The way we get information has changed a lot in the past few years. Most people find out what’s going on in the world nowadays through social media or online news sources. I personally don’t have any social media, so I get my news intake through various websites like KSL, and especially from family and friends. In this way, I can see how I can be very biased. If what my friends are sharing with me is just what they’ve seen on social media, how reliable can it be? We tend to gravitate towards people whose views we agree with, so I’m likely to like what my friends are telling me about, or at least agree with their viewpoint on them.

If this is true for me offline, how does reflect in the online community?

I know my views tend to be in the middle, just slightly more liberal than conservative. Most of my friends are the same. Online, this means that the things they like and the people they choose to follow tend to be a mixture of conservative and liberal viewpoints. This is not true for most people, however; I know people who are extremely conservative and all they see on social media is liberal propaganda and other things that support their point of view.

Looking at two different News Sites, The Huffington Post, which is more left winged, and The Washington Times, which is more right winged, it’s very interesting to see how they portray the same things so differently. Scrolling through the Huffington Post, it’s clear to see based on titles like “All of the Bizarre Things Trump has done Post-Midterms” where they stand on issues. They are clearly trying to sway the readers against Trump. On the other hand, The Washington Times uses titles like “Democrats complain about stale House Leadership” to make us think that democrats complain and don’t get anything done. On the other hand, The Washington Times has headlines like “What is Jim Acosta’s job, anyway?” to make us biased against the left wing reporter.

I find this very interesting. Before I learned about this “filter bubble”, I naively assumed that all new sources were doing their best to put out the truth, but in comparing these two websites and others, it is clear that nearly all news sources have an agenda, or their own viewpoints on what the truth should be.

Knowing this, how can we use it to pop the filter bubble that so many people find themselves trapped inside, most of the time without even knowing? I think we can start by being aware of what news sources we’re reading. We need to recognize where we are getting our information to realize if it is reliable, and what its stance is on issues. Once we have done this, I think it’s important to expand our intake of news sources to both ends of the spectrum, so we are getting both sides of the story. Finally, I think the best way to get out of the bubble is to simply go to the least biased news sources possible and keep an open mind. If we use our brains instead of our emotions I think we’ll develop a better perspective and be able to respond more intelligently to what’s happening in the world today.

So what can you do to pop the bubble?

 

The image of a tiger lunging at a man through a snowy forest is not something most of us think about regularly. In fact, most people have never had any sort of face to face encounter with a tiger, ever. John Vaillant’s The Tiger: A True Story of Vengeance and Survival gives readers the opportunity to do just that; with his narrative and informative style of writing, Vaillant thrusts us as readers into the story. Vaillant successfully uses a unique writing style that keeps the reader engaged while also informing the reader using facts and anecdotes.

First of all, Vaillant understood the importance of keeping the reader hooked. He tells the story in such a way that we want to know what will happen next. While reading, it can be hard to remember that this truly did happen; the story is so fascinating, and told as though it is a thriller. Vaillant achieved this through careful gathering of eye-witness stories, anecdotes, and interviews of those involved, as well as adding outside information that contributed to the story. His style of telling a portion of the story, and not necessarily telling it in order, keeps the reader engaged and looking for details, as well as giving himself as the author room to explain and analyze what is happening, and add information that might otherwise be missing. In this manner, the reader feels as though he or she knows exactly what is happening in the story at all times, and is very involved, though this event took place on the other side of the world, years ago. Vaillant has a very good way of making the story come to life.

The other key component that Vaillant addresses throughout the book is the learning of information. This book seemed to be designed to tell a story; however, when one finishes the book one realizes how much more informed he or she is about what was happening in Russia at the time, the events surrounding the tiger attacks, and the social and political background that is needed. Helping the reader learn all of these things, as well as learn about tiger behavior and tiger activity leaves much more of an impact than simply telling the story from start to finish, without any additional notes and background. The author gives us as the audience a deeper sense of understanding as a result of the added information.

In conclusion, The Tiger was a compelling read from start to finish. It had all the things most people look for in a good thriller; a murder, a bit of mystery, a fight to the death. It satisfied our needs as humans to have a resolution to a story, and kept us on edge the whole time. However, it was also informative and researched extremely thoroughly. Vaillant did an excellent job of keeping the book entertaining, yet also helping the reader to learn and understand the book. The next time you want to stand face to face with a tiger, I would recommend The Tiger.

Hi! My name is Eliza and I am interested in all things outdoors, especially hiking, paddleboarding and sleeping under the stars. That’s why I’m doing this;  I care about what happens to our natural world. This is my first post, and I’m very excited about it. Hopefully you are too! Let’s get started.

Today I was looking through the site ecogeek, and I found a very interesting article entitled “Ecuador Ends Novel Plan to Save Rainforest”. It is an older article, but I would still like to address it. It explains how for several years the government in Ecuador had been asking other governments for money to aid them in preserving the Yasuni National Park, which comprises 3,972 square miles of land in eastern Ecuador. However, in 2013, Ecuador’s president announced that the program would be coming to an end. He stated that ending the program was one of the hardest decisions he had ever had to make, because they simply didn’t have enough money to preserve the land and help their people. This grand scale attempt to save the land didn’t work out, but the question is,  should government be involved in preserving land, and should they be calling on other governments to aid them in this venture? Would it be simpler to have smaller organizations running these efforts? In my opinion, the government should be doing all it can to help preserve its nation’s environment with the funds that it has available. It’s unfortunate that the government in Ecuador was unable to keep the program going, but the fact that they were trying for as long as they did is admirable. If more countries worked together to do this we would have much more success preserving the natural beauty around us. What do you think?