A Reflection on the Work of My Peers

Today’s new media, such as blogs, allows individuals to express their opinions publicly in

ways they would not have been able to in the past. This increased accessibility results in a lot of

people writing a lot of crap, crap that is often not properly researched. Our assignment to make a

blog forced me to think a lot about the validity of opinion pieces written on the internet. I have

really enjoyed reading the well thought out, well informed and well-researched blogs of my

peers. One assignment that was of particular interest to me was our first, to write about whether

the media involvement during the Cholera outbreak in Haiti was beneficial or detrimental to the

country.

Two peer blog entries stuck out to me, Kathryn Abeysekea’s for her social commentary

on the situation as it relates to us and Jessica Sellers’s for her critical, opinionated analysis of

exactly what was going on in Haiti.

Abeyseka critiqued Westerners for their lack of interest and commented on the emphasis

of the situation compared to other “more interesting” events in Canadian and American media.

She expressed her outrage at the Western world for not making it a priority in our lives,

providing concrete examples to back up her opinions. She took the situation and brought it into

context in our immediate lives.

Sellers took a different approach, examining and critiquing what was going on in Haiti.

While Abeyseka said the problem was Canadians not being interested enough, Sellers looked at

issues like infrastructure in Haiti and the safety of aid workers.

Both blogs brought in a variety of contemporary media sources, that are easily accessible,

yet reliable sources of information. Abeyseka made her entry accessible by forcing us to examine

ourselves. Sellers made hers relatable by referencing familiar sources, such as the New Yorker.