Jon Stewart Discussion On The Ferguson, Missouri Coverage

Introduction The satire option that I chose for the purpose of this assignment is the Jon Stewart discussion on the Ferguson, Missouri coverage. Here, Jon, the satirist is an arbiter of American political media, and as a media critic, he is also the former television host of The Daily Show which is a satirical news program that airs on Comedy Central. In the video, Jon Stewart critiqued topics revolving around the shooting of teenager Michael Brown by the police. The topics ranged from police brutality, black lives matter, negative stereotypes, double standards, white privileged and an unacceptable mentality of sheer ignorance of some Americans towards people of color, in other words, African American in a comedic but very real sense.†¦show more content†¦Hence, the claims are believable as the show relies heavily on the use of various news footages, often in a documentary way that employs archival video to show contrast and contradiction, even if the purpose is satirical rather than reportorial. The content on the show is unburdened by objectivity, journalistic integrity or even accuracy, nevertheless, it speaks volumes with Jon Stewart’s big unauthoritative persona as he attempts to breakdown on selective representation. Content Reliability The reliability of the content presented in The Daily show with regards to the Ferguson, Missouri coverage by Jon Stewart is reliable enough or fairly reliable. I say that because as much as it is credible, it does have a real yet comedic satire spin to it. As mentioned earlier, The Daily Show relies on various news footages and instead of solely relying on these bias sources, Jon Snow puts his own critical spit to it. He raises controversial issues that mainstream media coincidently neglects. With regards to the Ferguson, Missouri controversy, he filled in the blanks and dared to say the unsaid and emphasised the existence of white supremacist and white privilege and compare and contrasted white and black people experience and interaction with the law enforcements agents. Language Used Jon Stewart, when presenting the Ferguson case, like all his other shows, he uses

Lower Drinking Age Free Essays

Today we live in a country that prides itself on being free, although there are a number of people that feel they do not have as much freedom as they deserve, such as the freedom to drink at a younger age. The legal drinking age should be lowered to the age of 18, where in the eyes of the law you are seen as an adult. Many different opinions are opened as the subject of lowering the legal drinking age is brought up. We will write a custom essay sample on Lower Drinking Age or any similar topic only for you Order Now For most, if not all, teenagers in high school a situation that has to do with consuming alcohol has been put in front of them. A lot of the time this type of situation leads to illegally drinking underage. At this point these minors know that what they are doing and that it is completely illegal. When knowing they cannot drink all the time and have an opportunity to they take the drinking up to the next level. This is when the paths of social drinkers and binge drinkers cross and can become very dangerous. When someone drinks too much other people around them realize and don’t want to be in trouble for underage drinking so they tend to leave that person so they don’t get hit by the consequences. That situation is exactly the reason there are so many deaths in result from underage drinking. People may fight for a lowered drinking age for that exact reason. This side of reasoning makes people want the drinking age lowered because teens won’t be scared to get in trouble when trying to get help for a friend or just a fellow partier. There are also many other reasons why the legal drinking age should be lower. Many people say a teen is not responsible enough to drink alcohol so they shouldn’t be allowed to. This argument gets completely erased with the fact that 18 year olds have the ability to serve in the military and can even vote for the countries leader. These two facts alone show that they are responsible enough to make their own decisions as to what the can and want to do. As the responsibility factor gets pushed to the side it is then said that someone that is 18 does not have the tolerance as someone that is 21 does. This fact is proven completely false because tolerance has nothing to do with your age. The best way that people gain tolerance is by experience so the more experience you have with something the more tolerance you have. If you start your experience at a younger age while you still have a watchful eye over you such as parents and guardians you may be less likely to mess up because you want to prove to them that you have the ability to live in the real world. With no one watching over you while beginning a new experience you are more likely to make a mistake and pay for it. With more supervision the number of alcohol related problems, as serious as deaths, will decrease. This is proven in other places around the world such as Italy, China and even Greece. In these places the legal drinking age is lower and so is the amount of alcohol related incidents. This fight is not only pushed by the population of underage drinkers but also by the main places this crime is done, Colleges and Universities. Many presidents from major colleges want the age lowered because the current laws encourage dangerous binge drinking on campus. â€Å"This is a law that is routinely evaded,† said John McCardell, former president of Middlebury College in Vermont. â€Å"It is a law that the people at whom it is directed believe is unjust and unfair and discriminatory. † With a legal drinking age under 21 the regulation of alcohol in colleges and universities will be around. This will help them make sure that less students are getting overly intoxicated. As the colleges and universities keep the number of intoxicated students down with their supervision they also keep the possibility of injuries and deaths down as well. There are also many opinions that are on the side of keeping the legal drinking age at 21 years of age. One of the major and to some the only valid reason for states to keep the legal drinking age at 21 is the National Minimum Drinking Age Act. This act was put into place in 1984. â€Å"The 1984 National Minimum Drinking Age Act, [23 U. S. C.  § 158], requires that States prohibit persons under 21 years of age from purchasing or publicly possessing alcoholic beverages as a condition of receiving State highway funds. A Federal regulation that interprets the Act excludes from the definition of â€Å"public possession,† possession â€Å"for an established religious purpose; when accompanied by a parent, spouse or legal guardian age 21 or older; for medical purposes when prescribed or administered by a licensed physician, pharmacist, dentist, nurse, hospital or medical institution; in private clubs or establishments; or to the sale, handling, transport, or service in dispensing of any alcoholic beverage pursuant to lawful employment of a person under the age of twenty-one years by a duly licensed manufacturer, wholesaler, or retailer of alcoholic beverages†, [23 C.F. R.  § 1208. 3]. † This act helped keeping the legal drinking age in all states at 21 by imposing a penalty if the age were to drop under 21. This penalty states that 10 percent of a state’s federal highway appropriation on any state setting its drinking age lower than 21 will be taken away. That is a lot of money needed by states to keep their roads in the best shape that they can for us driving on them. Another reason to keep alcohol illegal for minors is because of its association with destructive or violent behavior. These behaviors range through a variety of offenses from fighting to robbery to drunk driving. All of which have the ability to hurt or even kill someone without the intent to when first making these decisions. The legal drinking age will always be an ongoing debate in our country. This will be whether the age is lowered, kept the same or even a possibility of rising. People of all ages and backgrounds will fight for their honest opinion with this argument. How to cite Lower Drinking Age, Papers

