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/
Showing posts with label CNN. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CNN. Show all posts
Monday, April 30, 2012
Monday, April 16, 2012
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.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
What Makes This News?
For most people I think it can be pretty exciting when a news story in your backyard reaches the national news. Unfortunately for us here in Central Florida another tragic story of young death has captured the nations attention but at least this time all of the news coverage could have policy results. If you have been living under a rock for the past month I am referring to the news of the Trayvon Martin Killing. While I would like say that I do completely support justice being served and the right things being done. I may be beating a dead horse with this question, but what makes this news, why is the country so fascinated by this case, and will all of the news coverage create outcomes that will better our democracy?
It's hard for me to understand what makes this news. Why? Well because everyday in America someone dies at the hands of another person. And more times than we would like to believe that killing had a motive behind it that mite have just had to do with a persons race or some stereotype that we all know should no longer be around but unfortunately it still is. As for why I see the country being so consumed with this case. Well it's easier to be on the side of what we know is right than stand against something. And for some I think the fascination comes from unfortunate thought of "that could have been my son" and what can I do to make sure it never is.
I can at least say that the continues media coverage of this case does seem to be leading to policy outcomes. It seems as though the simple muckraking model introduced by Graber earlier in the semester, which says journalistic investigation leads to publication of news stories which then arouses public opinion, giving public officials a reason to enact policy outcomes, is being followed. As the coverage of the Martin case has increased and the public outpouring of support has increased public officials have taken notice. As CNN reported "A special prosecutor is investigating the case. A grand jury scheduled to begin deliberations on April 10, but it is uncertain if the group will ever work on the case. The prosecutor, Angela Corey, said Monday on HLN that she has never used a grand jury to decide on charges in a justifiable homicide case...In addition to the investigation led by Corey, the state's governor has formed a task force to review the state's "stand your ground" law. The Justice Department is also investigating. Sanford's city manager, Norton Bonaparte, also has said he is seeking an outside review of the police department's handling of the case." As this case continues to unfold it will be interesting to see how other public officials begin to respond to this case.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/26/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html?hpt=us_c1
It's hard for me to understand what makes this news. Why? Well because everyday in America someone dies at the hands of another person. And more times than we would like to believe that killing had a motive behind it that mite have just had to do with a persons race or some stereotype that we all know should no longer be around but unfortunately it still is. As for why I see the country being so consumed with this case. Well it's easier to be on the side of what we know is right than stand against something. And for some I think the fascination comes from unfortunate thought of "that could have been my son" and what can I do to make sure it never is.
I can at least say that the continues media coverage of this case does seem to be leading to policy outcomes. It seems as though the simple muckraking model introduced by Graber earlier in the semester, which says journalistic investigation leads to publication of news stories which then arouses public opinion, giving public officials a reason to enact policy outcomes, is being followed. As the coverage of the Martin case has increased and the public outpouring of support has increased public officials have taken notice. As CNN reported "A special prosecutor is investigating the case. A grand jury scheduled to begin deliberations on April 10, but it is uncertain if the group will ever work on the case. The prosecutor, Angela Corey, said Monday on HLN that she has never used a grand jury to decide on charges in a justifiable homicide case...In addition to the investigation led by Corey, the state's governor has formed a task force to review the state's "stand your ground" law. The Justice Department is also investigating. Sanford's city manager, Norton Bonaparte, also has said he is seeking an outside review of the police department's handling of the case." As this case continues to unfold it will be interesting to see how other public officials begin to respond to this case.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/26/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html?hpt=us_c1
Monday, March 26, 2012
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>
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
72 Hours Under Fire
As was mentioned in class, when broadcast news stations pay special attention to events going on in the world, it usually comes in some form of an hour special. This past weekend I watch 72 Hours Under Fire. A special report that offers a behind the scenes look at reporting in Syria. A special that originally aired on CNN on March 11. CNN sent a three person team into Homs, Syria to report on the on the unrest that started there last March. The team was able capture images from a clinic in Homs that was run by two doctors and 20 volunteers and footage of the daily bombing and fighting that has caused most residents to flee or hide. From the special the viewers where able to get a true understanding of the unrest and devastation that has been going on in Syria. This special also does a great job at showing the difficulty that journalist in the field face and many of the dilemmas that they face such as; when to turn off the camera and help and when to stay back and not intervene. A quote from the journalist on the team explains how difficult it can be, "You have to be in it – seeing it, smelling it, listening to it – so that at the end of the day you can do justice to what the people are suffering. And [the activists] know by having us there, it’s going to help tell that story.”
