The Medium and the Message

      In Mamatas interview, you really begin to understand him as a person, just through listening to his tone, diction, and voice. Throughout the interview, his tone is full of sarcasm. You see how he perceives his customers just by listening to him talk. Constantly you could hear him laughing when mentioning the "DUMB CLIENTS." Not only did he laugh about them, he repetitively would insult them, calling them stupid, and other negative descriptions. Something else that you could pick up is how while receiving these random questions about his article, he would almost hesitate before answering throughout the interview. Once he knew what he would say to the interviewer, he would quickly answer the questions as fast as possible. This to me made me feel as if he was uncomfortable talking about this subject now that it's in the past. If that's the case, then you can interpret that he feels quite guilty about his "whoreish" ways. Even though he seems to be an intellectual man, he has no morals. He doesn't care if he's promoting laziness, because it was benefiting him, which shows he's also very self centered.
       My opinion of Mamatas hasn't changed much at all. The only difference is that now I see how he is a selfish man that finds humor in others stupidity. However, even though it's a shady type of job, I still see no reason to object to it. First of all, he was giving them MODEL papers. They weren't supposed to hand in that work, they were supposed to make it there own. They signed a contract saying how they wouldn't plagiarise his work, and if they did that is there fault not his. You must also look at it like this; Mamatas used this as an entrance of his writing occupation. Everyone most start somewhere and this was the only opportunity he had. If he hadn't done this, then he may have never been able to pursue his writing career. Since writing truly is his passion anyone should be able to understand that when you strive for something you may do anything in order to achieve it.
       I think that this gave the audience a surprised reaction. When you read the written story, you have a different way of looking at it then when you listen to the media instead. Different types of people must have had different view on it. The audience could either look at him as a corrupt man or they could view the situation as its survival of the fittest.
       It is very important to figure out what kind of media you feel is best for that situation. When you want to make yourself look impressive and more formal, you have a better chance at succeeding through paper. That way you have time to write, and fix what is on your mind , When using audio though, its probably better just to listen. Not only will you get a a feeling of your speaker, but also you will also get a better opinion on how the author is trying to get there point across. Considering you can usually take things more than one way, its easier to decide which way the author is trying to lead you.

http://www.onthemedia.org/episodes/2008/11/28/segments/116673