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>

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.

Obama Apologizing?

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

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


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

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

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

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