"72 Hours Under Fire also reveals the tough choices news executives like Maddox were constantly having to make, including pulling the team out of Syria before Damon wanted to leave."
"72 Hours Under Fire also reveals the tough choices news executives like Maddox were constantly having to make, including pulling the team out of Syria before Damon wanted to leave."
Monday, March 19, 2012
Is Fox News too liberal?
If you're having the same reaction I am right now, namely, "whaaaa?," hang in there.
Rick Santorum complained recently that Fox News is constantly "shilling" for the "liberal" Mitt Romney on their daytime programming, leaving poor ol' Rick out in the cold. Somewhat surprisingly (to myself at least), Fox jumped up to defend their coverage of the candidates.
Video and commentary continue after the jump.
Rick Santorum complained recently that Fox News is constantly "shilling" for the "liberal" Mitt Romney on their daytime programming, leaving poor ol' Rick out in the cold. Somewhat surprisingly (to myself at least), Fox jumped up to defend their coverage of the candidates.
Video and commentary continue after the jump.
We Need Blood
Chapter 27 of Doris A. Graber’s book “Media Power In Politics” discusses Sean Aday’s article “The Real War Will Never Get On Television: An Analysis Of Casualty Imagery”. Aday’s article concerns a simple dilemma, the media will never portray war as it truly is: an “awful” endeavor. The concern is with the medias’ refusal to depict the gruesome carnage that is the result of war. What I want to focus on during the remainder of this article is addressing a claim found in Aday’s article by Walt Whiteman, “The real war will never get in the books.” A question that arouse to me after reviewing this article is: Should the media reveal the graphic nature of war, for the purposes of reporting the full implications of war as observed by the reporters? What I have determined to be my response to this question is: Yes, the media should in fact expose the graphic nature of war so as to adequately inform the public of what the “real war” is like. I believe that that the exposure to this graphic content a necessary to fulfilling the media’s role in a democracy of informing the public of what the “real war” is; so that we may understand the full implications of war in the future consideration in military involvement. If we exposed to war as it really is we may better understand what war is and may aid us in refraining from military action unless determined to be absolutely necessary. It is therefore that I have determined that this graphic content as absolutely essential information in the evaluation of whether or not military action is appropriate. Seeing that this information is essential to the objectivity of war coverage the media does have an obligation to expose us to the graphic nature of war, under its role of informing the public as a media serving a democracy. What implication’s this graphic content would have can range from: Increasing support for a war by displaying the state of the afflicted, to; lessening the support for war as a protection for all of humanity.
Monday, March 12, 2012
Why Rush Limbaugh loves the First Amendment.
Many citizens have become quite wrapped up in the
controversy surrounding conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh. The opinion article I read from CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/12/opinion/randazza-limbaugh-speech/index.html) has great depth on the issue and focuses on why Rush can and should be able to say what he wants. The author comments on how many people have called for Limbaugh to be stripped of his show and be fired much like happened to Don Imus. The author claims that freedom of speech is the most important thing we have and it helps make America the nation we have become. Regardless of how you stand on the comments Limbaugh made it is hard to deny that he has a right to say it. Your gut might make you really dislike Limbaugh and that's ok but, stepping back and looking at the big picture and ask yourself "What did Limbaugh do that was illegal?" This can be a difficult issue for us to grapple with because often times we allow emotions to come into play and affect views/decision making. When people allow emotions to skew our thoughts and ideas on things such as the first amendment we reach a dangerous area where we can act with impulse instead of true information. So before calling for Limbaugh's removal from the air we must consider these facts and of course we need to consider the biggest fact which is that speech is protected and by asking for the removal of individuals we ourselves are flirting with losing that right.
