For most people I think it can be pretty exciting when a news story in your backyard reaches the national news. Unfortunately for us here in Central Florida another tragic story of young death has captured the nations attention but at least this time all of the news coverage could have policy results. If you have been living under a rock for the past month I am referring to the news of the Trayvon Martin Killing. While I would like say that I do completely support justice being served and the right things being done. I may be beating a dead horse with this question, but what makes this news, why is the country so fascinated by this case, and will all of the news coverage create outcomes that will better our democracy?
It's hard for me to understand what makes this news. Why? Well because everyday in America someone dies at the hands of another person. And more times than we would like to believe that killing had a motive behind it that mite have just had to do with a persons race or some stereotype that we all know should no longer be around but unfortunately it still is. As for why I see the country being so consumed with this case. Well it's easier to be on the side of what we know is right than stand against something. And for some I think the fascination comes from unfortunate thought of "that could have been my son" and what can I do to make sure it never is.
I can at least say that the continues media coverage of this case does seem to be leading to policy outcomes. It seems as though the simple muckraking model introduced by Graber earlier in the semester, which says journalistic investigation leads to publication of news stories which then arouses public opinion, giving public officials a reason to enact policy outcomes, is being followed. As the coverage of the Martin case has increased and the public outpouring of support has increased public officials have taken notice. As CNN reported "A special prosecutor is investigating the case. A grand jury scheduled to begin deliberations on April 10, but it is uncertain if the group will ever work on the case. The prosecutor, Angela Corey, said Monday on HLN that she has never used a grand jury to decide on charges in a justifiable homicide case...In addition to the investigation led by Corey, the state's governor has formed a task force to review the state's "stand your ground" law. The Justice Department is also investigating. Sanford's city manager, Norton Bonaparte, also has said he is seeking an outside review of the police department's handling of the case." As this case continues to unfold it will be interesting to see how other public officials begin to respond to this case.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/26/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html?hpt=us_c1
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Monday, March 26, 2012
Country of the Week
http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/26/world/asia/korea-obama-visit/index.html?hpt=wo_c1
Take a moment to read that article before reading any further, please. Help me construct my opinion here. Tell me if I'm being too cynical.
On the one hand, foreign policy is something everyone needs to pay attention to. Citizens have to be informed since they vote for a president every four years the majority of a Congress every two that's responsible for setting that policy. And, let's face it, the broadcast news spends most of its time going on about domestic affairs that it's nice to see their other focus once in a while.
On the other hand, the viewing public never seems to pay attention unless it's one of those countries half the country thinks we should go to war with at one point or another--in this case, North Korea.
I'll take the coverage at any rate, but I can't shake the feeling that North Korea's the country of the week. Last week it was Iran, and once we blew off some steam about them like we need to do every year or two when one of our two political parties needs a patriotically distracting headline, we're onto another one.
Given North Korea's current political vulnerability, its still in progress political succession drama, and its constant determined failures at trying to launch nukes, this country is sort of the comic book villain of "America's enemies", the group that fights our 21st century justice league with George W. Bush at its head, a bottle in one hand and his doctrine in the other. But just because modern politics is still trying to figure out how to expel the tumor that is the Bush doctrine doesn't mean the media has to keep milking it for stories and irresponsibly creating artificial crises for the feartainment of a public still in trauma over the threat of terrorism, much less other actual nations.
I don't criticize the media all too often, but in the way they handle foreign policy, they deserve it.
Take a moment to read that article before reading any further, please. Help me construct my opinion here. Tell me if I'm being too cynical.
On the one hand, foreign policy is something everyone needs to pay attention to. Citizens have to be informed since they vote for a president every four years the majority of a Congress every two that's responsible for setting that policy. And, let's face it, the broadcast news spends most of its time going on about domestic affairs that it's nice to see their other focus once in a while.
On the other hand, the viewing public never seems to pay attention unless it's one of those countries half the country thinks we should go to war with at one point or another--in this case, North Korea.
I'll take the coverage at any rate, but I can't shake the feeling that North Korea's the country of the week. Last week it was Iran, and once we blew off some steam about them like we need to do every year or two when one of our two political parties needs a patriotically distracting headline, we're onto another one.
Given North Korea's current political vulnerability, its still in progress political succession drama, and its constant determined failures at trying to launch nukes, this country is sort of the comic book villain of "America's enemies", the group that fights our 21st century justice league with George W. Bush at its head, a bottle in one hand and his doctrine in the other. But just because modern politics is still trying to figure out how to expel the tumor that is the Bush doctrine doesn't mean the media has to keep milking it for stories and irresponsibly creating artificial crises for the feartainment of a public still in trauma over the threat of terrorism, much less other actual nations.
I don't criticize the media all too often, but in the way they handle foreign policy, they deserve it.
CNN'S Politcal Ticker:Ron Paul Hey Im still Here
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/26/paul-dont-count-me-out/
This article by the best darn news team shows that Ron Paul is still alive and kicking and not backing off. That active old geezer is still going strong and not likely to give it up, and CNN is willing to cover him. CNN is at least covering Mr Paul to an extent unlike John Huntsman even though its not alot of coverage its still some. Unlike the tradition of the media just covering the front runners, CNN is still covering the old Texan with attitude. Maybe the media is covering him so closely because he is an interesting character that captivates audiences. The media isn't covering the issues just the fact that Paul is still not backing down the article doesn't even show what Mr Paul's strategy to stay in the race is. In my opinion this may be just a filler story to fill in the 24 news cycle. Maybe the media should put in a little more substance into their stories like Dr. Bennett keeps calling for.
This article by the best darn news team shows that Ron Paul is still alive and kicking and not backing off. That active old geezer is still going strong and not likely to give it up, and CNN is willing to cover him. CNN is at least covering Mr Paul to an extent unlike John Huntsman even though its not alot of coverage its still some. Unlike the tradition of the media just covering the front runners, CNN is still covering the old Texan with attitude. Maybe the media is covering him so closely because he is an interesting character that captivates audiences. The media isn't covering the issues just the fact that Paul is still not backing down the article doesn't even show what Mr Paul's strategy to stay in the race is. In my opinion this may be just a filler story to fill in the 24 news cycle. Maybe the media should put in a little more substance into their stories like Dr. Bennett keeps calling for.
Diamond in the Rough (Part II)
http://www.bet.com/news/national/2012/03/26/trayvon-martin-my-son-and-the-black-male-code.html
Perhaps there is hope for the Journalism "industry" after all. With all the manufactured news out there it's nice to find an artisan's work. I know we had a "Diamond in the Rough" post last week, but this deserves some recognition, too.
The journalist creates a poignant image while refusing to play up the "victim killed by loose cannon" feel: for a seasoned AP writer, this is below his dignity and caliber. Instead, he explains the interaction between father and son.
This is obviously "biased" journalism. Jesse Washington has an express purpose to this writing, a goal that the reader should feel a certain way and adjust their actions and thoughts accordingly. He means to share an experience and thereby shed light on a societal issue. He plans to leave a mark on the world in hopes that another young black man will not have to suffer the same fate.
This is "Social Responsibility" at its finest. This is beauty-- poetry within prose. And, even as a white woman with no personal experience close to this, no ability to empathize whatsoever, I was moved.
Perhaps there is hope for the Journalism "industry" after all. With all the manufactured news out there it's nice to find an artisan's work. I know we had a "Diamond in the Rough" post last week, but this deserves some recognition, too.
The journalist creates a poignant image while refusing to play up the "victim killed by loose cannon" feel: for a seasoned AP writer, this is below his dignity and caliber. Instead, he explains the interaction between father and son.
This is obviously "biased" journalism. Jesse Washington has an express purpose to this writing, a goal that the reader should feel a certain way and adjust their actions and thoughts accordingly. He means to share an experience and thereby shed light on a societal issue. He plans to leave a mark on the world in hopes that another young black man will not have to suffer the same fate.
This is "Social Responsibility" at its finest. This is beauty-- poetry within prose. And, even as a white woman with no personal experience close to this, no ability to empathize whatsoever, I was moved.
Were you?
Post scrpitum: It is interesting to note that this and last week's inspired posts were from two AP writers. What prompts them to such good work? Perhaps a follow-up is in order.
Open Mic Mess Up
If you have been to the CNN political page today you have most likely seen this story (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/26/open-mic-catches-obama-asking-russian-president-for-space-on-missile-defense/) about how President Obama made a comment picked up by an open mic. Clearly, this is a tough situation for Obama as he clearly didn't want this comment to be public knowledge. Realistically, it's understandable to think that leaders have these conversations all the time. As we know reelection is vital and leaders will do whatever it takes. The media in this case appears to in my opinion been in the right place at the right time. Now that this comment is within the American news system however it is sure to be regurgitated, analyzed and heck maybe CNN will even have a special hour dedicated to talking heads telling us the political ramifications of this statement. While some of that may not happen we will certainly be hearing about it. Already we have seen reactions from GOP contenders and critiquing the President's remarks. As I was writing this I went back to check how many stories were already on the CNN homepage about this story and I counted about 4. So while this comment is clearly important I don't think it needs to be covered in 4 valuable news slots. Already the story is being repeated and the vicious cycle that the media has continues again...
