This campaign cycle is going to get ugly. There is just no getting around that. Personal attacks are already being launched from Barack Obama to Mitt Romney and vice versa. This is not atypical of campaigns nowadays. In fact, most campaigns, from state races to national presidential elections, feature negative, personal attack ads. The latest round of volleys in this campaign cycle has to do with the issues of politicizing the death of Osama bin Laden. This is a very sensitive issue and has become an important issue in the campaign.
Romney, and others including former and current Navy SEALS, have called the president's recent campaign ad touting his decision making regarding the killing of bin Laden. The ad suggests that Mitt Romney may not have made the same decision. Many have called this highly inappropriate because the real heroes are the SEALS that carried out the operation. In the minds of many, the president's decision is not what is important in this case. Nonetheless, the president decided to use the ad and now he must deal with the political consequences.
This topic is very interesting to look at because it is a fairly big deal in the current political world. However, I have not seen this topic pop up on my Facebook news feed at all. This is very interesting to me, seeing as this story is one that is all over the news sites. This is a good example of the situational political knowledge that we've been discussing in class. The argument is that Facebook doesn't necessarily make people more engaged in politics, but it may increase their situational political efficacy. Thus, Facebook and social media can increase people's knowledge about certain issues, if they so desire to inform themselves. It is interesting to me that some issues of political importance consume Facebook news feeds, while others are hardly ever mentioned. This phenomenon is a little strange for me, but it goes along with the argument regarding situational political efficacy.
In the future, there is a chance that Facebook, and other forms of social media, could help people become more involved in politics in general. However, for now it seems as though Facebook is only as good as the people that use it. What trends, what's followed, what's important seems to be at the discretion of the people. Framing and agenda setting by the mainstream media can't be seen on Facebook and maybe that is a good thing.
Article
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
A Look Back at Osama
Today marked the one year anniversary of Osama Bin Laden's death. One year ago Sunday there were tweets on Twitter about the death of Osama Bin laden. That was followed by the official announcement made by Obama to the nation. The following papers throughout the United States entailed pictures and comments basically tearing Osama a new one. If this wasn't bias without any people who actually met Osama bin Laden I don't know what is. I am not saying I agree with Osama Bin Laden at all, but I wouldn't hesitate to believe that the papers elsewhere in the world were not so offensive. I obviously agree that everything that man planned and took part in was immoral and that he deserved what was coming to him, but its amazing how there are people out there in the world that saw these papers and thought they were shameful to what he did for what they believed in. It is even funny that while I was writing this, the auto correct for spelling brought up Obama for Osama. He has been totally dis recognized to the point where the spelling corrections change his name to our President.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/01/osama-bin-laden-death-newspapers_n_1467524.html?ref=media
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/01/osama-bin-laden-death-newspapers_n_1467524.html?ref=media
Never gunna give you up, never gunna let you down...
SO, Im never going to give up on the idea that Facebook/Twitter/Blogs and the rest of new media are changing the way we become informed. So I googled (in the news section of the search engine) the word Facebook.... What comes up is a plethora of news articles that expresses how Facebook is making a difference in communication. I chose the very first article, resulting from my search, to share with you.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/technology/facebook-urges-members-to-add-organ-donor-status.html
Facebook is now thinking of adding an organ donor status to its pages. Why is this important you may ask? Well, the point of this someone odd feature to to try and urge other people to become organ donors. Since there are 161 million users on Facebook, that is a possibility of 161 million people being exposed to the idea of being an organ donor. The most interesting thing about this is that the people involved, Johns Hopkins Doctors etc, are actually calling this the Facebook Plan. As if Facebook is being part of some sort of policy.
If we are starting to add information about being an organ donor, and theoretically find organ donors through this social networking site, what other things will we start to explore for SNS use? Social Networking sites are just evolving at a very fast rate. I look forward to seeing how these sites continue to change the way we communicate with one another.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/technology/facebook-urges-members-to-add-organ-donor-status.html
Facebook is now thinking of adding an organ donor status to its pages. Why is this important you may ask? Well, the point of this someone odd feature to to try and urge other people to become organ donors. Since there are 161 million users on Facebook, that is a possibility of 161 million people being exposed to the idea of being an organ donor. The most interesting thing about this is that the people involved, Johns Hopkins Doctors etc, are actually calling this the Facebook Plan. As if Facebook is being part of some sort of policy.
If we are starting to add information about being an organ donor, and theoretically find organ donors through this social networking site, what other things will we start to explore for SNS use? Social Networking sites are just evolving at a very fast rate. I look forward to seeing how these sites continue to change the way we communicate with one another.
Monday, April 30, 2012
A Failed Experiment in the Promotion of Self-Efficacy
I recently had an unpleasant exchange on Facebook.
On an otherwise productive Sunday afternoon, I was perusing my facebook feed when I ran into the comment you can see in the screen shot. As someone who considers herself to be pretty rational (most of the time anyway. For evidence otherwise see: that time in class when we talked about dead bodies on the news), I immediately knew that any anger towards the facebook "friend" or craving for informational justice would not be satisfied by engaging her in a discussion. I had evidence of this after reading the Kushin and Yamamoto piece on Friday. Their results clearly stated that online expression, such as the types of dialogues that take place in various social media frameworks, were related to situational political involvement but not to political self-efficacy. They cited incivility as a reason online exchanges might often be unsatisfying.
I realize that the evidence I am bringing forth to support their argument is merely anecdotal and is not representative of any solid sample size.
However, my intention at the onset of this brief and discouraging encounter was not to bolster their findings, but to perhaps change the status quo. Could I encourage this "friend" to seek some information and maybe retract a controversial statement? As you can see, I didn't succeed, but one could argue that I could have taken a different approach. Perhaps I could have been a little nicer or a little more encouraging.
Are most political debates that take place on social media platforms doomed to incivility? Is this a problem that's unique to a generation? What would you have done differently in dealing with my facebook "friend"?
What the Facebook Dragged In
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/30/stephen-king-tax-me-for-f-s-sake.html
Courtesy of Mr. Wilderidge's facebook post.
So Stephen King has jumped on the Warren Buffet train with a little more... frankly, balls. In his 3 page
"Tax Me, for F@%&’s Sake!" King offers a critical blow to the super-rich, including himself, on taxation. With a few f-bombs... well, that's an understatement.
Honestly, though, this is journalism at its finest. The Daily Beast published a citizen-submitted article written by a volunteer that they didn't have to pay. It is in no way objective, nor does it aim to be: King is certainly not held to the professional restraints of a journalist, but is, however, well-respected. He can say what he wants and neither be punished for kicking the system too hard, nor ignored for being an incompetent renegade. It aims to create change, either among the "1%" or give a rallying point for the middle class to force change.
Ideal American journalism? Certainly not. A success? Absolutely.
Thanks but, No Thanks Poli Sci
“If media surveillance causes governments to fall and public
officials to be ousted, democracy is well served” Doris A. Graber (2010)
I can understand what Graber must have meant when she wrote
this line in her book, “Mass Media and American Politics”. She came to the
conclusion that a major role that the media pay in a democracy is the people’s watchdog
on the government. Her statement obligates the media to report to the people
every and any events that in turn would mobilize the people to cause “…governments
to fall and public officials to be ousted…” Graber also notes that the media
must also “interpret the events’ meanings, [and] put them into context.”
What must we conclude then, when the media, not only fails
to do so but, report false claims within their interpretation of event’s, which
then leads a group of people to want “public officials to be ousted”, on such
false premises?
“As outrageous as those breaches of decency are, they are
merely the latest extension of Obama’s polarizing presidency.”(1)
“President Obama's intensity remained static during that
same period, but he remains more polarizing than Romney.”(2)
“Obama: The most polarizing president. Ever.” (3)
WTF!!!!!!!!!!!
(Excuse me for my abbreviations, but seriously why must so
many Americans be exposed to such horrendous misleading information?)
The latest attacks on President Obama have made me sick, and
would likely make Sean Theriault rip his hair out.