Al-Jazeera Listening Post: The US media's 'Iranian threat'
While we have been encouraged to look at media sources in the United States in this class, I couldn't help but post this to the blog after watching a short report on the Al-Jazeera English website. I oftentimes turn to Al-Jazeera for news overseas, not only to read about news stories that might not make headline news in the United States, but also to hear them from another perspective. In this 25 minute news video, the first 10 minutes or so are dedicated to recent American news coverage of Iran. I would recommend at the very least watching from 6:25-8:30. Here, a criticism of sensationalist broadcast media is given, in contrast with a more responsible print media. According to the Al-Jazeera report, it seems as though sensationalized visual-based news is winning the battle.
I do concede that for those who reject the hypodermic model of the media, just because the media might emphasize one "story" over another, does not mean that it will in fact do anything. The report, which aired on March 3rd, noted that the US military did not think it to be prudent to engage in military action with Iran. Nonetheless, something surely has to be said about the role the media takes in informing citizens. While I may not agree with everything in the short video, I do agree that most Americans have not seen the graph shown at minute 8:30. This is a good example of one news organization almost being a watchdog of another country's media behavior, which I found to be interesting and well worth 10 minutes of my time.
Actual Video Below:
Goodbye civility, we hardly knew ye...
It'd be nice to know that civility still exists. Or at least is an idea.
Unfortunately, it isn't the case.
We've seen for years the damage caused by any number of belligerent voices in the public sphere, such as that of Pat Robertson, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck.
The attitude has spread like a cancer, and it has spread to us too.
Continued after the jump.
Unfortunately, it isn't the case.
We've seen for years the damage caused by any number of belligerent voices in the public sphere, such as that of Pat Robertson, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck.
The attitude has spread like a cancer, and it has spread to us too.
Continued after the jump.
Monday, February 27, 2012
Titles Matter, but Material Matters More...
Sifting through the news on CNN's homepage I came
across this story, which reads "Obama responds to Santorum's 'snob'
jab?" http://whitehouse.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/27/obama-responds-to-santorums-snob-jab/
First off a few things really
confuse me about why this is important. Name-calling happens all the time
in politics and it is one of those things that when it happens people really
aren't surprised by. When Rick Santorum called President Obama a snob I'm
sure he wasn't expecting people to still be talking about that comment.
Let's face it CNN candidates trade verbal jabs all the time so this isn't
"news" to us. It's just repetitive and it really doesn’t give
anything to the audience. Even though I
really don’t like this article I can deal with it because at least if the
President is retorting that maybe adds something new to this debate also, the
underlying topic is about something important-higher education. From the media perspective the true story
should be about President Obama’s commitment to higher education and desire to
see people educated in the best way for them.
If you strip away the rhetoric and focus on the issue you’ll see that is
hidden underneath is a very important topic.
Maybe starting out focusing on education will show that the media is
above the typical partisan rhetoric and will actually focus on issues at hand.
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.
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.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
It's time to talk "Plan B"
Rick Santorum's recent surge in the polls leading up to Super Tuesday has parts of the Republican establishment excited for the possibility of having a hardline, hardcore conservative candidate for the November election against Obama.
Others aren't so sure.
GOP strategists unaffiliated with campaigns keep running the numbers, and an Obama vs. Santorum matchup in December shows Obama winning by a landslide, and that's with a rather anemic economic recovery. If the recovery continues to gain steam, it might not even be a fair fight for Santorum.
Continued after the jump.
Others aren't so sure.
GOP strategists unaffiliated with campaigns keep running the numbers, and an Obama vs. Santorum matchup in December shows Obama winning by a landslide, and that's with a rather anemic economic recovery. If the recovery continues to gain steam, it might not even be a fair fight for Santorum.
Continued after the jump.
Monday, February 20, 2012
Big Donors Bring More Then Big Bucks...