Obama Warning North Korea
Obama warned North Korea on Sunday that if they did not change their ways they would not be rewarded. By rewarded he meant such as aid from the United States more particularly food. Even though the United Nations sanctions should not allow North Korea to launch a satellite that they plan on using, the people in power or new leaders are pressing forward with the task at hand. It was funny to me that we spoke about the social cognitive theory today, because warning the North Korean's shows that Obama has been watching their actions and therefore judging them for their actions. North Korea hasn't been the only ones spoken to. Obama expressed his frustration with the Chinese for saying that their actions, such as the mistreatment of their people, has led to the likes of North Korea's constant defiance.
In saying all that, I believe the author depicted Obama as being totally in the right. I guess there is bias there obviously because an American paper should usually support our government. More importantly, it is simply because President Obama is right and should continue to keep an eye on these countries. I guess I just want to know where you draw the line between getting involved and just watching over them.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/26/world/asia/president-obama-visits-south-korea.html?scp=2&sq=obama&st=cse
In saying all that, I believe the author depicted Obama as being totally in the right. I guess there is bias there obviously because an American paper should usually support our government. More importantly, it is simply because President Obama is right and should continue to keep an eye on these countries. I guess I just want to know where you draw the line between getting involved and just watching over them.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/26/world/asia/president-obama-visits-south-korea.html?scp=2&sq=obama&st=cse
Sensationalism
March 26, 2012
My friend and I started watching MSNBC and FOX news, Greta Van Susteren. My friend, who I will not disclose is not in our media in politics class so she is not aware of all the underlying meanings and reasons why the media do what they do. We were flipping between MSNBC and Fox to see how the same story can be framed in 2 totally different ways. On Greta Van Susteren show On the Record, her main point was the new health care reforms. After she got done discussing that she then moved to more sensational stories that I recognized immediately, thanks to our class. On the other hand, my friend asked if I would leave it on FOX because she thought FOX was more interesting. The stories that Greta was discussing was the debut of Tim Tebow in New York, an easter egg that no longer is going to happen because of parents getting out of control, Bald Eagle babies being born and the high prices of food at sporting events. After she got done watching, I asked her why she wanted me to leave it and she responded with “the news is too bias, Greta was talking about issues that can not be bias.” I found this very interesting because we have discussed in class the biases of the media and how they are effecting people. However biases often lead to selective exposer and selective interpretations, but for my friend it led her to watch the news channel that showed content that was hard to make a bias argument. How can Bald Eagles be a bias issue? I asked my friend what political party she is associated with because I wanted to see if that had an effect on her choice of her FOX channel choice and she said she does not identity with either of the parties. I know that we have said in class that there is no such thing as completely objective news stories but I see my friend being objective when considering her news sources because she simple chose the more interesting less bias stories.
This directly ties into the discussion of the media giving the people what they want might not always be the best thing for them. Is Tim Tebow vital information to the American public? I don’t think so, it is completely sensationalized information. After my friend left I flipped back to MSNBC and I saw Tim Tebow on there as well. Sensationalism is clearly not restrained to just FOX News and MSNBC, most every news outlet has sensationalized information. This is widening the knowledge gap between the elite and ‘normal’ people because my friend is not the only one who chooses news outlets like this.
Covering up a crime?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/27/us/shooter-of-florida-teen-describes-assault.html?_r=1&hp#
Recent news has been released with more background information into the controversial murder of the young black teen, Trayvon Martin. But this news is an excellent example of media bias, framing, and personalization.
George Zimmerman, the man who killed Martin, gave his side of what happened that night to the Sanford Police who then released Zimmerman's account of that night to the State Attorneys Office. Zimmerman said that he had followed Martin but could not find Martin at one point so he headed back to his S.U.V, this is when Zimmerman says that Martin approached him from behind and the two exchanged words. Then Zimmerman says that Martin hit him in the face hard enough to knock him down. Zimmerman stated that after this, Martin repeatedly "slammed" Zimmerman's head into the sidewalk, which lead to Zimmerman shooting Martin.
This particular article is all about background on Trayvon's life and actions from Trayvon's past in a ridiculous effort to give some truth to Zimmerman's side of the story. The journalist may be simply trying to even out the issue and give another prospective than what everyone has been hearing, but the journalist doesn't have a plausible case or point to make. The journalist continuously points out things about Trayvon's past, such as Trayvon being suspended from high school for ten days for having traces of Marijuana found in his backpack. Then more background on Martin was mentioned, in which Martin had been suspended in the past for truancy and graffiti.
But none of these incidents from Martins past suggest nothing close to violence. Martin had no history of violence, he was a normal kid who skipped school every once in a while, so what? The bottom line is that Zimmerman had no right and no cause for following Martin. If you look at the pictures of Zimmerman and Martin; Zimmerman is a fat man in his twenties and Martin is a scrawny teenager. The Journalist framed this story into personal information on Martin that, for the most part, had no relevance to the incident. This journalist focused on providing information to support Zimmerman's point of view. The journalist does give some information that supports Martin's side of the issue, but I think this is because the journalist had to do it in order to escape the risk of appearing 100 percent in favor of Zimmerman and his side of the issue. The bias in this article is in favor of Zimmerman and tries to give support for Zimmerman and his action.
Recent news has been released with more background information into the controversial murder of the young black teen, Trayvon Martin. But this news is an excellent example of media bias, framing, and personalization.
George Zimmerman, the man who killed Martin, gave his side of what happened that night to the Sanford Police who then released Zimmerman's account of that night to the State Attorneys Office. Zimmerman said that he had followed Martin but could not find Martin at one point so he headed back to his S.U.V, this is when Zimmerman says that Martin approached him from behind and the two exchanged words. Then Zimmerman says that Martin hit him in the face hard enough to knock him down. Zimmerman stated that after this, Martin repeatedly "slammed" Zimmerman's head into the sidewalk, which lead to Zimmerman shooting Martin.
This particular article is all about background on Trayvon's life and actions from Trayvon's past in a ridiculous effort to give some truth to Zimmerman's side of the story. The journalist may be simply trying to even out the issue and give another prospective than what everyone has been hearing, but the journalist doesn't have a plausible case or point to make. The journalist continuously points out things about Trayvon's past, such as Trayvon being suspended from high school for ten days for having traces of Marijuana found in his backpack. Then more background on Martin was mentioned, in which Martin had been suspended in the past for truancy and graffiti.
But none of these incidents from Martins past suggest nothing close to violence. Martin had no history of violence, he was a normal kid who skipped school every once in a while, so what? The bottom line is that Zimmerman had no right and no cause for following Martin. If you look at the pictures of Zimmerman and Martin; Zimmerman is a fat man in his twenties and Martin is a scrawny teenager. The Journalist framed this story into personal information on Martin that, for the most part, had no relevance to the incident. This journalist focused on providing information to support Zimmerman's point of view. The journalist does give some information that supports Martin's side of the issue, but I think this is because the journalist had to do it in order to escape the risk of appearing 100 percent in favor of Zimmerman and his side of the issue. The bias in this article is in favor of Zimmerman and tries to give support for Zimmerman and his action.
A Different Type of Media
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-obama-open-microphone-20120327,0,1479756.story
I found this piece interesting and also related to our discussion of the relationship between media coverage, public opinion, and foreign policy. Aside from regular coverage, this story was framed as "off the mic" type of news. The chapter from the book tells us that while their is no definitive relationship between public opinion and foreign policy, the way that the media frames a story can have significant impacts on the way the public views foreign policy. That being noted, I think that this story is framed in a unique way. Whether or not Obama really cares about the media "overhearing" his conversation with Medvedev, the media framed the story as something that should have never been heard. In my opinion, this type of framing will change the way people interpret the content being presented.
Actually, I think these types of "leak" stories give people more information about government and our political leaders than perhaps more regular news stories do on a side by side comparison of individual news stories. It is similar to the wikileaks fiasco, but the framing is entirely different. Obama reference to flexibility in a second term and how that will affect both domestic politics and foreign relations with Russia. I think those are pretty complex issues for perhaps casual readers. I haven't exactly determined how the framing of this story changes its interpretation, but I do believe this type of framing has an effect when people are presented news that they believe that they weren't supposed to get.
