"Chumps" and more McDonald's snacking

This blog post from A plain blog about politics was informative and also hilarious.

Their argument is summed up with this: if you have a partisan press which makes most of its money off of chumps who are eager to believe the wildest things out there, then you have very little incentive to try for anything better.


I agree. Do we really expect the large, partisan news sites to change what they're doing, if they're making millions? I sure don't. But I also don't want this sort of news reporting to spill over into how politics work in the US, which this blog post argues it has.


The post goes on to criticize a couple of Republican candidates, but I think the way he frames it is a big unfair. Since it is a liberal blog (this blogger is at least obviously left), that's to be expected. However, I think the point they raise about the quality of the news is valid: it's harder to have better quality stories and critiques of politics. If McDonald's is making millions, where is there an incentive to make everything healthier?

The New Conservatism: Don’t Bother With College

The New York Times reported on Rick Santorum’s recent campaigning leading up to the primary coming up this Tuesday.  The article is entitled “The New Conservatism: Don’t Bother With College.”  The tag line of the article says, “Mr. Santorum called President Obama “a snob” for urging students to go to college.”  The article reports that Rick Santorum criticized President Obama’s recent encouragement of students to attend community colleges to pick up specialized skills, for everyone to strive for some form of higher education, and to make college more affordable for everyone. 

My favorite lines of the article states that “As it turns out, Mr. Santorum is concerned that conservative students who attend a four-year college will emerge fully indoctrinated as liberals. He even called colleges “indoctrination mills.” “Oh, I understand why he wants you to go to college,” Mr. Santorum said. “He wants to remake you in his image.”

“Mr. Santorum apparently sees students as easy prey to bearded professors and their dangerous ideas, but all ideas are subject to challenge in college. Some students may emerge more liberal, others more libertarian or conservative; some may lose their faith, or adopt a different one.”

“When his brand of ideas is put to the test, Mr. Santorum seems worried it might not hold up. If this new rant represents the current quality of conservative thinking, he is right to be worried.”

The New York Times does a great job reporting on the subject.  They let Rick Santorum’s word speak for themselves.  Our recent class discussions on socialization and political ideals leads me to see how wrong Rick Santorum is in his assumption that students can be so easily preyed upon when receiving a college education.  As we learned from the Michigan Model our socialization starts early in life with the economic structure, social divisions, and historic pattern we grow up with.  Over time these leads to our group loyalties and value orientations.  Our college years can be formative and can be time that values and beliefs shift and new perspectives can be learned but for student to lose their faith, values, and beliefs that they grew up with is not very likely.  

Titles Matter, but Material Matters More...

Sifting through the news on CNN's homepage I came across this story, which reads "Obama responds to Santorum's 'snob' jab?" http://whitehouse.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/27/obama-responds-to-santorums-snob-jab/

First off a few things really confuse me about why this is important.  Name-calling happens all the time in politics and it is one of those things that when it happens people really aren't surprised by.  When Rick Santorum called President Obama a snob I'm sure he wasn't expecting people to still be talking about that comment.  Let's face it CNN candidates trade verbal jabs all the time so this isn't "news" to us.  It's just repetitive and it really doesn’t give anything to the audience.  Even though I really don’t like this article I can deal with it because at least if the President is retorting that maybe adds something new to this debate also, the underlying topic is about something important-higher education.  From the media perspective the true story should be about President Obama’s commitment to higher education and desire to see people educated in the best way for them.  If you strip away the rhetoric and focus on the issue you’ll see that is hidden underneath is a very important topic.  Maybe starting out focusing on education will show that the media is above the typical partisan rhetoric and will actually focus on issues at hand.

So what 1,00 people listen to you?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/mitt-romney-message-t-fill-stadium-article-1.1028337

Our discussion this morning about political pictures in campaigns really made me want to write about this article.  Romney gave a key economic speech last week in the Detroit Lions stadium.   However, the media coverage highlighted two things amidst the other important items mentioned in his speech.

1.  How BADDD it looked for Romney to give a speech to what seemed an empty stadium.  Over 1200 people attended, but the stadium is built for 65,000, giving the appearance that Romney vastly undersold the event, reflecting his apparent popularity. 

2. How BADDD it sounds when Romney says to Detroit auto workers that his wife drives "a couple of Cadillacs."  Granted, probably not smart, but what got no coverage was his defense of the statement and the purpose behind, but thats probably his fault for saying it anyway. 

