Media Really is Everywhere

    I guess I hadn't really considered how many aspects of my life act as a medium until I looked at this Wikipedia page. Architecture and Food were two of the categories, for example, that I'd never really thought of in such a manner. However, now that I think about it, I suppose architects are in fact trying to convey something in their works, and when food is produced, it's done so with the intention of pleasing the customer. Both are crafts that are used as media to please others.
   I typically think of things like electronics, sounds, films and writings as the main media outlets, but maybe that's just because these are the outlets to which I'm most drawn. For example, I'm drawn to television, because I use it as a way to entertain myself, as well as a way to receive important news. Music is perhaps the media I use the most, whether it be for entertainment, or simply to relax, and it really is just a medium between me and the artist by whom it was created.
   Social Media acts as a great medium to keep up with my friends, as well as people I haven't seen in a while. I do, however, prefer some to others. I use Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat pretty much every day. The reason I'm drawn to these, is that generally the posts on these networks are going to positive or funny. If someone posts things that I find displeasing, I can quickly unfollow them, but they are still more than welcome to follow my posts. When I scroll through Facebook, on the other hand, a number of the posts are negative; people also tend to comment on almost every post, which can be sort of annoying. Aside from this, for some reason, on Facebook I tend to be friends with a lot more random people, many of whom I'm not as comfortable seeing my posts. For these reasons, Facebook is a medium from which I tend to stray away.
   Medias definitely play a big part in my life. Without media, I'd have no idea what's going on with the world, my friends, my family, etc.

Tonypandy's got me pondering life

Over the years, I’ve been assigned a number of books to read for a variety of different classes. The majority of the time, I can tell just by glancing at the book whether or not I am going to enjoy the text. I seldom find my first impression to be wrong. However, I can honestly say “Daughter of Time” surprised me. I was under the impression that I was about to read a book which would simply spit out facts about Richard III; I certainly didn’t expect it be so thought provoking.

            Throughout the first few chapters, I knew I’d been wrong already, and was definitely interested in where the story would go. It wasn’t until this whole idea of “tonypandy” came up, though, that my mind really started racing. At first, I was just amazed at how easily Alan Grant made me question the legitimacy of everyone’s thoughts on Richard III. Everyone’s thoughts on the King were so negative, and so concrete, but when they were asked to elaborate on what they “know” about him, they’re responses were almost comical. The Amazon nurse said he had been born with a full set of teeth and chewed his way out of the womb. The Midget nurse never really supported herself, she just “knew”. Naturally, the more Grant researched, the more I started to believe he may be onto something.

            Sure, I thought about Richard III for a little while after I put the book down. I thought about messed up it would be if his image has been tarnished over the years, when he may not have actually been the villain he was made out to be. However, as I continued to read, I almost found it hard to concentrate on Richard III specifically. Richard is an important part of history, but in the grand scheme of things, such a small piece. Not to undermine his importance, but what if tonypandy is applicable to all of history?

            We grow up learning about thousands of years of human activity on Earth. I’ve sat in classrooms learning about history’s biggest wars, inventions and figures. I’ve been told which presidents were great, and which were terrible. I’ve been told who caused every major war, and who the “bad guys” were. BUT IT’S 2016. I wasn’t alive for 99% of things I’ve learned in history classes. My teachers also weren’t alive for most the content we learn, and neither were most of the historians putting this information in textbooks. So how do we know what to believe?

            Obviously historians and history teachers are essential, and most of what we’re taught is accurate; it’s just that after reading this book I feel like that “what if?” question will always be in the back my head as I go forward studying important figures and past events.