Who is Sean Theriault? Well you may know him as the author
of a little book titled “Party Polarization in Congress.” In his book Theriault
covers four major variables which he finds to significantlyinfluence party
polarization in Congress; these are as follows: redistricting, geographic sorting,
the institutions and procedures of the House and Senate, and the influence of party
activist.
Wait. Did Theriault miss something? Are these journalists on
the cutting edge of research on party polarization? Or are there methods of determining
that President Obama is the cause of polarization through a gallop poll severely
flawed? (3)
We need a watchdog over our watchdog. Be it Jon Stewart or
Sean Theriault, someone must report to the public all of the flaws the media
make, for the sake of preventing Americans to be mal-informed by atrocities such
as the one above. We need political science to be integrated into our
mainstream media.
Thank you Brendon Nyhan and John Sides for your essay “How Political
Science Can Help Journalism”
Though I fear your work may fall on the death ear’s of the
media as most political science, such as Theriault’s work, has.
Slogans
Browsing through Buzzfeed I found a list of the 11 best campaign slogans. The posting noted that, with the 2012 Presidential Campaign slowly approaching, President Obama's reelection campaign released their new slogan, "Forward." There are background whispers about the similarities to MSNBC's slogan "Lean Forward."
After reading through the list and examining President Obama's new slogan I question the purpose and the reasoning behind campaign slogans. Ever aspect of a campaign seems to have a purpose, negative campaign ads inform us, even if they were intend to breed hate for the enemy, so what are slogans doing if we can't even understanding them.
Drawing from the field of marketing and advertising, slogans are used to typically advertise the purpose of your product or in this case the campaign, and to help you remember the candidate and what he stands for. From this I understand what "Change" was all about. So I ask are we moving "Forward" in 2012? And has enough change taken place for you to be looking "Forward" into the future?
http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/11-presidential-campaign-slogans-more-original-tha
After reading through the list and examining President Obama's new slogan I question the purpose and the reasoning behind campaign slogans. Ever aspect of a campaign seems to have a purpose, negative campaign ads inform us, even if they were intend to breed hate for the enemy, so what are slogans doing if we can't even understanding them.
Drawing from the field of marketing and advertising, slogans are used to typically advertise the purpose of your product or in this case the campaign, and to help you remember the candidate and what he stands for. From this I understand what "Change" was all about. So I ask are we moving "Forward" in 2012? And has enough change taken place for you to be looking "Forward" into the future?
http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/11-presidential-campaign-slogans-more-original-tha
Distrust in the Media and Confirmation Bias
Everyone knows that Republicans only watch conservative television shows like CNN and FOX, while Democrats watch MSNBC and ABC, right? We've covered it all throughout the class-- it appears as though Americans are highly polarized, and the supposed polarization in the coverage from major news stations where they receive their information reflects this.
This article discusses the relationship between media trust/distrust and the self-selection of news outlets. What the evidence in the article shows is that, according to the frequency by which Republicans and Democrats Americans have become increasingly more polarized since the 2000s. In 2000, whether respondents were satisfied with the media's coverage or not, there was no particularly strong relationship between attitudes toward the media and partisan self-selection of media outlets. In 2010, another study was done but this time, one that measured perceived levels of media bias against partisan self-selection of media outlets. The results of this second study reveal a truth about contemporary relationships between partisan self-selection and attitudes toward the media. Perception of media bias leads to distrust in major media outlets. Americans with these dispositions would tend to slip back into the comfort zone of attending to news outlets that confirm their attitudes and deeply held values, thereby securing them into an echo-chamber.
We've discussed the dangers of echo-chambers, whether it be through new media outlets like social networks or with traditional media like print and broadcast media. Just like the customization of friend lists and the accessibility to remove those from your sphere that disagree with your attitudes is dangerous, we can see this same sort trend even with the news outlets that Americans tune into.. or not.
The important thing is that even in the the midst of media uncertainty, it is vital that we stay informed via a broad range of media outlets and always be willing to engage in political dialogue with those that don't hold our attitudes, opinions, and beliefs politically.
http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2012/04/27/distrust-in-the-media-and-confirmation-bias/
This article discusses the relationship between media trust/distrust and the self-selection of news outlets. What the evidence in the article shows is that, according to the frequency by which Republicans and Democrats Americans have become increasingly more polarized since the 2000s. In 2000, whether respondents were satisfied with the media's coverage or not, there was no particularly strong relationship between attitudes toward the media and partisan self-selection of media outlets. In 2010, another study was done but this time, one that measured perceived levels of media bias against partisan self-selection of media outlets. The results of this second study reveal a truth about contemporary relationships between partisan self-selection and attitudes toward the media. Perception of media bias leads to distrust in major media outlets. Americans with these dispositions would tend to slip back into the comfort zone of attending to news outlets that confirm their attitudes and deeply held values, thereby securing them into an echo-chamber.
We've discussed the dangers of echo-chambers, whether it be through new media outlets like social networks or with traditional media like print and broadcast media. Just like the customization of friend lists and the accessibility to remove those from your sphere that disagree with your attitudes is dangerous, we can see this same sort trend even with the news outlets that Americans tune into.. or not.
The important thing is that even in the the midst of media uncertainty, it is vital that we stay informed via a broad range of media outlets and always be willing to engage in political dialogue with those that don't hold our attitudes, opinions, and beliefs politically.
http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2012/04/27/distrust-in-the-media-and-confirmation-bias/
Monday, April 23, 2012
Secret Service Scandal Possible problem for Obama's Reelection?
http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/23/us/secret-service/index.html
A recent incident that occurred in Columbia involving members of the United States Military and member of the Secret Service has become very controversial. Allegedly a total of 24 members were involved in a prostitution scandal in Cartagena, Columbia before Obama arrived. This could prove to be a huge scandal and issue for Obama, but most likely won't because Obama wasn't present while everything happened.
This is definitely an issue that must be addressed; Secret Service agents and Military personnel should not be doing anything like this while on the job. They have no excuses for acting the way they did in this situation. But this is probably another case of media dramatization. The media had blow this story out of proportion. The government will handle this issue and have already begun to deal with it. These soldiers should not have done what they did at all, but I don't think that the media needs to blow this story up any more then they already have.
The Republicans may try to use this in the upcoming elections if anythings else comes of this issue. But i don't think it is anything that Obama needs to work about. Obama, so far, hasn't done anything wrong in this situation. So he shouldn't have to worry about anything.
The main issue is that the Secret Service and Military members solicited the prostitutes. And were so blatantly obvious about the situation. The media may have over played this story, but it is definitely something that needed to be reported and released to the public in some way.
A recent incident that occurred in Columbia involving members of the United States Military and member of the Secret Service has become very controversial. Allegedly a total of 24 members were involved in a prostitution scandal in Cartagena, Columbia before Obama arrived. This could prove to be a huge scandal and issue for Obama, but most likely won't because Obama wasn't present while everything happened.
This is definitely an issue that must be addressed; Secret Service agents and Military personnel should not be doing anything like this while on the job. They have no excuses for acting the way they did in this situation. But this is probably another case of media dramatization. The media had blow this story out of proportion. The government will handle this issue and have already begun to deal with it. These soldiers should not have done what they did at all, but I don't think that the media needs to blow this story up any more then they already have.
The Republicans may try to use this in the upcoming elections if anythings else comes of this issue. But i don't think it is anything that Obama needs to work about. Obama, so far, hasn't done anything wrong in this situation. So he shouldn't have to worry about anything.
The main issue is that the Secret Service and Military members solicited the prostitutes. And were so blatantly obvious about the situation. The media may have over played this story, but it is definitely something that needed to be reported and released to the public in some way.
Romney's New House
Mitt Romney is now officially taking on Obama for the presidential race. This calls for the media to jump all over both candidates to try to weaken their good points and focus on some negative decisions/attributes. The funny thing about my word choice just now was that depending on what party you side with, you will look more harshly on just how "negative" those decisions each candidate made were. As farm as a side link I found in the Huffington Post, it had a side link to a local posting site for La Jolla, California. As far as I am concerned this was one of those articles that was aiming right at Romney to try to post a negative image of him.