Point is, less coverage was given to the content and purpose of his speech than was the image of Romney delivering the speech to the empty stadium.  This could bode badly for Romney as Santorum heats up the campaign competition.  However, as we have seen the media tends to pass things of little political relevance as things of importance.  Does it really matter, really, that Romney gave a speech in the wrong forum?  Does it matter politically if Putin rides a horse without a shirt on? Romney has slipped up a few times, "I don't care about the poor" thing, and now this, but who knows more about his political ideologies, philosophy, or voting record because of these stories?  It's not the end of the world, but I certainly see a good opportunity for the media to use these entertainment stories as a way to draw readers in and then almost subliminally inform them.

As Lance Bennett notes, theres no problem with recognizing these stories or presenting them, but when they fail to connect them to larger political and economic issues it becomes a problem.  Perhaps the entertainment value is way higher, and I see the possibility of drawing audiences in with entertainment stories or political slip-ups, but I see the failure of the media to connect to larger issues. Sometimes they do, so I will give them some credit there, but I'm still not sure why Romney's empty stadium speech should get headline picture coverage. 

Everyone likes a good fight, I mean debate...

After class I was thinking about one of my mother's favorite shows in relation to our discussion in todays class. Every morning, my mother sets her DVR to record the opinions, often times political opinions, of the ladies on the View. If one was to watch this television show it becomes increasingly obvious, relatively quickly, that these women are on different "sides" politically. They have gotten into many heated political debates, some of which have lead to previous women being replaced. It is clear that there is one extreme right winged person, and a few extreme left, with Barbara Walters who tried to pretend to be party-less. Due to the way the View is set up, each morning is always some sort of debate, tackling major issues such as gay marriage, inequality, just anything that can cause some sort of stir, igniting a verbal argument between women. Often times the debates become uncomfortable to watch, one of the uncomfortable moments I believe lead to the dismissal of Rosie.
So why is this important? Today in class we talked about how this demand for "uncivil" or confrontational media in politics is not really reaching the people who are not 'political junkies' or constantly forced to be informed (political science students). The reality of the matter is that people who are not political junkies are enjoying the entertainment of a confrontation on television.

Just a little video...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xht0HcPryWA&feature=related

Profits from Thin Mint Sales pay for Abortions!!# Dramitization and Incivility

http://www.wane.com/dpp/news/fort-wayne-lawmaker-wont-honor-girl-scouts?hpt=po_bn6

Poking around the politics section CNN.com I stumbled upon this pretty funny story from Fort Wayne Indiana. The story reports how a local lawman will not celebrate the girl scouts 100 year anniversary because the organization supports abortion and homosexuality, which the Girl Scout head quarters claims to be false. Now this blog post won’t be about whether this law maker is right or wrong, quite frankly those are his beliefs, this blog post is about whether this article should be given so much attention that it is on the politics section of CNN.com and if the Media in this instance is publishing incivility.

 Now obviously this story has no real impact on anybody except maybe a few girl scouts trying to sell their cookies in parking lots across Indiana and a law maker who has obviously never had a delicious thin mint cookie. So why the story here, this article is is what Bennett would call dramatization its making a mountain out of a mole hill. This may be an entertaining story but it can really be seen as a distraction from more important things that affect a lot more people. Now to see if this article is presenting incivility it kind of is, showing this law makers disdain to an organization by making these claims and even going as far as calling for parents to really reevaluate their children’s participation in this organization is a form of incivility especially since it is a standoff and a slight attack on a group of little girls. Its stories like these that can cause people to think wow look at that mean old, homophobic, little girl and cookie hating republican guy or look at those baby killing and gay loving girl scouts causing disunity in our system. We really don’t need more disunity come on CNN if anything you should just move this story under local news. To end this post I will quote Jim Carey “and that’s the way the cookie crumbles”

Obama Apologizing?

http://newsroom.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/27/no-talking-points-presidential-apologies/?iref=allsearch

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2012/02/23/exp-quran-burning-sparks-rage-in-afghanistan.cnn


After the recent events in Afghanistan, President Obama came out and apologized to the Afghan government for the accidental burning of the Quran by American soldiers. Should he really be apologizing for a "accidental" buying of the muslim religious book? Why should he apologize for an accident?

President Obama apologized on behalf of our country for the actions of some of our soldiers. Some American soldiers allegedly put the Quran's in a burning pit, but supposedly didn't intend to burn them as religious documents, whatever that means. The U.S. has announced that it is not sure what it is going to do about the incident, but that there will be actions taken to hold those responsible accountable.

Every republican presidential hopeful has responded strongly to Obama's apology, saying that he should not have apologized at all. The GOP's are all over Obama for his apology. But why is it so bad that he apologized? The fact that American soldiers burned the Muslim holy book is ridiculous, these soldiers are representing America in every action they take. This was an incident that even if it was "accidental" should have never happened. It is outrageous. Before this, the U.S. was mainly hated by the radical Muslims, but in burning the Quran, we have made enemies with many of the modest Muslims as well. Afghanistan is in uproar due to this incident and the Taliban is using this to gain strength. The least the U.S. could do in this situation is apologize for the incident.