I found this piece interesting and also related to our discussion of the relationship between media coverage, public opinion, and foreign policy. Aside from regular coverage, this story was framed as "off the mic" type of news. The chapter from the book tells us that while their is no definitive relationship between public opinion and foreign policy, the way that the media frames a story can have significant impacts on the way the public views foreign policy. That being noted, I think that this story is framed in a unique way. Whether or not Obama really cares about the media "overhearing" his conversation with Medvedev, the media framed the story as something that should have never been heard. In my opinion, this type of framing will change the way people interpret the content being presented.
Actually, I think these types of "leak" stories give people more information about government and our political leaders than perhaps more regular news stories do on a side by side comparison of individual news stories. It is similar to the wikileaks fiasco, but the framing is entirely different. Obama reference to flexibility in a second term and how that will affect both domestic politics and foreign relations with Russia. I think those are pretty complex issues for perhaps casual readers. I haven't exactly determined how the framing of this story changes its interpretation, but I do believe this type of framing has an effect when people are presented news that they believe that they weren't supposed to get.
Media coverage during gunman crisis in my hometown
Today, the town in which I grew up was subjected to something we have never truly had to deal with, complete and utter Terror. At around 10am a College I used to attend, along with many other schools were forced to lockdown due to a unknown gunman carrying a riffle. Parents, students and towns people didn't even know how to handle such a situation, they could only sit and watch as their children and friends were stuck inside buildings. People were urged to stay in their homes, lock the windows and doors, and to not leave the home under any circumstances. The only way for all of us who were out of town, and even those who were in town, to find out what was happening was to follow the news coverage. Not only were we glued to our televisions and computers for real time news, but I followed everything through Facebook and also local forums. The local forum was actually the most informative of all the outlets.
I have never watched "real time" news like I saw today. Every second someone would post an update of what they were seeing, "helicopters arrived at 11:16", "SWAT closed off X road at X time". While this was terrifying for myself to read, it was also relieving to know actions were being taken and people were safe. Students I attended college with were actually communicating during lockdown through Facebook or the local forum, and able to express that they were ok.
From over a thousand miles away, I was able to stay informed on the entire situation. The gunman was never caught, they lifted the lockdowns and heavy police activity remains in the area. However, many of the locals were listening to the police scanners and it sounded as if they caught the suspect, Which is quite contradicting to the police statement that the report was "unfounded" and they will continue to investigate.
I am curious if they are holding back information for purposes unknown.
While this is a horrible experience for my hometown, it obviously does not effect the nation as a whole. However, my town's experience is a great example of how quickly all media outlets cover a crisis. The media were constantly updating their stories, at one point I had heard from someone inside the school that the lockdown was lifted, at 2pm. By 2:24 I was reading an article about the lockdown being lifted, and that was one of the later publishings.
I actually find the emergency response during this to be amazing. The response was nearly immediate, and being such a small town it was quite shocking how quickly helicopters, bordering town's police forces, and SWAT were able to react.
I am still in shock over how quickly the story unraveled and how media was able to keep me informed through the entire ordeal. I am pretty thankful for not only the news, but the new media (facebook, twitter, public forums, blogs) for everyone to be able to converse and stay informed, allowing everyone to stay as safe as possible. Complete and utter success in the role of the media, I have a new appreciation for it.
http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/warren-county/express-times/index.ssf/2012/03/lockdown_lifted_of_hackettstow.html
There are many other news sources.
I have never watched "real time" news like I saw today. Every second someone would post an update of what they were seeing, "helicopters arrived at 11:16", "SWAT closed off X road at X time". While this was terrifying for myself to read, it was also relieving to know actions were being taken and people were safe. Students I attended college with were actually communicating during lockdown through Facebook or the local forum, and able to express that they were ok.
From over a thousand miles away, I was able to stay informed on the entire situation. The gunman was never caught, they lifted the lockdowns and heavy police activity remains in the area. However, many of the locals were listening to the police scanners and it sounded as if they caught the suspect, Which is quite contradicting to the police statement that the report was "unfounded" and they will continue to investigate.
I am curious if they are holding back information for purposes unknown.
While this is a horrible experience for my hometown, it obviously does not effect the nation as a whole. However, my town's experience is a great example of how quickly all media outlets cover a crisis. The media were constantly updating their stories, at one point I had heard from someone inside the school that the lockdown was lifted, at 2pm. By 2:24 I was reading an article about the lockdown being lifted, and that was one of the later publishings.
I actually find the emergency response during this to be amazing. The response was nearly immediate, and being such a small town it was quite shocking how quickly helicopters, bordering town's police forces, and SWAT were able to react.
I am still in shock over how quickly the story unraveled and how media was able to keep me informed through the entire ordeal. I am pretty thankful for not only the news, but the new media (facebook, twitter, public forums, blogs) for everyone to be able to converse and stay informed, allowing everyone to stay as safe as possible. Complete and utter success in the role of the media, I have a new appreciation for it.
http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/warren-county/express-times/index.ssf/2012/03/lockdown_lifted_of_hackettstow.html
There are many other news sources.
Obama's "Secret Agenda" and Your Future
Although there has been much speculation on what people are
calling “Obama’s own Etch A Sketch moment”, I find it hard to rap my head
around how blown over proportion the President’s comment to Russian President
Dmitry Medvedev has become. It troubles me how such a seemingly subtle comment
as
“This is my last election. After my election,
I have more flexibility.”
Can inspire such scenes as this:
Which doesn’t surprise me as this quote will undoubtedly be
relentlessly used by republicans to criticize the President’s supposed “secret
agenda”. In regards to the President’s “secret agenda” Republicans pose this to
the public:
“Ready for mandatory military service, disarmament and
censored speech? If not, then either prepare yourself for Obama’s New World
Order and socialism or start investigating what our America will become.”
And let’s not forget comparing the President to “... Hitler,
Stalin, and Lenin.”
Though I may be lacking the vivid imagination that automatically
kicked in for some Republicans after hearing President Obama’s comment, I do
have the will to analyze this “hot mic” scandal further in detail so as to
conclude whether or not media framing is responsible for this nonsense criticism.
What I am referring to as framing is specifically episodic
framing. Shanto Iyengar defines episodic framing as “event-oriented reports [that]
depicts public issues in terms of concrete instances.” Iyengar notes that, “Television
reports that rely on visuals of an event will be more entertaining to an
audience, yet provide little useful narrative interpretation to understand the
broader issue.”
The sound bite of President Obama’s comment, along with the
photo depicting the conversation, seem to be perfect examples of episodic framing
because:
1)
It is entertaining to catch the President in a suggestive
moment which to many implies a radical second term if he were to be re-elected.
2)
Although this sound bite is entertaining to many
with strong imaginations, it does little to inform the public of what the
broader subject of the President’s bilateral meeting with Russian President
Medvedev, which was to exemplify the cooperation between the US and Russia so
as to look forward to resolving issues with missile defense.
I began with the intention to defend the President from
further criticism by analyzing this sound bite for what it truly is: an
incident of episodic framing. For those who lie awake at night shivering in
their sheets, with the thoughts of the President’s “secret agenda” I ask you
one question: Why would the President after having four years to implement this supposed “secret agenda”
wait until his second term to unleash this agenda when 4 perfectly good years
have just gone by? And furthermore why would you undermine a system of checks
and balances where a president cannot act with authoritarian rule?
<http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/26/open-mic-catches-obama-asking-russian-president-for-space-on-missile-defense/?hpt=hp_c1>
<http://www.pakalertpress.com/2010/12/27/prepare-new-nuclear-war-preparedness-guide-fedgov/>
<http://gothamist.com/2012/03/26/obama_caught_telling_truth_on_hot_m.php>
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/03/26/remarks-president-obama-and-president-medvedev-russia-after-bilateral-me>
<http://merciad.mercyhurst.edu/node/61>
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/26/obama-begs-russians-space-missile-defense-talks/>
<http://bostonglobe.com/2012/03/26/president-obama-has-own-etch-sketch-moment-with-open-mic-comment-russian/WQWVRUifiTfjgy5ciFmxcI/story.html>
<http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/03/obamas_flexible_second_term.html>
The Media: The Ultimate Linkage Institution
I was intrigued by the recent in-class discussion about how the public and the elites in society both use the media for their own distinct purposes. We, the general public in society, use the media to tell us what the elites are doing. We look to the media to explain to us what certain things mean, how the elites view a certain issue, how certain portions of the government function, etc. On the contrary, the elites in society use the media to find out how we, the general public, feel about certain issues. I guess you could say the elites use the media to take the public's temperature on certain issues. Furthermore, while the elites are using the media to tell them what we think, they are also trying to shape the media to frame stories in a way that suits their purpose. Basically, it seems like a cycle where the media is the constant go between that links the elites in society with the "commoners."
