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.

(1)    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/04/30/president-obama-is-getting-desperate-and-it-shows/#ixzz1taBa21K1

(2)    http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865554601/Mitt-Romney-and-Barack-Obama-battle-for-voter-intensity-edge.html

(3)    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/obama-the-most-polarizing-president-ever/2012/01/29/gIQAmmkBbQ_blog.html

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

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.