We know that donations are made in politics all the time and sometimes there can be very large donations made to candidates and campaigns. But sometimes the biggest donors can bring in more then cash and they can draw attention from the media. The most prominent example of this comes for me from a recent story on CNN http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/16/trump-dials-donors-for-romney/. This story highlights that sometimes big name donors don't need to give cash but having there name attached to your campaign can help garner interest. To me interest, attention and the media are just as if not more important to getting through an election. I feel that Donald Trump's involvement with fundraising not only helped Mitt Romney's campaign gain a bunch of cash but, it also helped give Romney another spot on the main news sites. Due to the person who was helping Romney the media took notice and you can sure bet that story was opened by a bunch of casual news readers. If it had been someone who had just given Romney a bunch of money it still wouldn't have gathered the attention Trump brings to an election. Anyone who has the money can help finically support Romney's campaign but, bringing Donald Trump into the fray not only draws cash but, valuable media and mainstream attention.
Trump Strongly Supports Romney
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/20/trump-takes-hatchet-to-santorum/
Donald Trump recently spoke on a Michigan radio show about his support for Mitt Romney. Trump has put a lot of money behind Romney, and is starting to harshly attack Rick Santorum. Trump is going to speak several times in Michigan to try and gain Michigan for Romney. He is showing strong support for Romney while bashing Santorum. Trump is a very well repeated business man so he's opinion might matter to the public and to the people of Michigan. Trump stated that the demarcates are waiting for Santorum to win because he believes the democrats think that if Santorum is elected, it will be an easy election. Trump's strong backing of Romney shows how the elites of our society can have a possible drastic impact on the political elections. With the upcoming elections in Michigan, Trump may have an impact on voters decisions.
Should Trump's opinion really impact the decisions of voters? In my opinion his opinion should have no effect what-so-ever on the publics choice. Yes he is a very wealthy and successful business man, but there are several possible reasons as to why Trump is backing Romney so strongly. Trump may have other interests or motives behind his behavior that we don't know. So Trump's decision could be clouded by some things we don't see or know about; for all we know Trump might not even think Romney is the best candidate, he could be protecting his own interests. The public should do there own digging and search more into the candidates instead of simply letting the opinion of a powerful business man persuade them into making a decision.
Donald Trump recently spoke on a Michigan radio show about his support for Mitt Romney. Trump has put a lot of money behind Romney, and is starting to harshly attack Rick Santorum. Trump is going to speak several times in Michigan to try and gain Michigan for Romney. He is showing strong support for Romney while bashing Santorum. Trump is a very well repeated business man so he's opinion might matter to the public and to the people of Michigan. Trump stated that the demarcates are waiting for Santorum to win because he believes the democrats think that if Santorum is elected, it will be an easy election. Trump's strong backing of Romney shows how the elites of our society can have a possible drastic impact on the political elections. With the upcoming elections in Michigan, Trump may have an impact on voters decisions.
Should Trump's opinion really impact the decisions of voters? In my opinion his opinion should have no effect what-so-ever on the publics choice. Yes he is a very wealthy and successful business man, but there are several possible reasons as to why Trump is backing Romney so strongly. Trump may have other interests or motives behind his behavior that we don't know. So Trump's decision could be clouded by some things we don't see or know about; for all we know Trump might not even think Romney is the best candidate, he could be protecting his own interests. The public should do there own digging and search more into the candidates instead of simply letting the opinion of a powerful business man persuade them into making a decision.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
A bad investment, or a bad sign?
According to a source in a recent article on CNN's PoliticalTicker, Mitt Romney's campaign has purchased $1.2 million in television airtime for the upcoming Michigan primary.
$1.2 million for airtime in Romney's home state.
The Romney campaign feels it prudent to spend quite a lot of money for a primary in a state that, frankly, he should be able to walk away with uncontested. Such a large push in Michigan is proof that the campaign is starting to strain.
Breakdown and analysis after the jump.
$1.2 million for airtime in Romney's home state.
The Romney campaign feels it prudent to spend quite a lot of money for a primary in a state that, frankly, he should be able to walk away with uncontested. Such a large push in Michigan is proof that the campaign is starting to strain.
Breakdown and analysis after the jump.
Friday, February 10, 2012
And the winner is... old news.
HEADLINE: "Santorum jolts GOP presidential race with 3-state sweep"
Yawn.
Please excuse my lack of enthusiasm, but I hardly see a "jolted" GOP. After seeing this and countless other headlines Wednesday morning, I sat and thought about the primaries and just what these three in particular meant.