I wondered if this was accurate or not. Naturally, it seems like it would be true, but I wanted to find some evidence of this. Well, I seem to have found some proof of this in a recent New York Times article relating to the healthcare law that is coming before the Supreme Court. This article begins by discussing how Justice Clarence Thomas views the outside pressures that the Court is facing when it comes to the high profile oral arguments over the healthcare law. This portion of the article gives us, the public, an insight into how a Supreme Court Justice prepares for an important case such as this. This links the general public, us, with the elites of society. This portion of the article gives us the personal insight of a Supreme Court Justice.
The other thing I found interesting was the way the article also provided information that would be useful for a Supreme Court Justice to know. The article discusses many of the outside groups involved in the case and the positions that some of these groups take. By reading an article such as this, a justice could get some background into the case while learning the positions of these various groups. Now, it is important to mention that Supreme Court Justices should obviously try to ignore outside pressures and rule simply on the merits of the case. However, we know that the Supreme Court does not operate in a vacuum. As such, these types of articles help show the elites the views of the general public when it comes to certain issues.
To me, this article was a living example of some of the topics that we recently discussed in class. It was interesting to me to see how one article could seemingly serve both the needs of the public and the elites. The more I study, the more it seems that the media is somewhat of an invaluable tool when it comes to our political process. Politicians, businessman, and the general public alike all use the media for different purposes. What is equally interesting is the fact that the media is able to fulfill all of these roles at the same time while still operating in a marketplace. The media is a truly unique institution that serves as the oil in the machine of government.
I wondered if this was accurate or not. Naturally, it seems like it would be true, but I wanted to find some evidence of this. Well, I seem to have found some proof of this in a recent New York Times article relating to the healthcare law that is coming before the Supreme Court. This article begins by discussing how Justice Clarence Thomas views the outside pressures that the Court is facing when it comes to the high profile oral arguments over the healthcare law. This portion of the article gives us, the public, an insight into how a Supreme Court Justice prepares for an important case such as this. This links the general public, us, with the elites of society. This portion of the article gives us the personal insight of a Supreme Court Justice.
The other thing I found interesting was the way the article also provided information that would be useful for a Supreme Court Justice to know. The article discusses many of the outside groups involved in the case and the positions that some of these groups take. By reading an article such as this, a justice could get some background into the case while learning the positions of these various groups. Now, it is important to mention that Supreme Court Justices should obviously try to ignore outside pressures and rule simply on the merits of the case. However, we know that the Supreme Court does not operate in a vacuum. As such, these types of articles help show the elites the views of the general public when it comes to certain issues.
To me, this article was a living example of some of the topics that we recently discussed in class. It was interesting to me to see how one article could seemingly serve both the needs of the public and the elites. The more I study, the more it seems that the media is somewhat of an invaluable tool when it comes to our political process. Politicians, businessman, and the general public alike all use the media for different purposes. What is equally interesting is the fact that the media is able to fulfill all of these roles at the same time while still operating in a marketplace. The media is a truly unique institution that serves as the oil in the machine of government.
Friday, March 23, 2012
The independent myth and a thing or two about the new media
Folks, It's science. Independents are still a myth.
According to a study done by Third Way (a think tank--whatever that means) shows that Independents, over time, do change their votes more often than partisans. This hints towards the idea that they are not pretending. Many scholars have posited over time that Independents are "closeted partisans", of a sort. This study shows that the rule only typically applies to each election cycle, and shows over time that these Independents really do (sometimes) change their votes (slightly).
Jamelle Bouie (awesome name) argues that this study does little do actually dispute the previous theory that Independents don't really exist for a few reasons. Firstly, the study doesn't take into consideration the geographical implications of party ID. Many southern Democrats are actually quite conservative, and vote for conservatives in major elections. However, because of history, these voters still belong to the Democratic party.
The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of voters vote based on their personal circumstances. If they have a job, if they own a house, if they have investments with Goldman Sachs - they vote accordingly. Independents are most certainly partisan towards some direction, and show that in the 2006 and 2008 elections. Circumstances en masse do change, and Independents aren't more pleased with middle-of-the-road policies. They are pleased or displeased with the same partisan policy everyone else is.
This article is great, because it shows some of the good and bad things about the new media. In the new media, academic studies aren't just glossed over in the first sentence of a news-brief. They are picked apart and analyzed. The good part is that sometimes the blogger is right. The bad part is that sometimes the blogger is wrong. Really wrong. It will be interesting to see which group of bloggers (the right and the wrong) prevails in the coming decade or so.
According to a study done by Third Way (a think tank--whatever that means) shows that Independents, over time, do change their votes more often than partisans. This hints towards the idea that they are not pretending. Many scholars have posited over time that Independents are "closeted partisans", of a sort. This study shows that the rule only typically applies to each election cycle, and shows over time that these Independents really do (sometimes) change their votes (slightly).
Jamelle Bouie (awesome name) argues that this study does little do actually dispute the previous theory that Independents don't really exist for a few reasons. Firstly, the study doesn't take into consideration the geographical implications of party ID. Many southern Democrats are actually quite conservative, and vote for conservatives in major elections. However, because of history, these voters still belong to the Democratic party.
The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of voters vote based on their personal circumstances. If they have a job, if they own a house, if they have investments with Goldman Sachs - they vote accordingly. Independents are most certainly partisan towards some direction, and show that in the 2006 and 2008 elections. Circumstances en masse do change, and Independents aren't more pleased with middle-of-the-road policies. They are pleased or displeased with the same partisan policy everyone else is.
This article is great, because it shows some of the good and bad things about the new media. In the new media, academic studies aren't just glossed over in the first sentence of a news-brief. They are picked apart and analyzed. The good part is that sometimes the blogger is right. The bad part is that sometimes the blogger is wrong. Really wrong. It will be interesting to see which group of bloggers (the right and the wrong) prevails in the coming decade or so.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Sensationalism
Fox News
Geraldo at Large
March 17, 2012
There were two main events that Geraldo reported on. His first point was Mitt Romney won Puerto Rico with all 20 delegates! His next point was featuring the U.S. soldier who killed 16 civilians. The soldier killing 16 civilians is very important and I do not want to downgrade the grief that people are going through, but should it still be a “Fox Alert” headline? This happened over a week ago. Geraldo did not just report what happened to the victims but he also framed the story more relatable for “normal” Americans because he reported the story in a way that made the soldier look like he was having personal and economic problems. The news story was based around the soldiers family and economic problems not the victims families. None of this was information was new information that Americans needed to know. We have spoke a lot about sensationalism in class and this is clear in this news report. The entire story is about giving people what they want, not about what they need. I do think that we needed to know about the soldier killing 16 innocent people but I do not think it is necessary for America to know the personal business of the soldier's life. This report is not informing Americans on information that it detrimental, in fact it is hurting the family of the soldier. As Geraldo said the soldier is a father and a husband and reporting on the family is only making the situation worse for them. It is not their fault their father or husband killed anyone, in the end the decision was ultimately up to the soldier.
The next story that Geraldo covered was prostitution in the United States and he titled it as the Prime Fox Alert. I do realize that prostitution is a concern but should it be on national news or should the Syrian crisis be on the news? The Syrian crisis is a concern that is happening right now that should be on the front of newspapers and should be the headlines on the news everyday until this horrific massacre of people is stopped.
I have been bashing Geraldo’s show throughout this blog but I want to make it clear that I do not think he is doing a bad job, I just think that what his reported stories could have greater significance. Now that I say that, I do not want to downgrade the grief that people are going through but I believe that the killing of 16 people is over and the soldiers family is not important to the issue. Most all media outlets participate in sensationalism in some way. If the media did not do this the quality of the news would be much higher. Giving the people what they want is not always what they need. If the media gave the people what they needed then I believe the people would realize the importance of news content.
Blurring the Lines of the Public vs. the Market Audience
The image above is provided by the liberal blog ThinkProgress and the short, cranky article that dissects it can be found here. If you're not familiar with the Treyvon Martin story, the confirmed facts of the case be found here. In a nutshell, a 17 year-old, unarmed African American boy was shot by 28 year-old white man named George Zimmerman. So far, Zimmerman's motive is unclear, but a 911 recorded conversation just before the shooting revealed that Zimmerman followed him unnecessarily and reported that Martin looked "like he's up to no good, on drugs or something." Martin had no criminal record to date. Above, ThinkProgress charts the amount of news coverage each of the three major news networks allotted to this story. To only report on the development of this story once is uhm, outrageous. Here, the liberal blog Wonkette eviscerates Fox News for their negligence, so if you're into that sort of thing, you'll enjoy their take down of the outlet they describe as a "steady stream of artlessly jingoistic vomit, spewing forth from helmet-headed hairspray sacks who move their lips while reading important reports on hurricanes and other outrages against Heartland (= white, irrespective of actual location) America." But it's easy to pick on Fox News.