Romney has a house out there in La Jolla, and he decided to renovate his house to the point where it is six times the average Americans. Does that really matter? Does that make him more or less capable to hold the presidency? The answer is no and I believe that this was a weak attempt to tarnish Romney's image. The truth of the matter is that the media and author of this article downplayed Romney's importance and character. Whether they were doing it purposely or not the rhetoric used causes people to change their opinion or have it questioned simply because the author decides to pose the candidate in a specific manner. It comes with politics but it shouldn't be the focus of importance.
http://lajolla.patch.com/blog_posts/mitt-romneys-proposed-la-jolla-expansion-will-make-his-home-six-times-larger-than-most-american-homes
Romney has a house out there in La Jolla, and he decided to renovate his house to the point where it is six times the average Americans. Does that really matter? Does that make him more or less capable to hold the presidency? The answer is no and I believe that this was a weak attempt to tarnish Romney's image. The truth of the matter is that the media and author of this article downplayed Romney's importance and character. Whether they were doing it purposely or not the rhetoric used causes people to change their opinion or have it questioned simply because the author decides to pose the candidate in a specific manner. It comes with politics but it shouldn't be the focus of importance.
http://lajolla.patch.com/blog_posts/mitt-romneys-proposed-la-jolla-expansion-will-make-his-home-six-times-larger-than-most-american-homes
Social Media: Maybe not as Great as we Think
As I sit here late at night on a Monday, I am reminded once again why I so love being an American. I have just returned home from a night at the baseball field; by far one of my favorite places. The first thing I did when I got home was to check my Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and other social media applications. Of course, I had been checking them regularly on my smartphone all night, but what could another check on the ole' computer hurt. As I begin to write a tweet about something of probably minuscule importance, a thought comes to mind. I am reminded about an article recently read for class that deals with Twitter and the Iranian revolution in 2009. After reading this particular article, which deals with the role of Twitter in the 2009 uprising, I am forced to reevaluate my views about social media as a tool for protestors in autocratic regimes (a subject of one of my earlier blog posts).
Ohh and to clarify what thought reminded me of why I was glad to be an American, for tonight it was the fact that I can post a tweet about my baseball game without worrying whether or not the government is going to use it to spy on me. More importantly, I would be able to post a tweet critical of President Obama without the government being able to use it against me. This is something we in the United States so often take for granted, yet it is something that not all people in the world enjoy. But, I digress.
What struck me about this recent article that I read was the fact that repressive regimes, such as the one in Iran, can use Twitter as a weapon against their own people. This article explained how the government was using Twitter to track the people posting anti-gvoernmemt messages and then tracking them down. This is something I had not even though about in the past. In fact, in my last blog post I railed about how important of a tool social media was in these uprisings. I'm not completely changing my stance on this, I'm simply tailoring my position.
Do I think Twitter and Facebook are indispensable sites for protestors seeking change in severely repressive regimes? Of course I do. However, I also think that we must be careful when we push these protestors to post their videos, pictures, or even live updates on these sites. What we in the United States often fail to realize is that posting a status for some of these people could very easily put their lives in danger. I think it is shameful for a government, such as Iran, to try to limit the free discussion of their people through violent deterrent tactics. Further, I think it is completely inappropriate for these regimes to use social media sites as means for hunting down those prostetsors simply seeking to have a free government and to have their voices heard.
So, whats the point of this random rambling? The point is that we often want to look at all the good the internet has done in the world and ignore the bad that it has created. Heck, I'm as guilty of this as anyone. I regularly tout the internet as a great resource and tool, especially for protestors. However, as we see with Iran in 2009, a repressive government can also us the internet to hunt down and harm their own people. Before we just expect protestors in other countries to tweet about their every action, we need to consider the consequences they face for doing so. The right we have to freely tweet in the United States is a lot greater than we realize. I think we all take rights like these for granted. Maybe its time we start being thankful that we, in the United States, can use the internet freely as we please, without fear of the government hunting us down.
I will now step down from my soap box. Sorry for the long post.
Ohh and to clarify what thought reminded me of why I was glad to be an American, for tonight it was the fact that I can post a tweet about my baseball game without worrying whether or not the government is going to use it to spy on me. More importantly, I would be able to post a tweet critical of President Obama without the government being able to use it against me. This is something we in the United States so often take for granted, yet it is something that not all people in the world enjoy. But, I digress.
What struck me about this recent article that I read was the fact that repressive regimes, such as the one in Iran, can use Twitter as a weapon against their own people. This article explained how the government was using Twitter to track the people posting anti-gvoernmemt messages and then tracking them down. This is something I had not even though about in the past. In fact, in my last blog post I railed about how important of a tool social media was in these uprisings. I'm not completely changing my stance on this, I'm simply tailoring my position.
Do I think Twitter and Facebook are indispensable sites for protestors seeking change in severely repressive regimes? Of course I do. However, I also think that we must be careful when we push these protestors to post their videos, pictures, or even live updates on these sites. What we in the United States often fail to realize is that posting a status for some of these people could very easily put their lives in danger. I think it is shameful for a government, such as Iran, to try to limit the free discussion of their people through violent deterrent tactics. Further, I think it is completely inappropriate for these regimes to use social media sites as means for hunting down those prostetsors simply seeking to have a free government and to have their voices heard.
So, whats the point of this random rambling? The point is that we often want to look at all the good the internet has done in the world and ignore the bad that it has created. Heck, I'm as guilty of this as anyone. I regularly tout the internet as a great resource and tool, especially for protestors. However, as we see with Iran in 2009, a repressive government can also us the internet to hunt down and harm their own people. Before we just expect protestors in other countries to tweet about their every action, we need to consider the consequences they face for doing so. The right we have to freely tweet in the United States is a lot greater than we realize. I think we all take rights like these for granted. Maybe its time we start being thankful that we, in the United States, can use the internet freely as we please, without fear of the government hunting us down.
I will now step down from my soap box. Sorry for the long post.
We Still Have This "Writing About Commies" Problem
Here’s a little something on the subject of another topic
the media knows less than it needs to about: foreign relations and ongoing
diplomatic talks.
Particularly, we’re talking about relations with China, the
incredibly powerful economic rival of ours trapped in amusingly symbiotic
relationship with the United States. The media’s ongoing quest for a good lead
is causing conflict where there really, really doesn’t need to be any.
Apparently the US government is alleging that the Chinese
have violated a UN ban on nuclear weapons sales when one its firms (again,
allegedly) sold components that could be used to build a mobile nuclear missile platform to North Korea. There are
no indications in the article about whether these components components are up to date
or obsolete, nor is there mention of China’s response until the very end of the
article.
Foreign policy, once considered a boring topic by a large
portion of leading headline media firms, is now just as much a victim of
dramatization as every other piece of news. As long as the story is the kind
that can survive being sensationalized, there’s nothing necessarily wrong with
dramatization. Sometimes it can even draw our attention to something that we
need to be learning about to begin with. Then, well, then there are times that
an incredibly important detail gets likely intentionally buried in the bottom
of an article:
“Washington suspects that the Chinese company, Hubei Sanjiang,
did not sell North Korea an entire vehicle and that it believed the components
were for civilian purposes, suggesting it was not an intentional violation of a
prohibition of military-related sales to Pyongyang, the U.S. official said.”
Oh. Wait. You
mean we don’t actually think the
Chinese are helping the North Koreans build a missile? But Reuters is just
going to report on it anyhow, without even the mention that the whole issue is
a developing story?
I have no problem
with reporters working for mass media wires beating war drums in their articles
as long as we adequately fund our schools. Oh. Wait.
Rescue efforts utilize social media
I was talking to someone today about crisis management since my senior research has taken over my life, and also mentioned I had a paper to write about social media. The conversation quickly turned to the use of social media in recovery of disaster efforts. Social media has been an outlet for trying to respond quickly to a crisis. I was told when the earthquake in Haiti caused a major disaster, Facebook allowed users to be able to donate money to the relief. If people were not comfortable with sending their money, Facebook also had instructions on where you could go to donate money or clothes and canned food. This allowed people all over the world to come together to give aid to a country that had been devastated during a time of crisis. This particular person I was talking with told me he was able to get multiple school organizations to participate in donations, and that he only knew of the possibility of donating through Facebook.