The reporter in the first video clearly supports Obama in this situation which is expected because he works for CNN. He states that other presidents have apologized for things just as Obama is doing now. He shows videos of these past presidents apologizing for various reasons and even goes so far as to attack the GOP candidates in saying that which ever one of them is elected, if they are elected, they will have to apologize for things as well. The reporter show his liberal bias and propaganda through the entire video and is not subtle about it at all.

Ms. Clinton a Princeling?

This article deals with the reporting of Ms. Clinton, Bill and Hillary's thirty year old daughter taking a promising role in public service. At first the article comes off as if it is appraising Chelsea Clinton for her new position withing a Congressional setting, but then the author goes off into a comparison to "princelings" who are in China, people brought into a position of power for the simple basis that they are granted it through their family or parents. The author then proceeds to in a sense bash Chelsea for the luck she has been given and basically states at the end of the article that "Our country should choose the best leaders, not the ones with the best last names". This is a pretty bold statement considering that if someone was to learn the ways of politics, Chelsea definitely was raised by two politicians that would leave her well informed. My take on this is that maybe she is well-educated, bright, and has a good head on her shoulders but is this a clear form of  politics within politics or what? I most definitely do not want to take anything away from her; or even acknowledge whether she is a prepared enough candidate for that position. All I am saying is that there has to be some truth or prime examples of this kind of "favoritism" that causes downfall to our system of government. With positions like these being given to family members, there is certainly not an even playing field and I believe the author recognizes and makes that a point. I do believe that the author does over do it or exaggerate her by comparing her to other governmental systems that have these practices. He does even say that it is a form of corruption. I do not believe to say that was necessary until after she performs poorly. Let me know what you guys think?


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-strauss/chelsea-clinton-congress_b_1302784.html?ref=politics

Who Decided That This Election Was Going to Be About Sex?

So anyone noticed lately that the election has turned from "Jobs, Jobs, Jobs" to "Sex, Sex, Sex"? Who decided that? This is the question that David Brooks and Gail Collins of the New York Times set out to answer in this week's "The Conversation", a weekly opinion column that takes place in between weekly columns. (Anyone still worried that print media is having a hard time keeping up with the 24 hour broadcast media?)

Though they pose an interesting question, Brooks and Collins unfortunately never get around to answering it. They mull over the sexual revolution of the 60s and 70s, bemoan the theologically- driven arguments presented by presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum, and finally trail off into a discussion about birth rates amongst unwed mothers in different class settings and the advantages of waiting to have children until after marriage.

Brooks and Collins are sort of contemporary journalism royalty. They're well-respected, each have op-ed columns in the New York Times, are frequent guests on NPR's All Things Considered, and publish best-selling books. So it's curious to me that the two of them don't consider who is setting the agenda here -- the Media.

I would posit that there's a good possibility this issue is being driven by media outlets who know that "sex sells" and theocrat candidates such as Santorum can't resist weighing in. In class and in recent readings we've discussed how much influence the general media has in setting the agenda. In "The Conversation", Collins aptly points out that "Teenage pregnancy rates are down. Abortion rates are down. Crime is down. There are problems with the social fabric but they no longer have to do with the sexual revolution..." So it would seem to me that this was not an issue weighing heavily on the minds of voters until the Obama Care - Catholic church debacle allowed the media to run amuck over this particular policy. Could it be said that they moved sex to the top of the agenda? Or is the stereotype of "sex sells" in this case an example of zombie political (media) theory?

Two Journalists Equals Exactly How Many?

Don't we all just love coincidences?

Let's take the all-of-a-sudden-totally-not-going-on-for-at-least-a-year crisis in Syria. I wake up this morning and there are two whole stories on Syria. That's more then there's been in at least the past month (but who's counting?). More importantly, here's what the two stories were:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/26/world/syria-marie-colvin/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

Follow the above link and read a heavily personalized story about a journalist being killed in Syria. The content of the story isn't so important, not so much as the fact that the first substantive story I've heard about the totally just happening now crisis in Syria is about a British journalist being killed, for lack of a better phrase, in the line of duty.

And then just hours later, on the same CNN website, I come across an emotionally driven article (http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/23/world/syria-intervention/index.html?hpt=hp_bn2) explaining why the world isn't helping Syria, but more importantly clearly written from the position that someone has a moral obligation to intervene and stop the violence. Every paragraph was an intentionally heart-wrenching interview with a civilian suffering the same as they have been for months when we just as passionately ignored them.