Visa Compliance - Cancellation and Review - myassignmenthelp.com

Question: Discuss about theVisa Compliance, Cancellation and Review for Immigration. Answer: Singh v Minister for Immigration Anor [2017] FCCA 1901 (14 August 2017) In this case, the appellant held a student (Temporary) (Class TU) Subclass 573 visa while he arrived in Australia and had undertaken an English Language Intensive Course for Overseas Students (ELICOS course). However, he had difficulties with the ELICOS course and was subjected to depression. The appellant had submitted a written statement before the Tribunal stating the reasons why he changed his study course to cooking as he always wanted to become a professional cook. Since the appellant came from India he believes there are several scopes for his future employment as a professional cook. The Federal Circuit Court contended that Tribunals decision did not include the material that the applicant had provided to the court through his statement regarding his reasons to change his study course to cookery from business management. An administrative tribunal is saifd to commit jurisdictional error when it fails to consider matters which is required to be considered by the court. Under section 499 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and Direction No. 53, the tribunal is required to take into consideration those materials that are laid down in the Ministerial Direction No. 53 that is relevant to the decision[1]. The tribunal was held to have misconstrued the evidence that was produced before it by the appellant. It failed to have regard to the essential documents regarding his reasons for changing his study course and his reasons for depression. This amounted to a jurisdictional error on part of the Tribunal for failing to consider the relevant material. The Tribunal held that the depression of te appellant was a result of the considerable gaps that was present in the enrolment and studies of the applicant. The Tribunal further held that as per the subsequent analysis of the claims made by the Appellant it is because of the gaps in the studies and enrolment that caused his depression. The tribunal had failed to consider the actual diagnosis that the appellant had referred to which is evident that the appellant was feeling depressed as he wished to change his study course from management to cookery and he misses his parents who resides in India and he is away from home. The appellant visited Dr Tahayvalappil-Kyparath and the diagnosis was conducted by the same doctor. The court failed to consider the diagnosis report while making its decision. The Tribunal failed to notice the diagnosis as a result of which the claim made by the applicant regarding his reason for depression was rejected by the Tribunal. The tribunal rejected the fact that the appellant was suffering from depression as he was away from home for a significant time without any educational achievements and a considerable gap in his study have resulted in his mood swings[2]. The tribunal had taken a brief and insignificant part of the oral evidence adduced by the applicant with respect to his enrolment in the Hospitality course which was completely irrelevant to the any of the matters that were mentioned in students written statement. The Tribunal had overlooked the reasons and considered the depression to be the result of the gaps in the appellants enrolment. The Tribunal restricted its consideration by stating that there is no relevancy between the applicantss previously completed education and his recourse to management studies. The Tribunal has not only failed to have regard to the essential matters that were to be taken in to consideration as per Direction No. 53 but also failed to mention that it is permitted to make reasonable changes to study or career pathways which was also stipulated under Direction No. 53[3]. The decision made by the Tribunal with respect to the consideration of the Applicants claim and materials , it is evident that it lacked essential distinctiveness which establishes that the Tribunal had failed to have regard to the essential material that was required to be considered. The ignorance of relevant matters such as the diagnosis of depression and the evidence in the form of written statement which includes reasons of the applicant to change his study course, is a clear evidence of the fact that the Tribunal had failed to exercise its jurisdiction for which it was authorized. Reference List The Migration Act, 1994 (Cth). Singh v Minister for Immigration Anor [2017] FCCA 1901 (14 August 2017)