to see opinions from a variety of people in one area made it much more simple to collect my own thoughts on the matter. With great advances in technology, and being given these opportunities to address controversial topics, isn't it refreshing to be able to make up your own mind without having to be convinced by fancy persuasion, but simply your own thoughts? So, what do you think about death-row organ donations? 

"There Is No Right Way To Die" - Blogging with Cancer

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/01/bill_keller_on_lisa_adams_tweeting_and_blogging_her_cancer_all_wrong.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/13/opinion/keller-heroic-measures.html

Lisa Adams, 40, has become somewhat of a media sensation in her own right. A stage four cancer patient and a mother of three, she has taken to Twitter and blogging as a means of sharing her experiences and "destigmatizing" society's perception of illness and mortality. While most would consider this a heartfelt attempt to educate and connect with the world, one man thinks differently.

Bill Keller, a journalist and writer for The New York Times, disagrees with Adams' depiction of living with cancer and blatantly criticizes her in his article entitled, "Heroic Measures"(link above). Keller recounts his father-in-law's "human and honorable" death from cancer, and states that Adams' warfare approach to fighting cancer hurts the image of those who accept "an inevitable fate with grace and courage". Keller includes that Adams and the United States should follow the common ideology in Britain, which emphasizes the quality of remaining life over aggressive treatments that often result in final days that are "clamorous and tense". He then proceeds to comment on the tone switch in her blogs, stating that they are no longer about prolonging her survival and more about dealing with her struggles with the idea of mortality.

The article titled, "There Is No Right Way To Die", is a response to Keller's article. In defense of Lisa Adams, she states that the world needs people who are not afraid to talk about pain or the fear of death. Lovejoy argues that people like Adams serve as role models for others who are learning to cope with the inescapable components of the human condition. In addition, Lovejoy makes some bold assumptions, saying that "Bill Keller’s piece seems to suggest that to die well is to make as little fuss as possible" and that "while the piece seems meant to encourage a conversation about dying, it’s hard not to read the words themselves as telling Adams to be quiet."

After reading both of these articles, (which I suggest everyone should do in order to get a better understanding) I found both of them to be fairly informative, yet Lovejoy's article to be somewhat of a tedious read. Although there was some information included about Lisa Adams in "There Is No Right Way To Die", the main idea of the article seem convoluted to me. I felt that while Keller was simply expressing his opinion and brought some interesting ideas to the table (specifically the part about British doctors), Lovejoy was just hell-bent on berating him for it. Overall, I support Adams in her blogging endeavors and also found "Heroic Measures" to be worth reading.

Lethal Injection - Is it Safe?

Lethal injection is the most common method used to put inmates to death. It occurs by a deadly quantity of three different drugs being injected into the body. A dose of hospital anesthetics are delivered into the body to cause unconsciousness, which is followed by paralysis to relax the lungs and diaphragm. Finally, potassium chloride is injected, which causes fatal cardiac arrest. The entire process should take around five minutes. The question that comes to mind is – Is lethal injection a secure alternative method of the death penalty, or should it be abolished?


Lethal injection has been a controversial topic over the previous few months, as more and more people are succumbing to its effects. This past Thursday, lethal injection took another victim, Dennis McGuire. Dennis McGuire was convicted for the rape and murder of a 22-year-old pregnant woman in 1989. Eyewitness claim that Mr. McGuire was suffering and struggling in the last few minutes of his life. The execution took unusually long, and an untested concoction of drugs were used in the procedure. A week earlier, Michael Lee Wilson murdered a co-worker and he was executed in Oklahoma. His last words were, “I feel my whole body burning.” These words really make one rethink how the lethal injection works.


In my mind, lethal injection is the most humane way to go about ending a person's life, because there should be little to no pain, and it should happen almost instantly. Contrary to what I believed, the government is working with different types of lethal injections, and some cause more pain than others. The injection that Mr. McGuire was given should have taken approximately five minutes to complete, but ended up taking 15 minutes. That is triple the time that it should have taken, and he was also struggling, gasping, snorting and making choking noises for more than half the time.


