Ok, I watched that video and wasted 3 minutes of my life. Couple of thoughts:
Her shirt does not fit her. It’s too small. I think she knows that and likes it that way.
She cannot express herself clearly–I thought Valley speak died with Duran Duran.
She shows horrible judgment throughout this video. It’s one thing to have a momentary exasperation about something like cell phone usage and even having to overheard foreign languages (which can be harder to screen out when you’re trying to concentrate); it’s another to put a video online relating all this.
She mostly reminds me of those people who pick their noses at stoplights and such. Yes, we can see you; yes, it is disgusting; stop it. What did she expect from this “rant”?
Death threats are ridiculously over the top, though. Gee, immature college kid exhibits poor judgment. Alert the media. Oh, wait–she did already–another instance of her insanely poor decision making skills.
At the end of the video she calls it a “rant”. Interesting that she realizes what it is. Also, interesting that she knows about the earthquake in Japan, maybe she learned about it in one of her political science classes.
**mhendo **is correct that she will most likely become a reality TV show guest or a TV news commentator. I was giving her too much credit.
Alexandra Wallace did not realize that her rant was newsworthy. Alexandra Wallace did not comprehend that her YouTube video would ultimately be mentioned in a New York Times story and editorial. Maybe I’m giving her too much credit again, but she probably thought that the YouTube video maybe would make The Daily Bruin. I say this because I know the “drama” that goes on college campuses. Whether it’s religious preachers shouting to students walking down the street or political proselytizers handing out pamplets on the street corner, there is always drama on college campuses. Sometimes it makes the front page of the student newspaper; sometimes it doesn’t. The last thing you’d think is that it would make The New York Times.
Why are some things that happen on college campuses newsworthy and other things aren’t? What is the standard for newsworthiness?
My argument is that “The U.C.L.A. Video” is an editorial about a YouTube video, not about Alexandra Wallace or about UCLA or about the tsunami in Japan. I repeat: “The U.C.L.A. Video” is an editorial about a YouTube video. :smack:
To be completely honest, I didn’t even know what my main argument is, and I haven’t been as coherent as I hoped I would be; however, Edward Lee, in The Huffington Post, knows what my main argument is – “the need for proportionality” – and his article is very coherent.
That all happened on March 18th. And what I interpret Lee to be saying here, is that three independent agents made simultaneous decisions; The New York Times, UCLA, and Alexandra Wallace. 1) Wallace gave an announcement that she would no longer attend UCLA, and that might have been all that could be taken home from this. 2) UCLA also made an announcement, no less authoritative and newsworthy, that Wallace would not be subject to disciplinary action per code of conduct and free speech. 3) So where does *The New York Times *fit into all of this? Well, just as I had the foresight that there would be somewhere like The Huffington Post, an article somewhat like, “Did UCLA and NYT Overreact to Student’s “Asians in the Library” Video?”, *The New York Times *had the foresight that March 18th would be the day to publish the editorial.
Simply game theory. Also, I would bet that morning, UCLA’s President, Board of Regents, and other officials were reading The New York Times instead of The Daily Bruin. I can’t prove it. However, that a student decides to no longer attend the university concerns only the UCLA Registrar’s office; that a student risks disciplinary action concerns the UCLA President’s office. Also, UCLA created a precedent: Alexandra Wallace-type YouTube videos will not necessarily lead to disciplinary action. Unfortunately, Alexandra Wallace could not and did not know that.
My argument is not about Alexandra Wallace. My argument, as Edward Lee put it, is about “the need for proportionality”. I believe that *The New York Times *- and in this case specifically the editorial page of The New York Times - fills the need for proportionality.
Edward Lee and me are so in sync. Why do you suppose that he was so shocked that “amazingly” The New York Times published an editorial on the incident?
What does he mean by proportionality?
Here’s how I understand him:
First, only a news agency such as The New York Times would have the prescient ability to know on what day things are “going down”; on what day consequential announcements are to be made.
Second, college students like Alexandra Wallace, to put bluntly, are a little over their heads. Wallace, having imperfect information, should not have published her announcement in the college newspaper. She, to use a crude expression, burned her bridges. She may have been a Political Science major, but she failed at Game Theory.
Third, proportionality. This story made the National section of The New York Times, and it made the editorial page, and it might even go so far as getting a few published letters to the editor. That’s. It. Period. In fact, there has not been a single letter published in The New York Times about this stupid story. However, if tomorrow there are a few letters to the editor published about the story (or rather about the aftermath) then that would be it, and then, simply, be done with it. Proportionality.
Forth, stepping back from this editorial, you literally and figuratively see the other editorials about Japan, about the Amazon, and about the Ivory Coast. What is important? What is more important: a YouTube video made in a college library or explosions happening in nuclear reactors in Japan?
Finally, to address the elephant in the room, why can’t The New York Times have the newspaper converted and uploaded to a digital format with digital pages? Every single day the front page is shown on the website. Why can’t the rest of the pages be shown on the website. Maybe then, there wouldn’t be an uproar of opinions about The New York Times Company charging for The New York Times!
Welcome to 2011. Do try to keep up, things move quickly here in the future. Are you expressing horror that something so vulgar as an internet video should be discussed among the intelligentsia of the New York Times? Or are you pleased? Or just bemused? I’m guessing…bemused?
That’s not true at all. People all over are referencing this eventette as an issue of freedom of speech. The NY Times isn’t the first. Why is this so noteworthy?
The OP is incomprensible because I only had half of the argument.
Thank you for watching the YouTube video. Will you please read The Huffington Post article I linked to (that’s the other half of the argument)? I could foresee it, yet I did not realize I could forsee it.
It means I could anticipate the argument Edward Lee would make in his column, Did UCLA and NYT Overreact to Student’s “Asians in the Library” Video?. There is a debate there. I’m saying that I *anticipated *the debate.
I’m showing both videos in my college classes, which are loaded with Asian international students. They had already seen the first one (who hasn’t?) but not the musical one, which they loved.
Addendum: I show the Wallace rant because it is a good example of fallacies which students should avoid when writing…or when making videos, for that matter.
