As I read Pollock’s introduction to Oral History and Performance there was one idea that really stuck out to me. The idea of oral history as a tranformational process that relates to the real events and real witnesses was interesting. As this weekend went on I feel like I saw this idea play out within the football game I played in. The way Pollock talks about direct witnesses opposed to people who have heard of the event i think correlates really well to fans. This weekend in our game things went terribly and there was no denying that, but i found it funny how direct witnesses (the team) and people who have heard of the event (fans) had different views of it. I think the transformational process of this event depending on who you talked to would be very interesting as the direct and indirect witnesses would tell you different things as to what went wrong. While fans can only watch the game they see certain things and blame certain people for our losses that if you talked to someone on the team they could explain how it wasn’t necessarily that person’s fault because they were a direct witness to what happened. I think ultimately the most important idea that came from Pollock was just that indirect witnesses can often times miconstrue a situation due to their lack of understanding of a situation. Another place I think we see this is in the news where stuff is reported at face value just to get more views. News outlets do not care if they fully undestand a situation or not they just want to get a story out. An example of this I found on the internet is this article where “sources” are used to report what is happening with the NBA lockout. Do the “sources” really have a direct witness of what is happening? We don’t know.