Continued after the jump.
Yawn.
Please excuse my lack of enthusiasm, but I hardly see a "jolted" GOP. After seeing this and countless other headlines Wednesday morning, I sat and thought about the primaries and just what these three in particular meant.
Continued after the jump.
Monday, February 6, 2012
The Communist, Socialist, Fascist, Definitely Out to Conquer America Mainstream Media
In the course of reading our blog, I've noticed somewhat of a trend. It seems as though everyone wants to rail against the "mainstream, elite, liberal, media." I'm going to take this opportunity to climb up on my soapbox and give my opinion regarding a recent discussion we had in class that centered around this topic. Said discussion was slightly heated and took up an entire class. Maybe I'm crazy for starting it up again, but here it goes.
I think we need to take a minute and stop to consider why the mainstream media do what they do. Obviously, 4-5 hours of election coverage must be interesting to someone. In fact, it must be interesting to a whole lot of someones; otherwise they wouldn't do it. CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and the rest of the "liberal media" are all businesses. They don't broadcast election results for 5 hours because they want to, they do it because it makes them money. This means that a pretty substantial segment of the American population must be interested in it. I think it is fundamentally wrong for us, or the government, to try to tell the media sources what to do and what not to do when it comes to election coverage. If Wolf Blitzer wants to stand in the CNN Election Center for 3 days, then let him do it. For us to try to mandate public affairs time, or to try to tell the media what to cover, is a blatant violation of the first amendment. Free press means a free press. It doesn't mean free except for an hour of public affairs time, or free except for these stories that you have to cover, it means free and nothing more. It means that if the the media want to cover the most inconsequential stories, then let them do it. I cite the quote from the front of our syllabus regarding Thomas Jefferson's feelings about the press: "...and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter…" Having any government control of the media is the same as having a "government without newspapers." If a government is allowed to control any of the press, then we start down the slippery slope toward government run media; a slope that none of us want to go down. The mainstream media aren't evil; they're just doing their job. If you want news other than what they show, then go find it. Trust me, you can get anything you want on the internet.
This, of course, leads to the issue of whether or not we are a public or a marketplace (an issue also discussed heavily in class). Well, I contend we are both. When it comes to what media stories we want to see, the media treat us as a marketplace, which is a good thing. The media should be covering stories that a good portion of the American population want to see. Meanwhile, while they are giving us the stories we want to see, the media are working in the background to fulfill the public / fourth branch of government role. The media do indeed hold our leaders in check (I cite Watergate and Bill Clinton's woes). The beauty of this is that when the media do need to cover these stories that serve the interests of the public, the public usually listens. In these instances, the marketplace aspect of the media combines with the public aspect and the story that we as Americans need to see becomes the story we want to see. It then becomes profitable for the media to be the fourth branch of government.
The free press is the bedrock of our democracy. To abridge that right, in any way, shape, or form would be fundamentally wrong and a violation of the Constitution. It is easy for us, being in an academic atmosphere, to sit back and tell Americans that they need to follow more important news stories. However, this is wrong and we shouldn't do it! Our country is called the land of the free for a reason. If everyday Americans don't want to care about important international news stories, it is their choice. It is not the job of the government to try to force public affairs broadcasting or to control the media. The free media is a force for good. It is an engine for capitalism like no other. On top of generating profit and creating jobs for millions of Americans, the media provides products that citizens want to consume, while being constantly vigilant for corruption in government,
The mainstream media is not the enemy that we seem to like to make it out to be (especially Newt Gingrich). Our open media is what makes our nation special; it is what separates us from authoritarian regimes in other countries. For those that say the government needs to stick their hand in the media, I would direct you to the industries that government thought they needed to be involved with in the past. I would cite the Postal Service, Amtrak, and Social Security to name a few. One thing these programs have in common: they're all going broke. If the government can't even deliver my mail without somehow going into bankruptcy, I sure as heck don't want them tampering with the free press.