Personally, I cant believe how the world has advanced. If we look back to the 1700's when communication and transportation was virtually nonexistent, it was hard for people to communicate between states. Now we are able to connect with people all over the world with one click of our mouse, or one enter key. We are now able to talk to troops over seas via skype, and send boxes of canned goods to disaster victims in Haiti. Facebook and the rest of social media has brought people closer together, almost making the distance between locations nonexistent.
Personally, I cant believe how the world has advanced. If we look back to the 1700's when communication and transportation was virtually nonexistent, it was hard for people to communicate between states. Now we are able to connect with people all over the world with one click of our mouse, or one enter key. We are now able to talk to troops over seas via skype, and send boxes of canned goods to disaster victims in Haiti. Facebook and the rest of social media has brought people closer together, almost making the distance between locations nonexistent.
Blogs
Over the last couple of days in class we have been discussing the effects of blogs. According to Farrell and Sides, authors of the Monkey Cage, the effectiveness of blogs are growing. They explain that reporters and journalist are getting some of their information based off of blogs. This is interesting because many people are unaware of the effects of blogs. For instance, I questioned a couple of my fellow suite mates about blogs and if they have ever read them or if they believe that blogs are effecting them. Needless to say, not one of them has ever participated in a blog and not one of them believe that blogs are effecting them in anyway. I assume this is the case for many people. I was discussing this issue with a student here at Stetson in the political science department. He continued to argue that blogs and new media outlets do not really have an effect on the older generation because they are not as involved in new media outlets as the younger generation. My argument came back to Farrell and Sides. They explain that news reporters and journalist are getting information from blogs. In result, this would effect everyone who uses the mainstream media. In addition, the older generation is more engaged in politics than the younger generation so in essence blogs could actually have more of an effect indirectly on the older generation through the mainstream media.
In class we have also discussed the evolution of media outlets. We said that when television was introduced it was a huge phenomenon. American citizens could now actually see the President of the United States. The introduction and shift to new media is not as large as the transition from newspapers and pamphlets to television, however it is still progress. New media styles are enabling people to virtually upload news instantaneously. This is going to alter the way that we see news portrayed in the future.
Sunday, April 22, 2012
The "Awareness Generation"
In class on Monday, Dr. Hill complained about those facebook friends who change their profile picture to reflect campaigns for different causes like poverty or recently, atrocities committed by Joseph Kony. Do they raise awareness? Maybe. Does this translate into any meaningful activism? Rarely.
How many times have you seen statuses like "Post the color of the bra you're wearing right now in your status to help raise awareness for breast cancer research!" or "Post a picture of your favorite childhood cartoon character to raise awareness for Child Abuse Month."
How many times have you seen statuses like "Post the color of the bra you're wearing right now in your status to help raise awareness for breast cancer research!" or "Post a picture of your favorite childhood cartoon character to raise awareness for Child Abuse Month."
I'm not sure that finding out my Aunt Mildred's bra is "lavender" is going to move anyone to do something more about breast cancer.
Jason Rickner, a Stetson Alum, did his senior research on the Russian Facebook's capacity to translate into qualitative discourse or activism and found that very little meaningful dialogue was taking place. Obviously, Facebook has played a big role in the recent protests in Russia, but the evidence that the social networking site has been able to encourage any other forms of social activism has been limited.
Perhaps there are positive ways "new media" outlets like Facebook can lead to substantive dialogue and activism. Facebook users can link to blogs (which we need to remember are powerful -- journalists are reading them) or take advantage of forum spaces to get an informed and specific conversation going. Instead of changing your profile picture to Bob the Builder, make a status that high lights the work being done by an organization that combats child abuse. Encourage people to make a contribution or link to the organization's website so that your friends can learn more.
We have to first get over the idea that we can solve problems just by raising awareness. It's a good place to start, and we have a lot of tools at our disposal to do it, but it hurts us if we're lulled into thinking we've done our part when really, we've only "passed the buck" onto someone else.
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Secret Service Scandal
President Obama spoke for the first time Sunday on accusations of Secret Service members who were allegedly involved in a scandal involving prostitutes being solicited to the hotel they were staying in before a summit in Cartegena, Colombia. Obama basically stated that he definitely wouldn't be joyous if he was to find out that the allegations were true. The 11 accused members were replaced from the project and taken out on administrative leave.
All of those sent back can be due up for questioning as early as today. Higher officials expressed that they were upset that supervisors even took part in the foul actions. There were also five accused military soldiers that are up for debate for participating in the matter and breaking curfew.
Further in the article, a Republican from California Darrell Issa (chairmen of House oversight over these types of things) said that he believes if this has occurred then things like this matter have been going on for years in the Secret Service as well as possibly other political organizations.
I found that the author included the Republican's opinion on the matter not only because it directly applied to his position, but rather because he wanted to set the later paragraphs up for how Obama responded. I believe many of these articles are un-biased but this article seems to be in favor of President Obama for he later quotes "These men and women perform extraordinary service on a daily basis" to show his defense of the Secret Service and what they have done for our country, the White House, and his family. By making this quote a personable one the author allows readers to notice that President Obama is still behind and sure of the Secret Service 100%. I enjoyed this article because it showed Obama's trust for his institutions. There must be accusations like this all of the time, its good to see Obama keep a good head on his shoulders and that this author acknowledges it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/16/us/secret-service-scandal-prompts-obama-comment.html?ref=americas
Monday, April 16, 2012
Obama's Web Presence
Every once in a while I will visit ThinkProgress.org, a blog that I find to be quite good when it comes to topics dealing with environmental issues especially. While sitting at the library computers, I typed in the web address to take a quick break from my work. I made an error, and typed ThinkProgress.com rather than ending it with "org". To my surprise, a massive Obama 2012 ad popped up in the window. (Check it out for yourself). I'm not sure if Obama's online campaigning team purposely bought the web address to catch any liberals making typing errors like me, but its significance can't be ignored. Last week we discussed the impacts of the internet on voting habits. Obama's clear web presence of this one address alone will certainly rake in a few bucks here and there in the upcoming months before the election. It's pretty extraordinary to think that one minor typing mistake can bring you one click away from donating to a presidential candidate. I have a feeling that this will be the theme of Obama's campaign strategy, and I bet it's going to be extremely effective. I remember listening to a piece on NPR about how much Obama is spending on even newer technologies to make fundraising that much easier. I looked up the article on Obama's digital campaign and found,
"Another clue to the Obama campaign's strategy this year is a few payments it made to a small tech company called Square, for a 1-inch-square credit card reader that works on iPhones and iPads. The Obama campaign says after trying out Square last quarter, it's buying hundreds of them this year, vastly reducing the time, money and effort it takes to raise and process donations — and potentially turning every volunteer into a digital fundraiser".This is the future of online campaigning, and like our readings suggested, it seems as though technology will continue to become an ever-increasing part of the political process.
Journalists and Academics
As we discussed in class, when it comes to journalism and political science, there is a great divide. Journalists often make mention of political phenomenon and theories concerning elections, but without citing any political scientists or valid political sources. Political scientists often drone on and on about theories and phenomenon, using complicated jargon and coded charts that are beyond the scope of common public understanding. As discussed in this article, journalists and academics have a gap to fill in the education of the public of political events and happenings. The reality is-- political scientists and journalists need to work together to educate the public with information that is essential to their effective decision-making. This information does not need to be riddled with confusing charts and graphs or language that only graduate students and political junkies can decipher. They are not a microcosm of the electorate. So long as that remains true, academics need a lesson on how to correctly cite political information and not translate political information to just accommodate their hunger for a juicy story. Political scientists need a lesson on how to simplify complex political phenomenon for the average citizen to understand and apply. They should be encouraged to take to the blogosphere and employ their social science of praxis to engage citizens into political dialogue.
http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2012/04/16/16859/
RE: "I'm Christian, Unless You're Gay."
