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

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>

Same Story, Same Facts, Completely Different Message

The issue we discussed in class today about the framing of news stories really struck me.  In the Groseclose and Miylo piece we read, they discussed how different news outlets can frame stories in a different way by the titles they use or by the facts they present.   This whole gatekeeper idea (the idea that the news outlets present the facts that best represent the ideological positions of their organizations) seemed to be something totally plausible.  However, being the eternal optimist that I am, I wanted to believe that every news station presented the same facts for their viewers.  But, as we all know, that is simply fantasy.

Nevertheless, I set out to do some research to see what I could find.  Well, wouldn't you know that today happened to be the day that President Obama was releasing his $3.8 trillion budget for the upcoming fiscal year.  What luck!!  The day I set out to do some framing of news stories research, the President just happened to release his budget (keep in mind this budget is probably the most highly charged political document the president could release at this time, and to top it off, its an election year).  So, where did I turn for my news stories?  Well, of course I went to our old friends Fox and MSNBC to see what they had to say about this event.  Well, as you can imagine, Fox was skeptical and MSNBC was confident.  I'll give the headlines as an example:

Fox:

Budget: Deficit Buster or Fuzzy Math?

MSNBC:

Obama releases budget plan: 'We can’t just cut our way into growth'

I won't bore you with a long summary of the articles but, what struck me was how the same story about the budget was framed in entirely different ways. I'll start with something simple, what the document released today should be called.  To Fox, what was released today was a "spending plan."  To MSNBC, it was a "budget."  The Fox story started out by throwing out huge, scary deficit numbers that would frighten any American.  It said things like though the deficit will be cut by $4 trillion over 10 years, the "huge entitlement programs" will add another $6.6 trillion to the deficit over the same time period.  Sounds scary right?  The facts in the Fox article rang as true, however they were all the negative issues surrounding the budget.  MSNBC told a different story.  The MSNBC article never once mentioned the huge deficit numbers that Fox mentioned.  Instead, the article quoted the President and focused on the positives of the budget, facts that were also true, yet more positive.  While Fox told us the deficit now exceeded the GDP, MSNBC told us the deficit to GDP ratio would be at a "sustainable level" by 2018.  Wow! Same news story, accurate facts, completely different message.

Though I have already rambled on for too long I must draw it together in closing.  These articles are a prime example of how the media can spin the stories in a way that suits their interests.  Obviously, I was being naive when I thought that all stories would be the same.  However, I never could have imagined that the same news story could be told in such different ways.  In our time, the media is a powerful machine that is able to put out a story in a way that portrays their ideas and beliefs.  The Fox readers will walk away motivated to oppose the President and fix our ailing government (which will be crippled by the new budget).  The MSNBC readers will be optimistic for the future and come away with a belief in the President.  While we may not be able to quantify the media's ideological bias, it is obviously present.  These stories give us an example that furthers the assertion that the media plays the role of a marketplace.  These articles are tailored to the respective viewers of the respective networks.  I'm not saying there is anything wrong with this, I'm simply saying media outlets do have a bias, ideological and informational, they do play the role of a marketplace, and they definitely have a way of telling the story the way they want it to be told. 

Phew if I would have written anymore, I would have sold it as a book! Sorry for the length guys!!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/13/obama-defends-tax-hikes-proposes-more-job-training-in-new-budget/

http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/12/10389112-obama-budget-pitch-cant-just-cut-our-way-into-growth