The method that was supposed to be, “Quick and painless method to end the life of death row inmates” has not in fact been painless the whole time. With people still suffering, a new method should be proposed, or there should be a change in the way that lethal injections work. It is probably very inefficient to use lethal injection on every death row inmate due to the costs of lethal injection itself. The cost of keep death row inmates alive is increasing. According to the California Assessment of Costs by Judge Arthur Alarcon, the cost of the death penalty in California has reached over $4 billion since 1978. That is $4 billion that could be used for other purposes, like education or funding. While it may appear to be the most humane method, the lethal injection method has not been properly optimized for the least amount of pain, as people are still suffering during the procedure.



Lethal Injections – the controversial topic that will constantly be debated by many. Problems are arising that need to be looked at, as the situation is getting worse due to the suffering of inmates. There are other ways to put down death row inmates, but lethal injection will be the best method with more research and discoveries.

Welcome to Class!

How does this blog work?

Each Tuesday, you'll be contributing to the blog. The goal here is to work toward expanding our understanding of the writing projects we are working on by continually engaging in discourse about the work we are doing in class. The blog will serve as a place for our community to gather and share the process and progress of completing these projects. Some weeks you might be in charge of posting a full blog entry. The next week you might be a lead commenter. The week after that you could be in charge of linking (in context) to something else as a response to the full entry. And the week after that you'll be responding to commenters with insightful rebuttals or furthering their arguments with additional claims. We are going to create a schedule and it will be your responsibility to know what you need to accomplish during our online class time. All work will be due Tuesday night before the clock strikes midnight. Any late, missing, or incomplete work will be grounds for being marked ABSENT. This is not homework--it is class time. 

Full Blog Entries: 500-750 words due by "class time."
Lead Comments (4): 150+ words each due by midnight
Context with Explanation (4): 150+ words each due by midnight

Secondary Comments (4): 150+ words each due by midnight

 Schedule (subject to change)

Week 2   
ENTRIES: Group 1; LEAD COMMENTS: Group 2; CONTEXT: Group 3; SECONDARY COMMENTS: Group 4

Week 3   
ENTRIES: Group 2; LEAD COMMENTS: Group 3; CONTEXT: Group 4; SECONDARY COMMENTS: Group 1

Week 4  
ENTRIES: Group 3; LEAD COMMENTS: Group 4; CONTEXT: Group 1; SECONDARY COMMENTS: Group 2

Week 5
ENTRIES: Group 4; LEAD COMMENTS: Group 1; CONTEXT: Group 2; SECONDARY COMMENTS: Group 3

Week 6
ENTRIES: Group 1; LEAD COMMENTS: Group 2; CONTEXT: Group 3; SECONDARY COMMENTS: Group 4

Week 7
ENTRIES: Group 2; LEAD COMMENTS: Group 3; CONTEXT: Group 4; SECONDARY COMMENTS: Group 1

Week 8
ENTRIES: Group 3; LEAD COMMENTS: Group 4; CONTEXT: Group 1; SECONDARY COMMENTS: Group 2

Week 9 -- SPRING BREAK

Week 10
ENTRIES: Group 4; LEAD COMMENTS: Group 1; CONTEXT: Group 2; SECONDARY COMMENTS: Group 3

Week 11
ENTRIES: Group 1; LEAD COMMENTS: Group 2; CONTEXT: Group 3; SECONDARY COMMENTS: Group 4

Week 12
ENTRIES: Group 2; LEAD COMMENTS: Group 3; CONTEXT: Group 4; SECONDARY COMMENTS: Group 1

Week 13
ENTRIES: Group 3; LEAD COMMENTS: Group 4; CONTEXT: Group 1; SECONDARY COMMENTS: Group 2

Week 14
ENTRIES: Group 4; LEAD COMMENTS: Group 1; CONTEXT: Group 2; SECONDARY COMMENTS: Group 3

Week 15
ENTRIES: Group 1; LEAD COMMENTS: Group 2; CONTEXT: Group 3; SECONDARY COMMENTS: Group 4

In class Thursday, we'll discuss our first topic and do a little practice.