This post has been circling for
quite some time, despite its length, and has gained somewhat national acclaim. I
read it and also reacted strongly—it has quite the universal appeal, and I
hardly doubt that you will react strongly— and I encourage you to read it too.
In short, the article shows that by
showing people love unless they’re gay, Christian, Atheist, male, female, rich,
ugly, whatever goes against every religion and secular teaching practically
ever. And it is also a sin against our own humanity.
It follows no current issue: it is
not events-based. Yet it is timely. It is biased and comments-based. Yet there
is truth to it. It does not address the government or the election or policy of
any sort: it is not political. Yet it bears political consequence.
It aims to affect behavior, and in
a way, it transcends the role of the traditional media. While we have a few
shining jewels in the history of the American press that have created an outcry
of support, a burst of passion, a movement of love; while we can boast a few
rare and beautiful occasions that we were united by the media, that we created
change… these are rare.
And yet the blogosphere causes us
to think—not just about others, but to introspect, to think of our shortcomings
and our cruelties. To think of how we treat other people and how we perceive
other people. And it reminds us that those “others” aren’t just other—they’re
human.
Can the traditional media do this?
Certainly. But it is rare. Traditional media is drifting too close to the
business model, stooping too low to the bottom line. It regurgitates as many
events as possible, hoping that any one of them may bring in enough interest,
enough money to keep the company afloat, or at least the CEO’s and Presidents’
pockets heavily lined. But where is social responsibility?
Is this the role of the new media?
God, I hope so. When these things go viral, do we not show a demand for this
supply? People still have the hearts, the compassion for the social responsibility
model. And the internet offers the space for multiple-page articles that tackle
real social issues.
I hate blogs, but I can't live without them...
I have never been a fan of blogs. When it comes to writing them, I don't have the time to upkeep a blog. When it comes to reading them, I usually lose interest or forget about them. However, when the news is not covering all details in a story, where do I go? Blogs. Where do I go when I want to learn more about a plane crash? Blogs. Where do I go when I want to learn more about a presidential candidate or Newt's "family life"? Blogs. While I may not sit and follow certain blogs in my day to day life, whenever there is something is important, I will find it in a blog. If there is anything you want to read about, you will find a blog that talks about it, plus 75 other blogs talking about the exact same thing.
Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, Blogspot, all of these forms of new media have created instantaneous media. I can confidently say that my Facebook will alert me of a "breaking news story" before any broadcast media interrupts my television show for special report regarding some "breaking news" event. How is it considered "breaking news" when I learned about it on Facebook over and hour ago and blogs have already been covering the event for an hour and a half? By the time Bin Laden was announced dead on the news, my Facebook news feed already gave me all the details I needed to know.
While I think these forms of new media are FORCING more Americans to become informed and it is a good thing, I am also left with wondering whether this leads to less people watching broadcast media. Today I think it is hard for most people who have a Facebook or twitter to go in their page and not see something political or informative. Of the hundreds of "friends" people have on their friend list, I am sure there is at least one obnoxious person who likes to post about politics or media coverage. Maybe that annoying person is yourself, nothing wrong with that. If one person with 1,000 friends posts about KONY 2012, they are informing 1,000 people with just the click of a button. Of those 1,000 people, I am sure a large majority are people who would have never came across the story otherwise.
It is just like our discussion in class earlier today regarding blogs. When you visit a blog, you are exposed to an entirely new list of blogs, each blog connected to another in some way. Facebook does the same thing in its web of interconnectedness. Im sure the 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon is much shorter in Facebook world. Meaning it is a lot easier to spread a story, an interest, or a cause. I would argue Facebook and the rest of social media has a heck of a lot more power than broadcast media. All we need to do is look at the countries this blog has been read in. So in the end, while I never liked blogs, social media informs me quicker than broadcast media, and connects us all in a way I never thought would have been possible.
Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, Blogspot, all of these forms of new media have created instantaneous media. I can confidently say that my Facebook will alert me of a "breaking news story" before any broadcast media interrupts my television show for special report regarding some "breaking news" event. How is it considered "breaking news" when I learned about it on Facebook over and hour ago and blogs have already been covering the event for an hour and a half? By the time Bin Laden was announced dead on the news, my Facebook news feed already gave me all the details I needed to know.
While I think these forms of new media are FORCING more Americans to become informed and it is a good thing, I am also left with wondering whether this leads to less people watching broadcast media. Today I think it is hard for most people who have a Facebook or twitter to go in their page and not see something political or informative. Of the hundreds of "friends" people have on their friend list, I am sure there is at least one obnoxious person who likes to post about politics or media coverage. Maybe that annoying person is yourself, nothing wrong with that. If one person with 1,000 friends posts about KONY 2012, they are informing 1,000 people with just the click of a button. Of those 1,000 people, I am sure a large majority are people who would have never came across the story otherwise.
It is just like our discussion in class earlier today regarding blogs. When you visit a blog, you are exposed to an entirely new list of blogs, each blog connected to another in some way. Facebook does the same thing in its web of interconnectedness. Im sure the 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon is much shorter in Facebook world. Meaning it is a lot easier to spread a story, an interest, or a cause. I would argue Facebook and the rest of social media has a heck of a lot more power than broadcast media. All we need to do is look at the countries this blog has been read in. So in the end, while I never liked blogs, social media informs me quicker than broadcast media, and connects us all in a way I never thought would have been possible.
The Diminished role of Blogs in News Framing?
Recently we have read a journal article by Henry Farrell and Daniel W. Drezner tilted, “The Power and Politics of Blogs”. The findings in this article suggest that elite bloggers influence news framing by becoming a focal point of reference to the main stream media. Although what we did not discuss in class is the findings in this entry are not conclusive, they are only a beginning of future research in the photosphere.
“However, even if the blogosphere can influence the body politic, the extent of that influence remains open to question.”
This is what I was worried about the entire class period. The discussion we had seemed to lead us to assume that the influence from blogs was there when really the evidence can do no more than suggest an influence.
What I was most concerned about was the small amount of actual references the main stream media made towards blogs “between September 2003 and January 2004” when there survey took place. What the data showed was that in the span of 5 months the major blogs mentioned were mentioned very few time s one which was mentioned 78 times but this one was truly an out liner for the rest ranged from 1-16 mentions. My point is that these are the top read blogs yet they are mentioned very few times within the span of five months. Although I could not find data on the most highly referenced source for political information of the mainstream media, it does seem rather miniscule that the media would only reference the top read blog with an outlier at 78 mentions in 5 months in the presents of a 24 hour news cycle.
Another concern I had with this article is the wording that a certain survey finding had:
“Of those who used blogs, 55% reported that they use them to support the work that they
do in writing news.”
My problem is with the word “support”, it leads me to question whether the blog was really influential news framing, or the journalist had already developed a frame for the news and used the blog solely for support; in which case the role of the blog in news framing is diminished.
PBS
In class we have discussed the effects of the media within the United States but we have not discussed the effects of media outside of the United States. Over Easter break I was fortunate enough to travel to the Bahamas. The place that I stayed did not have a lot of choices on the television, in fact the only news station that could be received was PBS. The difference between PBS and CNN or MSNBC or Fox is dramatic. I believe the biggest differences are fragmentation and appearance. After watching PBS I was very informed about the Iran issue and the Nuclear weapon issue. The reporter did not just report what was happening now but explained why this happened and some of the events that have played a role in this issue. The speaker that the reporter was interviewing was not speaking as a Republican or a Democrat like many other news outlets, but he was speaking directly on the issues. He was stating the facts without all the bias aspects that MSNBC and FOX include. Although the is no such thing as complete objective news, this news was very centered on the facts.
The next aspect that is very different is the appearance aspect. Although I believe that PBS is very informative and helpful, I do find it very hard to sit there and listen to the entire show. In order for the much needed information to be heard by people, I believe PBS needs to change the way that it reports the news. We have discussed in class how political science academics need to write blogs in an attractive understandable way so a ‘normal’ American can understand what is going on. I believe this is true with PBS, in order to reach a larger number of people it needs to be more appealing to people, not so much in the content of the news because PBS does a good job in that category but making the appearance of the show more appealing to people. I realize that the appearance of PBS does not have anything to do with the content of the news but it does have an effect on who watches it.