The attention Syria gets in the news is surprisingly correlated with the number of western journalists killed in the country. And I'm not the one using the phrase "western journalists." That's from the NY Times, reporting on the death of the same journalist described in the CNN article and one other: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/23/world/middleeast/marie-colvin-and-remi-ochlik-journalists-killed-in-syria.html?hp=&pagewanted=all

For months, no one even cared. At least no one in the media. Then two of their own get killed and it's back to compassion for all those people in Syria. The daily death toll in that country, the suffering and starvation, the lack of access to basic medical care, and the tragedy to the human race at large, it was all old news until a couple of more familiar faces joined the casualty list.

The Fast Food Media Culture: A Defense

This blog post is focused not so much on a particular news article, but rather news websites in general.  There seems to be this ongoing discussion about how Americans only have a "surface-deep" knowledge of the issues.  There are those that constantly say how terrible this is and how it is really bad for democracy.  But, you know, I might have to disagree with those people.   I think I would rather have a diverse citizenry that is informed about what they want to be informed about than a citizenry that is forced by the government to learn certain things.  Anyways, that is really not the point of this post, I just figured I'd throw that in there for anyone who really cares about my opinion.

The point of my post is to discuss where this surface deep knowledge comes from in the first place.  We have spent a lot of time discussing how the broadcast media, through fragmentation and other means, facilitates this "fast food" media culture of which we are a part.  However, I think the news websites deserve some of the credit/blame, however you want to frame it, for helping facilitate this "surface deep" culture.  For example, I cite the CNN website.  If you look over on the left side of the page, you see this fancy little list of stories.  Furthermore, they've taken the time to group some articles together about the main story of the day.  Usually these articles are under headlines such as "Slaughter in Syria" or "Afghanistan Quran Burning."   Then, as you scroll down, CNN  lists stories that range from entertainment news, to sports news, to politics, and everything in between.

This compilation of stories is perfect for the everyday American who needs to get their news on the go.  If I'm in a hurry, all I have to do is take a quick glance at the left side of the CNN website to get the news of the day.  If I really want to get crazy, I can click on the story and read the brief news article about whatever the story may be.  So, in a matter of five minutes or so, I can be up to speed on all the current events from around the world.  Now, there are those that complain that this method would mean that I don't know what is going on in some small countries in different parts of the world.  I would concede this point, but I would counter that everyday Americans don't need to know about the obscure news events in remote parts of the world.  Now, I'm not minimizing these events, I'm just saying that there are experts who deal with those news stories and if members of the public want to read them they can find them.  However, I happen to be a fan of the CNN type of "fast food" news.

Personally, I am interested in having more than a surface-deep knowledge of the issues and for this reason I don't rely on the news recaps on these websites as my sole source of news.  However, I do rely on these sites throughout the day when I am in a hurry and just want to know whats going on.  As usual, I have strayed away from what this post was really supposed to be about.  So, let me try to bring it all back together.  I think we too often blame the broadcast media for the "fast food" news culture that we live in.  However, if you look at pretty much any news website, you are going to see an area for people who just want to get an overview of the news.  Clearly, the media has figured out the uses and gratifications theory and they have realized that this is what the majority of Americans want when it comes to news.  All I'm saying is that since most of the news outlets have this type of "fast food" media somewhere on their websites, maybe we shouldn't be so quick to criticize the broadcast media.

We all need to remember one thing, each source of media plays a crucial role that helps facilitate our democracy and I think we shouldn't be so quick to criticize the media like we do.

The Rhythm and Lore of Electoral Behavior

Feb19by The Political Pipeline

http://politicalpipeline.wordpress.com/2012/02/19/the-rhythm-and-lore-of-electoral-behavior/

The political pipeline wrote a 447 line poem ALL about voting research and electoral behavior throughout the years.  The poem was clever, highly entertaining, and most importantly informative. Their artistic work had a simple two-line statement about how the media "was not the main attraction"  when it came to voter behavior. Well, this was quite disheartening to read while taking a topics class exclusively about media and its effects on politics. Only two lines, out of the 447 line long poem, mentioned the media's weak affect on the voter. 


The lack of mention or importance placed on the media in this poem made me reconsider the actual affect of the media on voter behavior. Previously, I had thought that the media obviously must have some large affect on the voting population, considering the vast amounts of political information that circulates the industry. However, the more I learn and read about the different variables that contribute to socialization and the process of "growing up," the far less I credit the media for swaying or influencing voters or the public in general. The audience seems to be much more active than the hypodermic theory lets on. In fact, this poem implies that the media has little to no affect on the audience. 