I think we need to take a minute and stop to consider why the mainstream media do what they do. Obviously, 4-5 hours of election coverage must be interesting to someone. In fact, it must be interesting to a whole lot of someones; otherwise they wouldn't do it. CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and the rest of the "liberal media" are all businesses. They don't broadcast election results for 5 hours because they want to, they do it because it makes them money. This means that a pretty substantial segment of the American population must be interested in it. I think it is fundamentally wrong for us, or the government, to try to tell the media sources what to do and what not to do when it comes to election coverage. If Wolf Blitzer wants to stand in the CNN Election Center for 3 days, then let him do it. For us to try to mandate public affairs time, or to try to tell the media what to cover, is a blatant violation of the first amendment. Free press means a free press. It doesn't mean free except for an hour of public affairs time, or free except for these stories that you have to cover, it means free and nothing more. It means that if the the media want to cover the most inconsequential stories, then let them do it. I cite the quote from the front of our syllabus regarding Thomas Jefferson's feelings about the press: "...and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter…" Having any government control of the media is the same as having a "government without newspapers." If a government is allowed to control any of the press, then we start down the slippery slope toward government run media; a slope that none of us want to go down. The mainstream media aren't evil; they're just doing their job. If you want news other than what they show, then go find it. Trust me, you can get anything you want on the internet.
This, of course, leads to the issue of whether or not we are a public or a marketplace (an issue also discussed heavily in class). Well, I contend we are both. When it comes to what media stories we want to see, the media treat us as a marketplace, which is a good thing. The media should be covering stories that a good portion of the American population want to see. Meanwhile, while they are giving us the stories we want to see, the media are working in the background to fulfill the public / fourth branch of government role. The media do indeed hold our leaders in check (I cite Watergate and Bill Clinton's woes). The beauty of this is that when the media do need to cover these stories that serve the interests of the public, the public usually listens. In these instances, the marketplace aspect of the media combines with the public aspect and the story that we as Americans need to see becomes the story we want to see. It then becomes profitable for the media to be the fourth branch of government.
The free press is the bedrock of our democracy. To abridge that right, in any way, shape, or form would be fundamentally wrong and a violation of the Constitution. It is easy for us, being in an academic atmosphere, to sit back and tell Americans that they need to follow more important news stories. However, this is wrong and we shouldn't do it! Our country is called the land of the free for a reason. If everyday Americans don't want to care about important international news stories, it is their choice. It is not the job of the government to try to force public affairs broadcasting or to control the media. The free media is a force for good. It is an engine for capitalism like no other. On top of generating profit and creating jobs for millions of Americans, the media provides products that citizens want to consume, while being constantly vigilant for corruption in government,
The mainstream media is not the enemy that we seem to like to make it out to be (especially Newt Gingrich). Our open media is what makes our nation special; it is what separates us from authoritarian regimes in other countries. For those that say the government needs to stick their hand in the media, I would direct you to the industries that government thought they needed to be involved with in the past. I would cite the Postal Service, Amtrak, and Social Security to name a few. One thing these programs have in common: they're all going broke. If the government can't even deliver my mail without somehow going into bankruptcy, I sure as heck don't want them tampering with the free press.
Prioritizing the News
A quick look at the news will tell you that there are a lot of things that go on in the world that need our attention. Between the conflicts in Syria, the Republican primaries and the daily issues that crop up we have quite a bit going on. That's why it baffles me when certain news stories get coverage to certain levels and others struggle to catch the eye of the media. I visited multiple news sights while writing this entry and I am surprised to see how some events can barely get a quality amount of coverage. It's surprising that on a day in which the US has launched new sanctions on Iran and people are getting killed in Syria that the biggest picture on MSNBC's website is of Clint Eastwood and talks about his Super bowl commercial's political effect. Really? Is this the type of journalism we need? At this point is the media still helping us or hindering our access to more valuable information?
Honestly, much of this content comes from what we have been discussing in class and about the role of the media. The media can be a great resource but, they can also be used to hide things and keep us in the dark by burying news stories. This is the inevitable issue with the media and it's something we have yet to figure out how to correct. Blogs and social media do a good job measuring reaction to news stories but they are as mainstream as CNN, FOX and MSNBC. With these major channels burying certain stories how do we expect people to get the full picture? When figuring out which stories should be reported in which order in my opinion it goes without saying that issues of politics, human rights and the environment are more important than analysis of a Super bowl commercial.