The Power of the Internet
Well, it appears as though the United Nations may finally be getting its act together. In a world that is supposedly defined by its shift toward idealism (the belief that the sovereignty of individual states is declining and the prominence of intergovernmental organizations is rising), the U.N. has been woefully slow in its action regarding Syria. Now, all the blame cannot be put squarely on the U.N., it is safe to say that China and Russia hold a large portion of the blame because of their veto of the cease-fire that was proposed a long time ago. Nonetheless, U.N. observers are heading to Syria this week to monitor a cease-fire agreement that has been reached between the government and the rebels. But, there is one problem with the agreement. The problem is that the government continues to fire on its citizens. As a cease-fire agreement would suggest, firing is supposed to cease. However, the Syrian government has not ceased. They continue to massacre their citizens and the end doesn't seem to be in sight. In all honesty, I think the U.N. observers are in for a rude awakening. Despite my rant about the lack of U.N. progress, the real point of this article has to do with the internet.
Much is always made about how the internet impacts voting in the United States. Internet voting, internet campaigning, and the like have been studied to determine how these new found ways of voting and campaigning increase voter participation. However, the role of the internet in foreign countries, and especially in revolts such as the one in Syria, cannot be overstated. The internet basically started the Arab Spring movement. Because of the medium protestors had in the internet, they were able to get their ideas out to a watching world. Further, in Syria, because the government has severely restricted journalists from entering the country, one of our only windows into the violence has been through Syrian citizens and their willingness to defy the government and post about the conflict on the internet. Syrians have been killed because of their desire to make their cause known to the world. The internet, and social media sites in particular, have given these long oppressed people a voice. These people see the internet as their window to freedom; their way to show the world the struggles they have faced for decades.
The role the internet has played in these crises and revolts has been remarkable. While we in the United States study the impact the internet has on voting and the like, these people in other countries are using it as a lifeline. What to us is an everyday luxury, to these oppressed people is a life ring that is saving them from drowning in oppression. While the response of the United Nations to the needs of these citizens being killed has been shameful to say the least, at least we are staring to act. Without the internet, we may never have known the severity of the situation in Syria. We may never have known the plight of these citizens, who are being killed by their own government. We may never have known of the hostility of these brutal Middle Eastern dictators. Our everyday tool for augmenting voter turnout and modernizing campaigns is the last hope of the Syrians. It is important for us to remember that while we sit on Facebook and gossip about our friends, people in other parts of the world are logging onto Facebook to try to save their own lives.
Article on Syria.
Much is always made about how the internet impacts voting in the United States. Internet voting, internet campaigning, and the like have been studied to determine how these new found ways of voting and campaigning increase voter participation. However, the role of the internet in foreign countries, and especially in revolts such as the one in Syria, cannot be overstated. The internet basically started the Arab Spring movement. Because of the medium protestors had in the internet, they were able to get their ideas out to a watching world. Further, in Syria, because the government has severely restricted journalists from entering the country, one of our only windows into the violence has been through Syrian citizens and their willingness to defy the government and post about the conflict on the internet. Syrians have been killed because of their desire to make their cause known to the world. The internet, and social media sites in particular, have given these long oppressed people a voice. These people see the internet as their window to freedom; their way to show the world the struggles they have faced for decades.
The role the internet has played in these crises and revolts has been remarkable. While we in the United States study the impact the internet has on voting and the like, these people in other countries are using it as a lifeline. What to us is an everyday luxury, to these oppressed people is a life ring that is saving them from drowning in oppression. While the response of the United Nations to the needs of these citizens being killed has been shameful to say the least, at least we are staring to act. Without the internet, we may never have known the severity of the situation in Syria. We may never have known the plight of these citizens, who are being killed by their own government. We may never have known of the hostility of these brutal Middle Eastern dictators. Our everyday tool for augmenting voter turnout and modernizing campaigns is the last hope of the Syrians. It is important for us to remember that while we sit on Facebook and gossip about our friends, people in other parts of the world are logging onto Facebook to try to save their own lives.
Article on Syria.
Sunday, April 15, 2012
Obama's New Sideshow
Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304444604577341681568466086.html?mod=WSJ_elections_article_liveupdate
The Obama team has started a new, but vaguely familiar offensive. To bury and confuse voters by pointing out how little Romney has paid in taxes, as compared to themselves. This tactic brings us back not too far to the Republican primary race when Newt Gingrich was starting to slide in national polls he, out of desperation used this line of attack. Since then Mr. Gingrich has had to suspend campaign activities. So this brings me to think, is this a winning strategy or part of the winning strategy for the Obama campaign? I cannot answer than hear, we will all have to stay tuned and see how it fares for him.
The Obama team has started a new, but vaguely familiar offensive. To bury and confuse voters by pointing out how little Romney has paid in taxes, as compared to themselves. This tactic brings us back not too far to the Republican primary race when Newt Gingrich was starting to slide in national polls he, out of desperation used this line of attack. Since then Mr. Gingrich has had to suspend campaign activities. So this brings me to think, is this a winning strategy or part of the winning strategy for the Obama campaign? I cannot answer than hear, we will all have to stay tuned and see how it fares for him.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Santorum Drops Out
Rick Santorum dropped out of his presidential campaign today. He did not give specifics as to why he decided to drop out, but it is most likely due to Romeny's dominance in across the nation. Santorum stated that he will still give any aid to the Republican Party that he can, of course that mean backing Romney when he wins the candidacy.
The issue of money is brought up in this article, which suggests that Santorum has far less money than Romney. Money has become a huge player in presidential elections, maybe too much of a player. The Super PAC, Restore our Future, has backed Romney by putting millions and millions of dollars toward campaign adds that targeted Santorum. The amount of money that is being put into these campaigns is unbelievable. This leads to the question; is the best candidate being chosen by the country or are the supporting factors behind the candidate putting millions behind that candidate in order for that person to win? Most likely the candidate with the most money or the most financial backing will win the elections or campaigns. But if there are two candidates with about the same amount of financial backing, I think that the country would pick the best candidate because they are seeing more of both sides instead of seeing a majority a single sides propaganda.
The question of financial backing is a tricky question, because the more money behind a candidate, the more good publicity they will get, and the more bad publicity their opponents will be get. But if a candidate has a major financial backing from several sources, does that mean that they are the best candidate? Is it fair to say the people and companies supporting the candidate have a lot of money for a reason; they are successful and educated. But, of course, this brings up another issue of the elites running the country. Is that such a bad thing? Maybe the educated and elites should run the country because they are the most educated and knowledgeable. I don't know, it seems to be a issue that will never be completely answered.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/10/santorum-to-suspend-presidential-campaign/?hp
The issue of money is brought up in this article, which suggests that Santorum has far less money than Romney. Money has become a huge player in presidential elections, maybe too much of a player. The Super PAC, Restore our Future, has backed Romney by putting millions and millions of dollars toward campaign adds that targeted Santorum. The amount of money that is being put into these campaigns is unbelievable. This leads to the question; is the best candidate being chosen by the country or are the supporting factors behind the candidate putting millions behind that candidate in order for that person to win? Most likely the candidate with the most money or the most financial backing will win the elections or campaigns. But if there are two candidates with about the same amount of financial backing, I think that the country would pick the best candidate because they are seeing more of both sides instead of seeing a majority a single sides propaganda.