The poem comes to an end with a basic yet powerful statement, "Electoral behavior is thoughtful like a child." This last line suggest that electoral behavior may not have any pattern or sense of predictability since it is "like a child." In this point of view, the media cannot even be considered as having a slightly significant effect on the audience it touches. 


What we can take away from this poem is that regardless of all the research, voter behavior is not necessarily a predictable function of every member of society. It artistically reveals that while many studies have been done on voter behavior, there is no way to pin point a specific major contributor to the voters' choice. More interesting and more pertinent to this class is that the media received such little coverage in this poem. And the only coverage it did receive was to ensure the reader that the media did not have a large affect on its people. Can this be true, can the media really have no signification affect on its audience?   

Interruptions

The content of Geraldo at Large is not what I was focused on I was focused on how he treated his guest speakers. The way that Geraldo interrupted the two senators is what irritated me. Fox is not the only media outlet that does this, it is often times all news media outlets. Reporters are all on a time schedule so they are continually interrupting speakers to ask the next question when they haven’t even finished answering the first one. If reporters would allow speakers to finish their answers, people would receive a lot more information. If reporters would allow the speakers to finish explaining their answer, there would probably not be the need for hours of explanation following the interview. I realize that reporters cannot allow speakers to use up all of their airtime on one question but there does need to be limitations. Also, the more that government officials talk the more people learn about them; since the medias job is to inform the public I believe that the media should allow speakers to complete their thoughts on a whole issues before they start to ask another question. We talked in class about how the media tells a huge story in 20-30 second sound bites. This is not allowing people to know the whole story just a small tidbit, which can lead to confusion because people only know 30 seconds of an hour-long story.  

UPDATE: The Culture Wars Are Back!

Article: Focus on Social Issues Could Shape Battle for Women

Source: New York Times

"In an election that until this point has been almost totally defined by the economy’s struggles, the abrupt return of the culture wars has introduced a volatile new element." 

Wait...the culture wars have just abruptly returned? They left, it left, what left? I could have sworn in the past ten years I have witnessed a culture war via the media, internet, and outside my dorm room window freshman year. According the New York Times, the only thing that has been on the Presidential radar has been the economy, while I understand that a significant role of the past four year's legislation has taken on an economic perspective and emphasis, this has certainly not been the only role that has been taken. In the past decade drug abuse and addiction has been a significant issue in the legislature, healthcare, and social security, all have been social issues that have claimed a large amount of legislative and executive time.

There are any number of ways in which the politics might play out, but perhaps the biggest question is the degree to which the new attention on social issues might shape the battle for one of the most important electoral swing groups: moderate and independent women voters.

The author of the article is referring back to issues mentioned prior in the article: "Rick Santorum creates a stir by speaking out against prenatal testing. Virginia’s governor and legislature get caught up in an emotional debate over requiring women seeking abortions to undergo an ultrasound. President Obama, under pressure, recalibrates his position on health-insurance coverage of contraception for employers with religious affiliations." Topics such as these hardly refer to those who are moderate or independents. Issues regarding prenatal testing, abortions, and "fetus versus human life" are all issues that have been historically significant amongst "conservatives" and "Republicans", not "Moderates" and "Independents."

"Democrats, including Mr. Obama, have traditionally relied heavily on the female vote. From 1992 to 2008, Democrats won the overall women’s vote in every presidential election, with Mr. Obama defeating Senator John McCain four years ago 56 percent to 43 percent among women, according to exit polls. (Republicans have tended to win white women and married women, with Democrats winning nonwhite women and single women."