Instead, I'd like to ask whether Fox News' decision to neglect this story reflects their view of their audience as a public or a market. Usually, stories of senseless violence are the sort of thing the public audience thinks it deserves to know about. Coupled with the issue of race, the Martin story is definitely the stuff of evening prime time news. Why did Fox ignore it? Were they worried about offending members of their white audience who sympathize with Zimmerman's fear of blacks? It strikes me that Fox could have still reported the story and weighed in on the issue by coming to the defense of Zimmerman. What's going on here?
72 Hours Under Fire
As was mentioned in class, when broadcast news stations pay special attention to events going on in the world, it usually comes in some form of an hour special. This past weekend I watch 72 Hours Under Fire. A special report that offers a behind the scenes look at reporting in Syria. A special that originally aired on CNN on March 11. CNN sent a three person team into Homs, Syria to report on the on the unrest that started there last March. The team was able capture images from a clinic in Homs that was run by two doctors and 20 volunteers and footage of the daily bombing and fighting that has caused most residents to flee or hide. From the special the viewers where able to get a true understanding of the unrest and devastation that has been going on in Syria. This special also does a great job at showing the difficulty that journalist in the field face and many of the dilemmas that they face such as; when to turn off the camera and help and when to stay back and not intervene. A quote from the journalist on the team explains how difficult it can be, "You have to be in it – seeing it, smelling it, listening to it – so that at the end of the day you can do justice to what the people are suffering. And [the activists] know by having us there, it’s going to help tell that story.”
"72 Hours Under Fire also reveals the tough choices news executives like Maddox were constantly having to make, including pulling the team out of Syria before Damon wanted to leave."
"72 Hours Under Fire also reveals the tough choices news executives like Maddox were constantly having to make, including pulling the team out of Syria before Damon wanted to leave."
Monday, March 19, 2012
Media-- casting a veil of ignorance?
The US has a nasty habit of demonizing the "them," and glorifying the "us" using the media. Concerning war specifically, the media loves to over-sensationalize combat as an alpha-male game of property, oil, and pride, as if it's a video game, but neglecting to publicize content that exposes the results of American corruption. The corrupt officials in the armed forces that compromise our American values and engage in the torturing and execution of innocent foreign civilians are rarely covered. This is the missing piece in the picture. We can rest our heads at night thinking that our freedoms are being protected by soldiers fighting honestly and valiantly to safeguard them because the media told us they did. But what are they not telling us? Showing us?
In this article, an army official snuck away from the base in the Kandahar Province at night to kill 16-17 more Afghans in their homes nearby. He has been sanctioned preemptively including being returned to a Midwest Correctional Facility by the armed forces as he awaits trial.
Surprisingly, this is one story where the media hastened to cover the death toll and other specifics regarding the incident, but more often stories such as this not only are lost in the shuffle, the disparate damage to the opposing country isn't reported. What does emerge beneath the headlines of newspapers about this issue is an exemplary soldier adorned in medals and pictured as a war hero. If the pictures of the dead and smoldered bodies in this incident were published on the front covers of these headlined articles instead of an "American war hero," would we feel the same way toward the incident?
We rarely miss the camera flashes and video recordings of the funerals of cracked out American icons but always miss out on the explicit content involving the malpractice of our own leaders during war that result in foreign deaths. This is partially due to government influence to manipulate media coverage of issues so that they can save face. But perhaps this points to another issue-- how effective is the media in serving as the watchdog over the government when it comes to recognizing the shortcoming of officials in our armed forces? We've discussed in class how reporters that accompany platoons feel a certain loyalty toward the soldiers that fight alongside them, which their reporting reflects. Is there any other compelling reason as to why the media will soften the war stories in news reporting?
One thing is clear-- the public is soothed by knowing information, especially compelling information. This ensures that they have an extra set of eyes where they cannot travel themselves. While certain news coverage is deemed as sensitive and confidential for the best interest of the public such as foreign relation plans, there is no reason why reporting explicit war results should be censored. To censor this does the public a disservice in my opinion-- a despotism of the media.
Tocqueville mentions that the government controls as a soft despot while keeping the public in a false consciousness, as Karl Marx coins the term. The media exercises a considerable control of public access to information, the way that it is reported, and how the issues are framed. They can therefore manipulate public opinion in some fashion. It is a stretch comparison but perhaps the media can be compared to a despot entity that somewhat controls the people, or their perceptions for that matter, keeping the public in a false consciousness of what is really occurring around them except the reality that they want them to see. My vote is-- to a degree, absolutely. As Tocqueville imagined it, soft despotism would keep the public from having to think; or in context, from having to invest energy in finding the real story and processing it themselves. The media does this all the time, not just with stories concerning war.
We can live with pride and security in our armed forces while they may die without reason or justice. We're never the wiser because we're blinded by a facade of victories and the neck of Bin Laden as a notch on our belts. This is a facade if I've ever seen one... a veil of ignorance for the public.
NY Times:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/soldier_battles_allegedly_slayed_CnQ0nbIpMXgDDWkAKEW0HJ
http://www.cbs12.com/news/civilians-4739446-former-accused.html
Black Teen Wrongly Killed.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/19/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html?hpt=us_c1
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/13/2692045/unarmed-teens-killing-in-sanford.html
A 17 year-old teenager, Trayvon Martin, was shot and killed by a volunteer neighborhood watchman in Sanford, Florida last month. The volunteer watchman, George Zimmerman, told police that he shot the teen in self defense. Zimmerman called the police and reported that a "suspicious" man, but police told him to not do anything about it. Yet Martin was merely walking home with candy and a drink. The local police say they have no evidence to dispute Zimmerman's claim that he acted in self defense. The Sanford police told reporters that Zimmerman haas called the police 46 times since 2001.
The incident has made national news. Due to lack of action by local police, the justice department has gotten involved and is doing an investigation along with the FBI. The people of Sandford are demanding justice; and rightfully so. The volunteer watchman, George Zimmerman, has still not been arrested.
Zimmerman is clearly a man that watches too much news and takes his volunteer watchman job way too seriously. He had no reason to shoot this young man other that racial profiling. Zimmerman is a 28 year old white male and Martin was a 17 year old black male. Although the police told Zimmerman to not confront Martin and to wait for police to arrive, Zimmerman approached Martin and a fight broke out between the two, resulting in the shooting of Martin.
Zimmerman had absolutley no reason to confront Martin or to even be suspicious of Martin. The police and other law enforcement need to do something about this incident quick. The police have refused to release tapes of the 911 calls made by several neighbors and Zimmerman himself.
This brings out the question, Should the media release inside information to the public? I am willing to bet there is some evidence of racial profiling on those tapes, so if they are released and no immediate action is taken, the public might demand justice in drastic ways and may even riot. The media should release the tapes to the public if they get them, because the public needs to be informed of what really happened that night so that they can demand justice. The media needs to provide any information on matters such as this because it gives the public the power to demand action and justice. The information the media has given to the public has proved to be very helpful already. The reason the FBI and justice department have gotten involved is because the public has demanded action and justice. In this case, the media has done its job and is continuing to do its job and provide the public with the necessary information so that the public can demand the right action; which the public is currently doing. Colleges and people all over the nation are protesting and demanding action.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/13/2692045/unarmed-teens-killing-in-sanford.html
A 17 year-old teenager, Trayvon Martin, was shot and killed by a volunteer neighborhood watchman in Sanford, Florida last month. The volunteer watchman, George Zimmerman, told police that he shot the teen in self defense. Zimmerman called the police and reported that a "suspicious" man, but police told him to not do anything about it. Yet Martin was merely walking home with candy and a drink. The local police say they have no evidence to dispute Zimmerman's claim that he acted in self defense. The Sanford police told reporters that Zimmerman haas called the police 46 times since 2001.
The incident has made national news. Due to lack of action by local police, the justice department has gotten involved and is doing an investigation along with the FBI. The people of Sandford are demanding justice; and rightfully so. The volunteer watchman, George Zimmerman, has still not been arrested.
Zimmerman is clearly a man that watches too much news and takes his volunteer watchman job way too seriously. He had no reason to shoot this young man other that racial profiling. Zimmerman is a 28 year old white male and Martin was a 17 year old black male. Although the police told Zimmerman to not confront Martin and to wait for police to arrive, Zimmerman approached Martin and a fight broke out between the two, resulting in the shooting of Martin.
Zimmerman had absolutley no reason to confront Martin or to even be suspicious of Martin. The police and other law enforcement need to do something about this incident quick. The police have refused to release tapes of the 911 calls made by several neighbors and Zimmerman himself.
This brings out the question, Should the media release inside information to the public? I am willing to bet there is some evidence of racial profiling on those tapes, so if they are released and no immediate action is taken, the public might demand justice in drastic ways and may even riot. The media should release the tapes to the public if they get them, because the public needs to be informed of what really happened that night so that they can demand justice. The media needs to provide any information on matters such as this because it gives the public the power to demand action and justice. The information the media has given to the public has proved to be very helpful already. The reason the FBI and justice department have gotten involved is because the public has demanded action and justice. In this case, the media has done its job and is continuing to do its job and provide the public with the necessary information so that the public can demand the right action; which the public is currently doing. Colleges and people all over the nation are protesting and demanding action.