Ultimately, we are faced with the dilemma of searching out quality news (which most Americans wouldn't do because we like having our news brought to us) or continue being fed the same news which is so synthesized and broken down by so many analysts and experts sometimes it can lose sight of the main point. This is not an issue we can easily answer and part of the reason we don't know what's going on in the world is because the vast amount of world news for us goes unreported and lost.
Honestly, much of this content comes from what we have been discussing in class and about the role of the media. The media can be a great resource but, they can also be used to hide things and keep us in the dark by burying news stories. This is the inevitable issue with the media and it's something we have yet to figure out how to correct. Blogs and social media do a good job measuring reaction to news stories but they are as mainstream as CNN, FOX and MSNBC. With these major channels burying certain stories how do we expect people to get the full picture? When figuring out which stories should be reported in which order in my opinion it goes without saying that issues of politics, human rights and the environment are more important than analysis of a Super bowl commercial.
Ultimately, we are faced with the dilemma of searching out quality news (which most Americans wouldn't do because we like having our news brought to us) or continue being fed the same news which is so synthesized and broken down by so many analysts and experts sometimes it can lose sight of the main point. This is not an issue we can easily answer and part of the reason we don't know what's going on in the world is because the vast amount of world news for us goes unreported and lost.
Watergate Lesson Forgotten?
http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/04/politics/watergate-reform/index.html
The problem of potentially currupt finacial backing behind political candidates has been a big issue since the Watergate Scandal. Many poeple think a huge lesson of Watergate was that big money and secrecy currupts. Some experts are warning the public that the reforms made after Watergate to regulate campaign fundraising have been almost completely thrown away. There are no longer big regulations of campaign fundraising, but does that really matter? The flow of money to candidates is going to happen regardless of the law or regulations put in place to try and stop it. Candidates will get the money they need through any way possible, and if we think that simple reforms will stop them, we are nieve. Corporations and other powerful sources of money will always supply money to political candidates because they recieve favors in return for the money, whether its legal or not. The main issue is the secrecy of the sources behind all of the money the candidates get, because there could be some curruption involved.
It is impossible to stop the influence of money on political campaigning, but it is possible to somewhat regulate it. A political scientist and professor at the College of the Holy Cross in Massachusetts says, "The remedy is publicity". The most powerful way to help regualte the secret funding of political campaigns is the media. If the media exposed more information about which corporations are feeding money to which canidates, we could control the flow of money a little more and somewhat eliminate curruption. Transparency would give voters the information needed to hold the candidates accountable. However, in reality, it is unlikely that much will change about the fincacial backing of political candidates. This years elecetion will have an enormous amount of secret financial backing to candidates.
The problem of potentially currupt finacial backing behind political candidates has been a big issue since the Watergate Scandal. Many poeple think a huge lesson of Watergate was that big money and secrecy currupts. Some experts are warning the public that the reforms made after Watergate to regulate campaign fundraising have been almost completely thrown away. There are no longer big regulations of campaign fundraising, but does that really matter? The flow of money to candidates is going to happen regardless of the law or regulations put in place to try and stop it. Candidates will get the money they need through any way possible, and if we think that simple reforms will stop them, we are nieve. Corporations and other powerful sources of money will always supply money to political candidates because they recieve favors in return for the money, whether its legal or not. The main issue is the secrecy of the sources behind all of the money the candidates get, because there could be some curruption involved.
It is impossible to stop the influence of money on political campaigning, but it is possible to somewhat regulate it. A political scientist and professor at the College of the Holy Cross in Massachusetts says, "The remedy is publicity". The most powerful way to help regualte the secret funding of political campaigns is the media. If the media exposed more information about which corporations are feeding money to which canidates, we could control the flow of money a little more and somewhat eliminate curruption. Transparency would give voters the information needed to hold the candidates accountable. However, in reality, it is unlikely that much will change about the fincacial backing of political candidates. This years elecetion will have an enormous amount of secret financial backing to candidates.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)