Again, I feel like I want to refer back to the very first reading assignment in this class over the way Political Scientists would write news articles...What candidate WOULDNT rely on the female vote? They are one of the LARGEST voting electorates, an electorate that tends to sway back and forth. 

~~~~

Overall, this article was quite disappointing seeing as it was released by the New York Times. The writing was skewed and written with a lack of political prowess that allowed for misrepresentation and over dramatization of the issue at hand. 

Melissa Harris-Perry

I remember reading a blog post by a fellow student the other week about the hope for broadcast news with the airing of a new talk show on MSNBC, hosted by political scientist professor Melissa Harris-Perry.  There was a sense of optimism by many in the political science field, who felt that this was a good thing for  broadcast television news.  I happened to stumble across a clip of her show, as I scanned the Huffington Post home page the other day.  As one of very few (if not the only) black women political science professors with their own television show, naturally we can expect some of her content to be different than a news talk show consisting of three old white dudes.  This was evident in a piece she did about the successful film touted for Oscar glory, "The Help".

Her argument is that "The Help", is a "Disney-fication" of the historical period dominated by Jim Crow laws and that the reality of black maids' employment was "much closer to a horror film than a lighthearted drama. Just ask those who found themselves at the mercy of Jim Crow justice, at the end of the lynch mob's rope or a burning torch...for black maids, the threat of rape was always a clear and present danger."

I am not focusing on the Huffington Post article's coverage, but of the actual video from the show, which can be viewed in its entirety here.

What is refreshing here, is not just the actual experise and relevance of Harris-Perry's guests (rather than your typical political pundit), or the intelligent social critique of the piece, but also of the genuine discussion and argument-formulation that goes on during the discussion.  There is no simple pro- or anti- side one can quickly take, and the guests engage in what seems to be a genuine and semi-formal dialogue about the topic.  Harris-Perry clearly has an opinion on the matter, and does not shy away from sharing that.  However, she does so with civility and respect, often acknowledging the other guests' differing points of view.  Not only is this show positive in engaging topics that might not be completely in line with the status-quo, but the way in which civil political discourse is encouraged makes this show stand out when it comes to responsible news commentary.

More, More, More

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/27/world/middleeast/in-egypt-trial-begins-for-workers-of-nonprofit-groups.html

     A trial in Egypt is the center of controversy. Nothing really happened in the proceedings that were reported upon. The trial was postponed until April after a short time, and none of the American accused were present. The article, itself, states that the defendants broke the letter of Egyptian law—it’s an open and shut case.

     However, the political implications, the involved powers’ pissing contest, and the journalistic coverage is of particular interest.

Let us look at the lead and the first paragraph:

“CAIRO — The politically charged criminal trial of 16 Americans and 27 others accused of running unauthorized and foreign-backed nonprofit groups here opened chaotically on Sunday and then was abruptly put off for nearly two months, all without any hint of resolution of the crisis that has threatened to upend the 30-year American alliance with Egypt.

Fourteen defendants appeared Sunday afternoon in the metal cage that serves as docket. But none of the accused Americans were present; only seven of the Americans remain in the country, including one who is the son of the transportation secretary in the Obama administration. Egyptian authorities have barred the seven from leaving, and they have taken refuge in the American Embassy for fear of arrest.”

Strong wording for an objective article, huh? As we have discussed in class, framing has a direct relationship with the facts that are presented, as well as the facts that are left out. The article shows obvious negative framing. Some framing is evident in blatant diction: the words highlighted above represent this. “Chaotically,” “crisis,” “threatened,” and others all paint the article with a hint of shadow. Other strictly subjective material include the journalist’s choice of facts: “metal cage that serves as a docket,” represents this.  The lead (the opening paragraph a journalist uses to “lead” the reader into the story, providing summary information) is also twice as long as the usual 25 words or less due to excess information. In fact, all the lead has to answer is the: Who? What? When? Where? Why?

Were we to rewrite it to fit journalistic standards, it would read something like this:

“Fourteen defendants appeared in court on Sunday in Cairo, Egypt, charged with running unauthorized and foreign-backed nonprofit organizations.”

 Who What(ed) in Where, charged with Why.

But that isn’t nearly as interesting. In fact, I doubt I would have read the whole article had it not been for the valiant display of international relations repercussions and political posturing.

Is that the solution? Comments-based journalism that thrives in Democratic Corporatist and Polarized Pluralist models enjoy a much higher readership than Liberal model publications. This cannot be the only factor, but one thing is sure—more people are more likely to read more interesting articles.

It's time to talk "Plan B"

Rick Santorum's recent surge in the polls leading up to Super Tuesday has parts of the Republican establishment excited for the possibility of having a hardline, hardcore conservative candidate for the November election against Obama.

Others aren't so sure.

GOP strategists unaffiliated with campaigns keep running the numbers, and an Obama vs. Santorum matchup in December shows Obama winning by a landslide, and that's with a rather anemic economic recovery. If the recovery continues to gain steam, it might not even be a fair fight for Santorum.

Continued after the jump.

Religious Freedom vs New Health Care Mandate