CNN Explains The Nomination Process looks like education taking place
http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/19/politics/gop-delegate-race/index.html
I have once again found an article where Dr. Bennett would be pleased that the media is in some small way attempting to reduce the knowledge gap. This article lays out the importance of the nomination and the importance of delegates. In some way the media although it is focusing on the horse race of the primary elections is educating the mass public in the workings of the election process. Although traces of sensationalism and some of Dr. Bennett's informational biases can be found such as the medias failure to show the whole picture. I know I have been guilty of attacking the media but this article does show at least an attempt by the best gosh darn news team ever to reduce the knowledge gap. In this article the media is fufilling one of the roles media scholars state that the media should have. the media is informing the public and perhaps acting as the 4th branch of government that Dr. Graber has called it on sveral occasians. The media the informant the bridge between the massive government and the countless masses something that seems to be poetic and unreachable.
I have once again found an article where Dr. Bennett would be pleased that the media is in some small way attempting to reduce the knowledge gap. This article lays out the importance of the nomination and the importance of delegates. In some way the media although it is focusing on the horse race of the primary elections is educating the mass public in the workings of the election process. Although traces of sensationalism and some of Dr. Bennett's informational biases can be found such as the medias failure to show the whole picture. I know I have been guilty of attacking the media but this article does show at least an attempt by the best gosh darn news team ever to reduce the knowledge gap. In this article the media is fufilling one of the roles media scholars state that the media should have. the media is informing the public and perhaps acting as the 4th branch of government that Dr. Graber has called it on sveral occasians. The media the informant the bridge between the massive government and the countless masses something that seems to be poetic and unreachable.
Have you ever noticed...
Sometimes when I walk around campus I notice things I wish I could comment on. Luckily, what I noticed is in regards to the media and politics so it fits perfectly into this blog. If you have noticed the library now has two TV's which are constantly tuned into news channels. I have a few issues here. First off, who needs TV's in the library! Maybe I'm alone in my thinking but if students don't want to pay attention to the news then they won't. Even if you put it right in front of people's faces they wouldn't be interested unless they have a legitimate desire to watch. The second thing is that one television is always on FOX and the other is on CNN. This is interesting to me because it shows two different perspectives and gives us the option to go watch which ever people prefer. This reinforces the idea that if people don't want to watch something they are able to go see something they like/agree with. It appears the TV's are meant to give us a "balanced" approach to the news we get. Of course sometimes it is hard to get actual substantial news from either FOX or CNN because as we have also discussed news channels have a limited time frame to relay news. Sometimes just by looking around our world and even our campus we can see how people reaffirm the fact that bias exists in the media. While this entry isn't related directly to the news it shows a link to media and politics in an environment most of us go through everyday.
U.S Simulation Strikes Worry
I found this article on the New York Times today and I must say its probably my favorite article that I have read yet during this new blogging experience. The article dealt with a United States simulation of a possible attack on Iran by the Israelis and then for told how the United States would be impacted and then in turn get involved.
The simulation caused for U.S involvement due to some kind of predicted attack by Iran due to the initial attack by Israel. It was said that it would come in the form of an attack on a vessel that would be located around the Persian territory. It even simulated the amount of Americans that would be killed. Further on in the simulation, it showed that Iran would slowly pursue retaliation due to their fears of total American involvement. Basically, it ended with the U.S. becoming involved and losing several thousands of lives. It would turn from a 2 nation matter to a wider regional problem.
The part that I found most appealing about this article was that the author for the first time gave no severe bias or showed his take on the matter. He even made it notable that these simulations can never prove anything. I always thought it was a bit out of hand when you say you can predict the way a human being will act especially when there are heated emotions involved. The author presented the information in a way that made him neither sound concerned nor sound ignorant or not interested in the matter. I felt that it was well reported and the political news like this needs to be more evident in my standpoint even during times of campaign. It would cause more people to push to get involved in the campaigns/elections due them wanting to see different viewpoints on matters such as these.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/20/world/middleeast/united-states-war-game-sees-dire-results-of-an-israeli-attack-on-iran.html?pagewanted=1&hp
The simulation caused for U.S involvement due to some kind of predicted attack by Iran due to the initial attack by Israel. It was said that it would come in the form of an attack on a vessel that would be located around the Persian territory. It even simulated the amount of Americans that would be killed. Further on in the simulation, it showed that Iran would slowly pursue retaliation due to their fears of total American involvement. Basically, it ended with the U.S. becoming involved and losing several thousands of lives. It would turn from a 2 nation matter to a wider regional problem.
The part that I found most appealing about this article was that the author for the first time gave no severe bias or showed his take on the matter. He even made it notable that these simulations can never prove anything. I always thought it was a bit out of hand when you say you can predict the way a human being will act especially when there are heated emotions involved. The author presented the information in a way that made him neither sound concerned nor sound ignorant or not interested in the matter. I felt that it was well reported and the political news like this needs to be more evident in my standpoint even during times of campaign. It would cause more people to push to get involved in the campaigns/elections due them wanting to see different viewpoints on matters such as these.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/20/world/middleeast/united-states-war-game-sees-dire-results-of-an-israeli-attack-on-iran.html?pagewanted=1&hp
Here FEMA goes again...
http://www.loansafe.org/quinn-urges-fema-to-reconsider-denial-of-tornado-aid
And so it begins again. Another crisis where FEMA shines, showing their excellent ability to aid in emergency help after a disaster. I'm sure many people watched the news earlier this month regarding the tornadoes that hit many southern areas of the US. Lives are lost, and buildings have been leveled. The Governor of Chicago estimates a need for roughly $9 million in order to fix what is broken. FEMA has denied their aid to Illinois and the state has nothing left to to but push for aid.
In this case the government is utilizing the media as an outlet to push the national government for aid. Im sure if they create enough of an uproar to make the rest of the United States citizens feel as though they need aid, FEMA will eventually need to get involved rather than risk more negative publicity since their epic failure during hurricane Katrina. But that failure is another story for another time. Right now, the issue is that FEMA has a responsibility, though they may not realize it, for managing emergencies. In a case, $9 million dollars worth of damage has been done to just one of the states effected. On a grander scale, there were numerous states that ensued major damages from all the tornadoes repeatedly hitting the southern portion of the States. In order to regain some sort of normalcy in those areas, they are going to need a great deal of aid.
During the tornadoes, the media informed us of the damages that continued to occur in the effected states, and continued to inform us of the multiple tornadoes that seemed relentless. After the tornadoes stopped hitting, the media continued to show us the damages and losses that came from the tornadoes. Eventually, the media stopped covering the issue and moved on to more dramatic news stories. Now however, the aftermath of these tornadoes are making their way back into media in order to bring about some change in attitude and once again inform the public. In this case, the media is the best way to bring about aid. If enough people become concerned and push for aid, we will see some sort of aid to Illinois.
And so it begins again. Another crisis where FEMA shines, showing their excellent ability to aid in emergency help after a disaster. I'm sure many people watched the news earlier this month regarding the tornadoes that hit many southern areas of the US. Lives are lost, and buildings have been leveled. The Governor of Chicago estimates a need for roughly $9 million in order to fix what is broken. FEMA has denied their aid to Illinois and the state has nothing left to to but push for aid.
In this case the government is utilizing the media as an outlet to push the national government for aid. Im sure if they create enough of an uproar to make the rest of the United States citizens feel as though they need aid, FEMA will eventually need to get involved rather than risk more negative publicity since their epic failure during hurricane Katrina. But that failure is another story for another time. Right now, the issue is that FEMA has a responsibility, though they may not realize it, for managing emergencies. In a case, $9 million dollars worth of damage has been done to just one of the states effected. On a grander scale, there were numerous states that ensued major damages from all the tornadoes repeatedly hitting the southern portion of the States. In order to regain some sort of normalcy in those areas, they are going to need a great deal of aid.
During the tornadoes, the media informed us of the damages that continued to occur in the effected states, and continued to inform us of the multiple tornadoes that seemed relentless. After the tornadoes stopped hitting, the media continued to show us the damages and losses that came from the tornadoes. Eventually, the media stopped covering the issue and moved on to more dramatic news stories. Now however, the aftermath of these tornadoes are making their way back into media in order to bring about some change in attitude and once again inform the public. In this case, the media is the best way to bring about aid. If enough people become concerned and push for aid, we will see some sort of aid to Illinois.
A Diamond in the Rough
Ah, journalism.
It’s like mining for diamonds, really. More often than not, you spend
inordinate amounts of time seeking gemstones and find nothing of value.
Occasionally, you uncover little gems like this one.