The question of financial backing is a tricky question, because the more money behind a candidate, the more good publicity they will get, and the more bad publicity their opponents will be get. But if a candidate has a major financial backing from several sources, does that mean that they are the best candidate? Is it fair to say the people and companies supporting the candidate have a lot of money for a reason; they are successful and educated. But, of course, this brings up another issue of the elites running the country. Is that such a bad thing? Maybe the educated and elites should run the country because they are the most educated and knowledgeable. I don't know, it seems to be a issue that will never be completely answered.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/10/santorum-to-suspend-presidential-campaign/?hp
Obama To Outline Plan for Higher Taxes on Rich
Source: Wallstreet Journal
While I am a registered card carrying Republican, I cannot stand up and say that taxes are bad. Taxes are what run our country. Without them we would not have medicare, medicaid, social security, or any other entitlement service that aids a large portion of the country; who without this aid wouldn't be able to house or clothe or feed their children and themselves. When will there be a discussion in politics over the balance of the equality and responsibility when dealing with taxes, one other than the current which pits the elephants against the donkeys?
While I am a registered card carrying Republican, I cannot stand up and say that taxes are bad. Taxes are what run our country. Without them we would not have medicare, medicaid, social security, or any other entitlement service that aids a large portion of the country; who without this aid wouldn't be able to house or clothe or feed their children and themselves. When will there be a discussion in politics over the balance of the equality and responsibility when dealing with taxes, one other than the current which pits the elephants against the donkeys?
Monday, April 9, 2012
Portrayal of Generation Y in the Media
Today we talked about what it means to be a member of the Millennials or "Generation Y". Dr. Hill pointed out that often, when there is a decline in a behavior among younger generations like newspaper-reading, journalists or lazy scholars will point to some intellectual or moral degradation among young people. In fact, this has probably been said about every generation before us "since people wrote things down" (to quote Mr. Wildridge) and instead usually just means that the young generation has changed in some unforseen way -- like turning to the internet or Jon Stewart for their news instead of Broadcast or print media.
This got me thinking about what other things people might get wrong about our generation. How is "Generation Y" portrayed in the media? Often, it's not positive. Here in an article called "The Entrepreneurial Generation", William Deresiewicz describes us as post-emotional and enterprising. In a tough economic climate, we've adapted to be able to sell ourselves -- and that means being nice, polite, and charmingly self-deprecating.
"...If they think you’re criticizing them, they won’t want to buy what you’re selling.That kind of thinking is precisely what I’m talking about, what lies behind the bland, inoffensive, smile-and-a-shoeshine personality — the stay-positive, other-directed, I’ll-be-whoever-you-want-me-to-be personality — that everybody has today.... They say that people in Hollywood are always nice to everyone they meet, in that famously fake Hollywood way, because they’re never certain whom they might be dealing with — it could be somebody who’s more important than they realize, or at least, somebody who might become important down the road. Well, we’re all in showbiz now, walking on eggshells, relentlessly tending our customer base..."
Does our generation feel like that to you?
Todd and Victoria Buccholz describe people our age as "sedentary and risk-averse" in their article, "The Go-NoWhere Generation". "Perhaps young people are too happy at home checking Facebook," instead of getting drivers incenses or jobs the authors offer. Because of the difficult times we've faced in our more formative years, we've become a "why bother" generation. Unfortunately, the authors offer an old school solution: they prescribe a road trip and some Springsteen tunes. While this would definitely rejuvenate me to get back on track and remind me to take more risks in life,, this doesn't seem like a solution for many people.
Some favorites of mine include Zadie Smith's " Generation Why" and Mark Greif's "What Was the Hipster?"
They are longer, but certainly worth the read. Though I don't agree with everything these authors are saying, at least they spend a longer time attempting to map out this complex generation. To borrow words from Edward Said, surely a great deal of "demagogy and downright ignorance" is involved in presuming to speak for a whole generation of peoples.
Do you know of recent examples of someone trying to characterize our generation in the broadcast media? What do you think of journalists negative portrayal of us? Are we all the things they say we are?
This got me thinking about what other things people might get wrong about our generation. How is "Generation Y" portrayed in the media? Often, it's not positive. Here in an article called "The Entrepreneurial Generation", William Deresiewicz describes us as post-emotional and enterprising. In a tough economic climate, we've adapted to be able to sell ourselves -- and that means being nice, polite, and charmingly self-deprecating.
"...If they think you’re criticizing them, they won’t want to buy what you’re selling.That kind of thinking is precisely what I’m talking about, what lies behind the bland, inoffensive, smile-and-a-shoeshine personality — the stay-positive, other-directed, I’ll-be-whoever-you-want-me-to-be personality — that everybody has today.... They say that people in Hollywood are always nice to everyone they meet, in that famously fake Hollywood way, because they’re never certain whom they might be dealing with — it could be somebody who’s more important than they realize, or at least, somebody who might become important down the road. Well, we’re all in showbiz now, walking on eggshells, relentlessly tending our customer base..."
Does our generation feel like that to you?
Todd and Victoria Buccholz describe people our age as "sedentary and risk-averse" in their article, "The Go-NoWhere Generation". "Perhaps young people are too happy at home checking Facebook," instead of getting drivers incenses or jobs the authors offer. Because of the difficult times we've faced in our more formative years, we've become a "why bother" generation. Unfortunately, the authors offer an old school solution: they prescribe a road trip and some Springsteen tunes. While this would definitely rejuvenate me to get back on track and remind me to take more risks in life,, this doesn't seem like a solution for many people.
Some favorites of mine include Zadie Smith's " Generation Why" and Mark Greif's "What Was the Hipster?"
They are longer, but certainly worth the read. Though I don't agree with everything these authors are saying, at least they spend a longer time attempting to map out this complex generation. To borrow words from Edward Said, surely a great deal of "demagogy and downright ignorance" is involved in presuming to speak for a whole generation of peoples.
Do you know of recent examples of someone trying to characterize our generation in the broadcast media? What do you think of journalists negative portrayal of us? Are we all the things they say we are?
Actually Knowing Versus Thinking You Know
The past couple of weeks I have been hearing all about the Trayvon Martin case but due especially from the news online as well as on the television. I initially found out about this case through Facebook as sadly as that sounds but his name along with rest in peace and best wishes to his family were hard to ignore when put all across the internet. I just like most people who chose not to educate themselves on the case. I found the article regarding the subject from the New York Times.
It talks about how a volunteer for civil crime watch was the one who shot the teenager. Initially I thought it was a cop just from the hear say as well as the internet sources that I had read up about. This just shows how sometimes social networking can most definitely provide the wrong information. It changes how I feel about the subject completely. How can a civil watch volunteer have the right to hold a weapon and be expected to follow the "hold your ground law" to the fullest.This also goes along with how we spoke in class last week about how news channels will focus more sometimes on being the first ones to report the story instead of making sure they are reporting the actual truth of the events.
As for how the author writes up the article, he provides a sort of bias by saying how this story has riled up and caused the African-American community to come together in showing the possible of "obvious" discrimination in this story. The author does this by even providing a quote from president Obama that says how if he had a son it would of looked like Trayvon Martin. This automatically shows his side on the matter and to instill the leader of our nation's viewpoint on the matter can cause a group to rally behind a statement of that magnitude. The story doesn't give much information about the man who shot Trayvon Martin. His name was George Zimmerman but his story or side was left unheard of.
It talks about how a volunteer for civil crime watch was the one who shot the teenager. Initially I thought it was a cop just from the hear say as well as the internet sources that I had read up about. This just shows how sometimes social networking can most definitely provide the wrong information. It changes how I feel about the subject completely. How can a civil watch volunteer have the right to hold a weapon and be expected to follow the "hold your ground law" to the fullest.This also goes along with how we spoke in class last week about how news channels will focus more sometimes on being the first ones to report the story instead of making sure they are reporting the actual truth of the events.
As for how the author writes up the article, he provides a sort of bias by saying how this story has riled up and caused the African-American community to come together in showing the possible of "obvious" discrimination in this story. The author does this by even providing a quote from president Obama that says how if he had a son it would of looked like Trayvon Martin. This automatically shows his side on the matter and to instill the leader of our nation's viewpoint on the matter can cause a group to rally behind a statement of that magnitude. The story doesn't give much information about the man who shot Trayvon Martin. His name was George Zimmerman but his story or side was left unheard of.