So, we all know that with the new Health Care Reform implementation, employees of religion-affiliated institutions will be required to have access to birth control coverage. The strict Catholics who do not support the use of contraceptives or any sort of birth control are in an uproar about this because they feel that "their religious freedoms are being violated," blah blah blah. Not that I'm not sensitive to their specific beliefs, but I have been more interested in tracking how the various news outlets have chosen to add their spin to what could be an objective story. I just never thought the news outlets would be so blatant with their slanting and framing of the story.

The Washington Post's coverage of the issue is clearly leftist-- supporting Obama's decision, bringing quantitative polls into the picture that show public support of this, publishing the support of specific convents and other Catholic institutions, and essentially presenting Obama as the fair and compromising Messiah.

Of course, blogs posts from outlets on the other side of the aisle are clearly right-leaning-- opposing Obama's decision, bringing in quantitative data and qualitative interviews with Bishops that show dissent, and essentially presenting Obama as a socialist devil bent on world destruction, one religious freedom at a time.

In class we have been discussing how bias may just be perception. I tend to believe the opposite. Every news outlet is biased in some way and their coverage of stories is no different. I will admit though, it seems that liberal news outlets are a little more balanced in their reporting of all of the facts, but the influence from bias on both sides can be very influential on the public.

We discussed examples in class about the framing of news coverage. One that illustrates a story about an adolescent male in poverty might evoke public feelings of detachment while one that illustrates the same story, but of a county's poverty-stricken population might evoke feelings of concern and an urgency to aid. Similarly, the conservative blog frames the story as though there is great dissent from all Catholics and that President Obama is being insensitive to their religious freedoms by citing that some of the convents viewed his compromise as "insulting." The liberal blog from the Washington Post frames the story so that the Catholic men and women are the victims to the insensitive male Bishops who are doing more to control with their top-down approach to govern the Catholic women's bodies. It illustrates that 57 percent of Catholics support the legislation and presents Obama as being very considerate in his consciousness clauses of the bill.

While the majority of the public remains ignorant of politics and key political events, they could easily read these articles and be significantly influenced-- this is the main point of our discussions thus far in class. Should the media be more objective in their reporting? Should the public rise to the occasion and become the informed and responsible citizens the Framers never thought they could be? I would argue a little of both. The public has an obligation to be informed, but like Jefferson stated, if they don't, it is the job of the institutions to educate them. Are they really doing a sufficient job in presenting balanced media coverage? I highly doubt it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/15/us/obama-shift-on-contraception-splits-catholics.html?_r=1&ref=contraception

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/02/16/religious-freedom-vs-new-health-care-mandate-dnc-chair-debbie-wasserman-schultz-and-catholic-league’s-bill-donohue-debate/#more-83510

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sarah-oleary/catholic-bishops-contraception_b_1268683.html

Personalization: A Force for Good or Ill?

We have had a recent discussion about personalization in the media.  There is no doubt, when it comes to political campaigns at least, that the media do their best to personalize a candidate (I cite Fox News' hour long special on each Republican candidate).  Now, I'm not saying this personalization is on purpose, but there is no denying it happens.  This personalization is a part of the media's information bias that many believe could be harming the population as a whole.  In my opinion, I don't think this personalization is extremely harmful, but I do think there should be more of a focus on the issues.  However, in the attached article, it seems to me that personalization has been used as a positive.  Typically, I am critical of the "liberal media" (as any good Republican should be), but here I think the New York Times may have done a good job.

The article I have attached pertains to the ongoing debate between the Obama administration and the Catholic church.  This article is dealing how Catholic hospitals have grown and in the process they have taken over some smaller, secular hospitals.  This taking over of the smaller hospitals has led to more and more hospitals with religious strings attached to them.  Despite the contentious content of the article, the authors do a good job of presenting the opinion of the Catholic church.  In the process, they quote many members of the church, which serves to humanize them.  Up to this point, this battle between the Obama administration and the Catholic church has seemed, to me, to be very impersonal.  But, this article takes the battle and attaches human faces to it.  The article shows that this is not some cosmic battle between two huge organizations.  Rather, it is a disagreement in beliefs over how polices should be implemented.  The battle is not a battle, its people voicing their opinions and hoping to shape policy to favor their opinions.  This process is what our democracy was founded upon.  The voicing of opinions is crucial to our society and that is the sum of this battle.

At a time when much of the mainstream media are hyping up this issue as a confrontation of monumental proportions, the New York Times has done a good job of showing that it really isn't the battle of the century. While I would normally agree that personalization by the media could be a bad thing, in this case I think it is a good thing.  I commend the New York Times for this article and I wish media outlets would write more like it.

By the way, sorry my blog was a day late!

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/21/health/policy/growth-of-catholic-hospitals-may-limit-access-to-reproductive-care.html?_r=1&hp

Big Donors Bring More Then Big Bucks...