This “little” gem
goes against everything the Liberal model of journalism stands for, and somehow
embodies its spirit perfectly. It shows no party parallelism, and no obvious
bias. It is direct, informative, and conversational—despite its extreme
relative length, even the dense statistics do not seem daunting.
The jist of the
story is this: with statistical evidence “going back 36 years into newspaper
clippings and gallup polling archives,” we have no substantial evidence to say
that Romney does or doesn’t have a shot at the presidency. To say his task of
securing a lead over Obama following any securing of the Republican nomination
will be easy would be absurd. Possible? Perhaps. Likely? Not by the numbers.
And there are plenty of numbers.
While most
American journalism is events-based, this is not the case for this article.
Andrew Romano, the author of this fine piece of journalism, no doubt spent long
hours researching the past 36 years of statistics. As such, it is
comments-based, and focuses as political scientists like to focus—on trends and
hard evidence.
So while most journalism is a “5 year olds’ soccer game,”
there seems to be a braniac on the bench working strategy.
Andrew Romano as American Journalism's Aladdin: a true "Diamond in the Rough."
Is Fox News too liberal?
If you're having the same reaction I am right now, namely, "whaaaa?," hang in there.
Rick Santorum complained recently that Fox News is constantly "shilling" for the "liberal" Mitt Romney on their daytime programming, leaving poor ol' Rick out in the cold. Somewhat surprisingly (to myself at least), Fox jumped up to defend their coverage of the candidates.
Video and commentary continue after the jump.
Rick Santorum complained recently that Fox News is constantly "shilling" for the "liberal" Mitt Romney on their daytime programming, leaving poor ol' Rick out in the cold. Somewhat surprisingly (to myself at least), Fox jumped up to defend their coverage of the candidates.
Video and commentary continue after the jump.
We Need Blood
Chapter 27 of Doris A. Graber’s book “Media Power In Politics” discusses Sean Aday’s article “The Real War Will Never Get On Television: An Analysis Of Casualty Imagery”. Aday’s article concerns a simple dilemma, the media will never portray war as it truly is: an “awful” endeavor. The concern is with the medias’ refusal to depict the gruesome carnage that is the result of war. What I want to focus on during the remainder of this article is addressing a claim found in Aday’s article by Walt Whiteman, “The real war will never get in the books.” A question that arouse to me after reviewing this article is: Should the media reveal the graphic nature of war, for the purposes of reporting the full implications of war as observed by the reporters? What I have determined to be my response to this question is: Yes, the media should in fact expose the graphic nature of war so as to adequately inform the public of what the “real war” is like. I believe that that the exposure to this graphic content a necessary to fulfilling the media’s role in a democracy of informing the public of what the “real war” is; so that we may understand the full implications of war in the future consideration in military involvement. If we exposed to war as it really is we may better understand what war is and may aid us in refraining from military action unless determined to be absolutely necessary. It is therefore that I have determined that this graphic content as absolutely essential information in the evaluation of whether or not military action is appropriate. Seeing that this information is essential to the objectivity of war coverage the media does have an obligation to expose us to the graphic nature of war, under its role of informing the public as a media serving a democracy. What implication’s this graphic content would have can range from: Increasing support for a war by displaying the state of the afflicted, to; lessening the support for war as a protection for all of humanity.
On the Monkey Cage, John Sides blogged about public knowledge of recent political events, ones that we can assume were reported on by the mass media. In this blog titled, Why Campaigns Have So Few "Game-Changers," he commented that the survey showed that Americans cared very little about this campaign and the political events that have occurred.
While these are the findings of the survey, Sides concludes that although the inability to answer specific "events-related" questions accurately is shown, Americans are certainly not unintelligent or bad citizens. They just don't follow politics very closely, which is entirely normal.
Sides's most important comment however was what we can deduct from this survey- it does more "to question the assumptions of commentators, who are often anxious to inflate every argument during the campaign to a 'game changer'—even if many Americans aren’t really watching the game." This conclusion is interesting because it seems to contradict the nature of the "marketplace" with regards to the mass media providing what Americans desire to "consume." If Americans are not really watching the political game, then why would the media place emphasis on the campaign and what candidates are saying? Possibly, the media is fulfilling their role by still providing political coverage despite what the public truly desires to watch or read.
Typically, an average individual remembers the frivolous remarks or reports of the news such as the ones utilized in the survey-"Santorum’s statement about birth control, Obama’s call to Sandra Fluke, and Santorum’s comment about Obama’s snobbery." If Americans cannot even recall these highly reported events, what exactly are they doing? And if no one is truly watching, and the media still reports on it, are they doing their job?
Most importantly however, Sides's final conclusion raises the question of the media's role in influencing public opinion. If viewers aren't actually comprehending or using the news provided by the mass media, then they will never have a large effect on influencing public opinion.
While these are the findings of the survey, Sides concludes that although the inability to answer specific "events-related" questions accurately is shown, Americans are certainly not unintelligent or bad citizens. They just don't follow politics very closely, which is entirely normal.
Sides's most important comment however was what we can deduct from this survey- it does more "to question the assumptions of commentators, who are often anxious to inflate every argument during the campaign to a 'game changer'—even if many Americans aren’t really watching the game." This conclusion is interesting because it seems to contradict the nature of the "marketplace" with regards to the mass media providing what Americans desire to "consume." If Americans are not really watching the political game, then why would the media place emphasis on the campaign and what candidates are saying? Possibly, the media is fulfilling their role by still providing political coverage despite what the public truly desires to watch or read.
Typically, an average individual remembers the frivolous remarks or reports of the news such as the ones utilized in the survey-"Santorum’s statement about birth control, Obama’s call to Sandra Fluke, and Santorum’s comment about Obama’s snobbery." If Americans cannot even recall these highly reported events, what exactly are they doing? And if no one is truly watching, and the media still reports on it, are they doing their job?
Most importantly however, Sides's final conclusion raises the question of the media's role in influencing public opinion. If viewers aren't actually comprehending or using the news provided by the mass media, then they will never have a large effect on influencing public opinion.
I Care More About Frogs
It's amazing what the media still has time to cover amidst making daily events seem like looming crises that always need an international response. This morning I read the kind of article I wish there were more of, even though it's not academic, it's not about anything particularly important, and some might even call it worthless entertainment.
It's about a new species of frog ( http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/17/us/new-york-frog-species/index.html?hpt=hp_bn2) in New York City. It's so new it doesn't even have a name yet. Maybe what drew me to it was the picture of the frog (In enjoy animals, but I doubt it). Maybe it was the fact that I like to read and that a story about a heretofore unknown amphibian had more length and depth to it than a similar story on the same website about the presidential primary. Maybe I just like it when researchers and scientists are actually quoted in mainstream media articles.
Or, maybe, it's just because every once in a while a reader needs a break. I read news for at least an hour or so just about every day; I prescribe to the popular illusion that it somehow keeps me better informed. however, when I wake up in the morning, I have to admit that I'm just not in the mood to read about the current status of all existing global crises and the emergence of 34 more overnight. Something that struck me when we were reviewing the chapter on covering crises in the media was the familiarity with that kind of coverage: wild speculation and rumor, constant reporting on even the smallest of facts, drawing on a plethora of experts with surprisingly little knowledge of the developing situation, temporarily dropping all coverage of the first crisis when the second one starts.
Wait a minute. I thought that was normal reporting, even in online print media.
Well, nowadays it is, I guess. And after a while the crisis mentality just bores me (ironically). Crisis after crisis desensitizes the mind to the real importance and significance of developing trends and events. But more importantly, it just annoys people. You know what doesn't annoy me? Reading about the discovery of a new species of frog in New York City. And, given the choices, maybe it'll even run for president this year.
It's about a new species of frog ( http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/17/us/new-york-frog-species/index.html?hpt=hp_bn2) in New York City. It's so new it doesn't even have a name yet. Maybe what drew me to it was the picture of the frog (In enjoy animals, but I doubt it). Maybe it was the fact that I like to read and that a story about a heretofore unknown amphibian had more length and depth to it than a similar story on the same website about the presidential primary. Maybe I just like it when researchers and scientists are actually quoted in mainstream media articles.
Or, maybe, it's just because every once in a while a reader needs a break. I read news for at least an hour or so just about every day; I prescribe to the popular illusion that it somehow keeps me better informed. however, when I wake up in the morning, I have to admit that I'm just not in the mood to read about the current status of all existing global crises and the emergence of 34 more overnight. Something that struck me when we were reviewing the chapter on covering crises in the media was the familiarity with that kind of coverage: wild speculation and rumor, constant reporting on even the smallest of facts, drawing on a plethora of experts with surprisingly little knowledge of the developing situation, temporarily dropping all coverage of the first crisis when the second one starts.
Wait a minute. I thought that was normal reporting, even in online print media.