Going down to Rio
http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/09/politics/us-brazil-presidents/index.html
Finally the Media is taking the time to focus on the international side of things that doesn't involve tragedy or war. Looks like Dr. Bennet will be happy once again because the media is educating the public on policies that may take place in the future. These policies are important for the future of the American economy and should be reported and speculated. The Media in this sense is educating people on something that actually matters and actually provide a little bit of background information that sheds light on the current situation. If more news stories followed this model perhaps our population would be more informed on global issues and foreign policies. It is also good to see an article that is focusing on Brazil and Latin America a region traditionally ignored but now may be more important in the future in the arena of international trade. For this reason maybe a little more attention should be paid down south.
Finally the Media is taking the time to focus on the international side of things that doesn't involve tragedy or war. Looks like Dr. Bennet will be happy once again because the media is educating the public on policies that may take place in the future. These policies are important for the future of the American economy and should be reported and speculated. The Media in this sense is educating people on something that actually matters and actually provide a little bit of background information that sheds light on the current situation. If more news stories followed this model perhaps our population would be more informed on global issues and foreign policies. It is also good to see an article that is focusing on Brazil and Latin America a region traditionally ignored but now may be more important in the future in the arena of international trade. For this reason maybe a little more attention should be paid down south.
Mike Wallace: 1918-2012
 |
| Mike Wallace. © CBS News. All rights reserved. |
I may have grown up in the 90's, but it sure felt like the 50's. The one television in the house only got two channels over the air, ABC and CBS. I can remember sitting in front of the TV on Sunday evenings, watching 60 Minutes with my dad as far back as 3 or 4 years old.
The Colbert Report and more discursive integration
In last week's class, we discussed where 'The Daily Show with Jon Stewart' fits into the spectrum between hard and soft news. Baym (2005) argued that the Daily Show was more complex and an example of discursive integration in a new media era of entertainment. I would argue that Stephen Colbert's "Colbert Report" is also a difficult program to classify. Like the Daily Show, Colbert uses satire and humor to bring to light important political and social issues in America. Where they do differ, is the methodology of satire used by each program. We saw that Jon Stewart likes to poke fun and bring himself into a dialogue with those he criticizes. As Baym describes, Stewart speaks with the voice of the "outraged individual who, comparing official pronouncements with his own basic common sense, simply cannot believe what he- and all of us- are expected to swallow" (p. 266). On the contrary, Colbert seems to embody the exact perspective or mentality he is criticizing. While Jon Stewart criticizes from a different perspective, Colbert creates a a politically conservative caricature and in turn becomes what he is (oftentimes brutally) scrutinizing. Colbert sometimes even steps out of his show and into the real world, whether that's testifying in Congress (in character), or comedically creating his own SuperPAC.
When in character, Colbert oftentimes likens himself to Bill O'Reilly, or as he refers to him as, "Papa Bear". In Colbert's interview portion of the show, he personifies a typical "Crossfire"-like attitude to the discussion, and attempts to derail his guest's argument. The results are oftentimes brilliant. While they may seem silly at times, they usually are extremely witty and intelligent moments of television.
I watched this interview with actor Mark Ruffalo a week ago, and felt that it was one of Colbert's best. Here, he plays his usual rude self when talking to a "Hollywood liberal elite". After a few minutes he eventually gives Ruffalo the opportunity to make his case, which he does so quite effectively. Ruffalo makes his points against the practicing of hydraulic-fracturing, or "tracking" by energy companies. I would encourage everyone to take a few minutes and watch the interview. It is funny, silly, scary, and sobering all within a 7 minute span, and is everything the Colbert Report is about. This is another example of discursive integration-- where the interview is educational, entertaining, and in its own category of broadcast media journalism.
When in character, Colbert oftentimes likens himself to Bill O'Reilly, or as he refers to him as, "Papa Bear". In Colbert's interview portion of the show, he personifies a typical "Crossfire"-like attitude to the discussion, and attempts to derail his guest's argument. The results are oftentimes brilliant. While they may seem silly at times, they usually are extremely witty and intelligent moments of television.
I watched this interview with actor Mark Ruffalo a week ago, and felt that it was one of Colbert's best. Here, he plays his usual rude self when talking to a "Hollywood liberal elite". After a few minutes he eventually gives Ruffalo the opportunity to make his case, which he does so quite effectively. Ruffalo makes his points against the practicing of hydraulic-fracturing, or "tracking" by energy companies. I would encourage everyone to take a few minutes and watch the interview. It is funny, silly, scary, and sobering all within a 7 minute span, and is everything the Colbert Report is about. This is another example of discursive integration-- where the interview is educational, entertaining, and in its own category of broadcast media journalism.
Subjective news vs Objective news.
Politics Nation with Al Sharpton
April 9, 2012
I watched the Politics Nations with Al Sharpton to see who/what John Stewart was going to make fun of next. The first subject that Sharpton discussed was the Treyvon Martin case. One thing that stuck out to me was the personalization that Sharpton and the guest speaker portrayed. Bennet discusses this in his article The Politics of Illusion. They asked the audience how they would feel if their loved one was shot while they were talking to him/her on the phone. Sharpton and the guest speaker tried to make the audience relate to the situation so they would have a since of connectivity to the case. I’m not degrading the death of Treyvon but this incident occurred over a month ago, should this event still be a headline on national news? There are multiple other events that are taking place that have political significance that can effect the entire nation. For instance the Republican primaries. After Sharpton quit discussing the Treyvon case, he then began to discuss how there is “strange and ugly talk coming from the right.”
“Strange and ugly talk from the right” was Sharpton’s headline for his next topic. The first concept that I thought of was fragmentation bias in the mainstream media. This type of bias is a lot more obvious when watching the mainstream media than personalization. When President Obama adds finally got done and Politics Nation started again, Sharpton showed a copy of Charles Grassley’s, a Republican Senator’s tweet that said “Constituents askd why i am not outraged at PresO attack on supreme court independence. Bcause Am ppl r not stupid as this x prof of con law.” This does not surprise me that a known ‘left’ news media outlet would show this but how Sharpton portrayed this is what was disturbing. As Sharpton was announcing his headline that there was “strange and ugly talk form the right” it was showing Mitt Romney in the background making it seem like Romney said the negative things instead of Grassley. As we have said in class many people just get the headlines of news and be on their way. Headlines can be very deceiving as we can see from MSNBC. MSNBC is not the only media outlet that does this though. Many news outlets are only worried about making a profit so they portray things that they believe will make the most money. Thomas and Nain, authors of Who owns the media? agree that many news outlets will do almost anything to attract people just to make money. This is very disturbing since many Americans rely on the mainstream media for their knowledge about the news.
Another aspect that bothered me while I was watching Al Sharpton was that he placed all Republicans into the same category. I understand that a lot of Republicans think the same but not all of them are as radical as he is making them out to be. As we have concluded in class there is no such think as objective news but there should be a middle ground between objective and subjective. MSNBC’s Al Sharpton along with FOX’s Geraldo Rivera and many others are examples of news reporters who are very subjective and bias. Bias in the news is inevitable, however it should not be as strong as Al Sharpton’s.
It's Mitt Romney?
Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304587704577332061460605938.html?mod=WSJ_Election_LEFTSecondStories
This article published by the Wall Street Journal does a great job covering recent campaign activities by all three republican candidates. The most interesting of which is that Newt Gingrich has suspended his campaign, and all but said that Romney is going to be the nominee. The authors then offered information to support their claim, that now it was clear that Romney will be the nominee. Really? It took an organization like the WSJ this long to figure out that Romney was going to be the nominee. Political Scientists have been saying this since he threw his hat back in the ring, and was able to raise such large amounts of money.
One of the more troubling facts about this article is its lack of policy and substance review. Like typical media today the authors have focused on the "horse race" effect. By covering polls, delegate counts, and primary victories of all three candidates they have over looked the real issues the candidates have been running on. Now that some analysts in a backroom have 'called' the republican nominee they have begun covering the 'exit talk' of the other two candidates and focusing on the shifting of the campaign from primary to general election mode.
With both President Obama, and Gov. Romney throwing sharp barbs at each other this week, the November elections is bound to close and intense election.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)