We know that donations are made in politics all the time and sometimes there can be very large donations made to candidates and campaigns.  But sometimes the biggest donors can bring in more then cash and they can draw attention from the media.  The most prominent example of this comes for me from a recent story on CNN http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/16/trump-dials-donors-for-romney/.  This story highlights that sometimes big name donors don't need to give cash but having there name attached to your campaign can help garner interest.  To me interest, attention and the media are just as if not more important to getting through an election.  I feel that Donald Trump's involvement with fundraising not only helped Mitt Romney's campaign gain a bunch of cash but, it also helped give Romney another spot on the main news sites.  Due to the person who was helping Romney the media took notice and you can sure bet that story was opened by a bunch of casual news readers.  If it had been someone who had just given Romney a bunch of money it still wouldn't have gathered the attention Trump brings to an election. Anyone who has the money can help finically support Romney's campaign but, bringing Donald Trump into the fray not only draws cash but, valuable media and mainstream attention.

How will coke snorting affect Mr. Obama's ratings?!

Looking through some news online I came across a headline that I thought was a joke since it had the words admit, cocaine, and president Obama, all in the same heading. When I opened it I was both amused and disgusted by the fact a man, after being invited to a White House dinner, snorted cocaine under the table with president Obama just feet away. While this may have been fun and games for two people who may have a few screws loose, the fact that this is now out in the media may not be good for Mr. Obama with elections coming up. While Mr. Obama wasn't the one snorting cocaine, god would that be bad, he was in the room and unaware of this illegal act in his own home. I am sure this is going to raise some eyebrows, and this seemingly harmless admission from a comedian, the negative impact of this story could be bad for Barack Obama. Looks like this may cause some "hypodermic" forms of media on this issue, likely coming from the conservative bunch, having a surplus of negative ideas about a president not knowing illegal drugs are in his own home, being done in his own home, and unable to stop it from happening in his own home. I would venture this could turn into an idea or accusation that since Mr. Obama can't keep illegal drugs out of his own home, how is he to deal with these types of issues on a grander scale?



http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/david-cross-admits-cocaine-president-obama-white-house-dinner-article-1.1025852?localLinksEnabled=false&google_editors_picks=true

BBC vs CNN

Articles: Eurozone ministers 'back 130bn-euro bailout for Greece' (BBC)
Articles: Greece's fate uncertain as bailout talks drag on (CNN)

     The 24-hour news cycle arrived with the advent of television channels dedicated to news, and brought about a much faster pace of news production with increased demand for stories that can be presented as news, as opposed to the day-by-day pace of the news cycle of printed daily newspapers that the generations before us are so familiar with and still to some degree cling to. A high premium on faster would see a further increase with the advent of online news; those born in the past thirty years can relate and connect to this concept. Rather than get our news from the ink stained pages of newsprint, we venture to the internet, blogs, and the occasional viewing of CNN on election nights or a natural catastrophe. A complete news cycle consists of the media reporting on some event, followed by the media reporting on public and other reactions to the earlier reports.

      According to former journalists Bill Kovach and Tom Rosentiel, 24 hour news creates ferocious competition among media organizations for audience share. This, coupled with the profit demand of their corporate ownership, has led to a decline in journalistic standards. In their book Warp Speed: America in the Age of Mixed Media, they write that "the press has moved toward sensationalism, entertainmnet, and opinion" and away from traditional values of verification, proportion, relevance, depth, and quality of interpretation.

      The concept of the 24-hour news cycle has always been intriguing to me, however I had never experienced a delay in coverage between news services which impacted my interpretation; However, tonight when perusing news syndicates I came across similar news topics however with different content, dramatically different content. As of 10:30pm both CNN and BBC had news coverage on the Greece bailout talks in Europe, opening lines differed:

According to BBC: 

"The deal, which came after late-night talks in Brussels, is said to be worth 130bn euros (£110bn; $170bn)." 

According to CNN:

"Eurozone finance officials remained behind closed doors late Monday as a crucial round of talks over a second bailout for Greece looked set to run late into the night."

So which is it? Has there been a decision made? Is one news source skewing the data to make it appear as though there has been a decision? Has one source failed to detect a break in the news? There are so many potential reasons for the lapse in the news announcement on the part of CNN. 

Greece has struggled to meet the conditions of its May 2010 bailout and many eurozone governments have been calling for greater control over how any additional funds would be used, as well as increased oversight of the nation's budget policies. The concern is that if Greece defaults it will be forced to leave the euro currency union, a development that could have severe and unknowable consequences for the global economy. Thus the development of a bailout is significant for not only the Eurozone, but for the United States, Russia, China, and significant global trading partners.

In case you all were wondering, as I was when I opened the news article, Athens needs the funds to avoid bankruptcy next month, when maturing loans must be repaid. The plan, reportedly calls for Greece, in return, to undertake the reduction of its debts to no more than 121% of its GDP by 2020.
"The financial volume (of the Greek deal) is 130bn euros and debt-to-GDP (will be) 121%," one official in Brussels told Reuters news agency. In addition to further highlight the significance of the bailout, the euro rose to $1.3266 from $1.3185 on reports of the deal.