Well, nowadays it is, I guess. And after a while the crisis mentality just bores me (ironically). Crisis after crisis desensitizes the mind to the real importance and significance of developing trends and events. But more importantly, it just annoys people. You know what doesn't annoy me? Reading about the discovery of a new species of frog in New York City. And, given the choices, maybe it'll even run for president this year.
Monday, March 12, 2012
Why Rush Limbaugh loves the First Amendment.
Many citizens have become quite wrapped up in the
controversy surrounding conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh. The opinion article I read from CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/12/opinion/randazza-limbaugh-speech/index.html) has great depth on the issue and focuses on why Rush can and should be able to say what he wants. The author comments on how many people have called for Limbaugh to be stripped of his show and be fired much like happened to Don Imus. The author claims that freedom of speech is the most important thing we have and it helps make America the nation we have become. Regardless of how you stand on the comments Limbaugh made it is hard to deny that he has a right to say it. Your gut might make you really dislike Limbaugh and that's ok but, stepping back and looking at the big picture and ask yourself "What did Limbaugh do that was illegal?" This can be a difficult issue for us to grapple with because often times we allow emotions to come into play and affect views/decision making. When people allow emotions to skew our thoughts and ideas on things such as the first amendment we reach a dangerous area where we can act with impulse instead of true information. So before calling for Limbaugh's removal from the air we must consider these facts and of course we need to consider the biggest fact which is that speech is protected and by asking for the removal of individuals we ourselves are flirting with losing that right.
Al-Jazeera Listening Post: The US media's 'Iranian threat'
While we have been encouraged to look at media sources in the United States in this class, I couldn't help but post this to the blog after watching a short report on the Al-Jazeera English website. I oftentimes turn to Al-Jazeera for news overseas, not only to read about news stories that might not make headline news in the United States, but also to hear them from another perspective. In this 25 minute news video, the first 10 minutes or so are dedicated to recent American news coverage of Iran. I would recommend at the very least watching from 6:25-8:30. Here, a criticism of sensationalist broadcast media is given, in contrast with a more responsible print media. According to the Al-Jazeera report, it seems as though sensationalized visual-based news is winning the battle.
I do concede that for those who reject the hypodermic model of the media, just because the media might emphasize one "story" over another, does not mean that it will in fact do anything. The report, which aired on March 3rd, noted that the US military did not think it to be prudent to engage in military action with Iran. Nonetheless, something surely has to be said about the role the media takes in informing citizens. While I may not agree with everything in the short video, I do agree that most Americans have not seen the graph shown at minute 8:30. This is a good example of one news organization almost being a watchdog of another country's media behavior, which I found to be interesting and well worth 10 minutes of my time.
Actual Video Below:
Goodbye civility, we hardly knew ye...
It'd be nice to know that civility still exists. Or at least is an idea.
Unfortunately, it isn't the case.
We've seen for years the damage caused by any number of belligerent voices in the public sphere, such as that of Pat Robertson, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck.
The attitude has spread like a cancer, and it has spread to us too.
Continued after the jump.
Unfortunately, it isn't the case.
We've seen for years the damage caused by any number of belligerent voices in the public sphere, such as that of Pat Robertson, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck.
The attitude has spread like a cancer, and it has spread to us too.
Continued after the jump.
Andrew Breitbart: 1969-2012
Photo credit: Brendan Smialowski/Getty Images
Love him or hate him, Andrew Breitbart was undeniably a lion in the savanna that is new media. We lost a pioneer, a giant. Goodbye, Andy.
Andrew Breitbart
February 1, 1969 - March 1, 2012
Monday, March 5, 2012
Super Tuesday
As we all know super Tuesday is approaching, and Republican candidates are campaigning hard. I wanted to see some of the coverage on the candidates and see how it has changed since the beginning of the race. I was surprised to find Democrat and Republican congressmen working together to try and fix the budget. I watched Super Tuesday Preview on Fox News. The show began with a panel of four congressmen and women who represented the Republican Candidates. The audience was made up of “The American People”. This show struck me as something different than the usually news show because there was no yelling or degrading of a specific candidate. The audience asked questions and the panel answered the questions according to how the Candidates would. One of the questions directed to Rand Paul was about his fathers foreign policy. Rand asked the host of the show if he had thirty minuets because that is what it would take to explain where people would understand. The host replied with a “No, you only have thirty seconds actually”. This goes back to fragmenting and how the media as a whole cuts very important issues into thirty second capsules of time. This is making it where the public is missing the big picture because it is hard for them to put things together that are so fragmented. When the media fragments information it also tends to lose some of the major content. Even Rand said that he needs 30 minutes in order for people to understand. If the media spent more time on quality news instead of on the quantity of news the public would know a lot more on issues instead of surface knowledge on a lot of issues.
Making the Sunday Morning Rounds...
I always find it somewhat comical when I see a once bellicose politician reduced to the shadows of the political world. As of now, this can be said for the once frontrunner, then not, then frontrunner, now not Newt Gingrich. Gingrich has fluctuated like the tide, up and down, since the start of this circus of a GOP nominating process. Now, Newt is basing his hopes on Super Tuesday, hoping that a big win in Georgia, and good finishes in other southern states, can propel him to the nomination. Gingrich is now saying that he is going to become, again, the candidate of "big ideas" and that this will help him win. Here's the problem, though this nomination process has been anything but normal, there is no doubt that Mitt Romney is picking up momentum. Every candidate that challenges him seems to only be able to do so for a few weeks and then they fall back off. Romney is back up in the national polls and this time it may be for the long haul. The end result, Gingrich can say whatever he wants, but it seems that his time may be running out.
One thing that is interesting to talk about is the increased role that the Sunday morning talk shows are beginning to play in the political process. Just a few years ago, the Sunday morning talk shows were not really the forums for the candidates to go on. They did not play a significant role in the political process. However, in the last few years, with specific emphasis on this year, the candidates have used the Sunday morning talk shows as sort of a launching pad for their plans, candidacies, and ideas. Furthermore, the Sunday morning talk shows have been used for bragging, and/or damage control, after a Saturday of wins and/or gaffes. There is no doubt that these Sunday talk shows have become a central player when it comes to presidential politics.
To present an example, this past weekend Newt Gingrich went on 4 of the 5 national Sunday morning talk shows. Desperation? Maybe. But there is no doubt that Gingrich sees the important roles that these shows can play. For candidates without an overwhelming abundance of money and staffers (cite Gingrich again), the talk shows provide candidates a relatively cheap way to reach a whole lot of people. This also be said to be an example of the manufactured-type politics that many Americans don't like. Why would candidates go "press the flesh" when they can reach millions from a television studio in Washington? While this may be a bit of an exaggeration, and while clearly we are not yet to the point where we can substitute personal campaigning for national talk shows, there is no doubt that talk shows are increasing in their importance. They may very well be the way of the future.
So, will the Sunday morning talk shows save Newt Gingrich? Doubtful. Will they give him the national spotlight once again? Still, doubtful. But, they will get his name out there, as evidenced by this very blog post. In a world that is dominated by new media sources and blogs such as this one, it is interesting to examine the importance of these talk shows. These shows may prove some scholars wrong and show that the broadcast media still reign supreme when it comes to being the kingmakers of elections.
Article
One thing that is interesting to talk about is the increased role that the Sunday morning talk shows are beginning to play in the political process. Just a few years ago, the Sunday morning talk shows were not really the forums for the candidates to go on. They did not play a significant role in the political process. However, in the last few years, with specific emphasis on this year, the candidates have used the Sunday morning talk shows as sort of a launching pad for their plans, candidacies, and ideas. Furthermore, the Sunday morning talk shows have been used for bragging, and/or damage control, after a Saturday of wins and/or gaffes. There is no doubt that these Sunday talk shows have become a central player when it comes to presidential politics.
To present an example, this past weekend Newt Gingrich went on 4 of the 5 national Sunday morning talk shows. Desperation? Maybe. But there is no doubt that Gingrich sees the important roles that these shows can play. For candidates without an overwhelming abundance of money and staffers (cite Gingrich again), the talk shows provide candidates a relatively cheap way to reach a whole lot of people. This also be said to be an example of the manufactured-type politics that many Americans don't like. Why would candidates go "press the flesh" when they can reach millions from a television studio in Washington? While this may be a bit of an exaggeration, and while clearly we are not yet to the point where we can substitute personal campaigning for national talk shows, there is no doubt that talk shows are increasing in their importance. They may very well be the way of the future.
So, will the Sunday morning talk shows save Newt Gingrich? Doubtful. Will they give him the national spotlight once again? Still, doubtful. But, they will get his name out there, as evidenced by this very blog post. In a world that is dominated by new media sources and blogs such as this one, it is interesting to examine the importance of these talk shows. These shows may prove some scholars wrong and show that the broadcast media still reign supreme when it comes to being the kingmakers of elections.
Article
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)