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.

Money Matter$

News and other media outlets love to concentrate their stories on the flashy topics, like Donald Trump endorsing Mitt Romney or Romney's average donor amounts of $900-$1000. When someone writes a big check every so often to support a political candidate, the cameras and reporters are always there. When are the cameras not there? It's when tens of thousands of people log on to the internet to make $100-$200 donations, considered by the FEC to be "small donations" by "small donors."

Interestingly enough, in 2008, BO deepened the pockets of his political campaign through these small donations. Aside from the intangible warm and toasty feelings that voters on either side of the aisle felt as he delivered his speeches and became more commercial, the donations that he collected from small contributions definitely helped to seal the deal with his victory. Campaign reports from BO and Romney, show that:

"Obama's campaign in 2011 raised 60 percent of funds, or $58.5 million, from donors who gave less than $200. Mitt Romney in 2011 raised only 9 percent of its total funds, or $5.2 million, from donors who gave less than $200."


Evidence shows that when it comes to political campaigns, money talks. The amount of monetary support that the Republican candidate is able to muster will be the factor that controls how close this race will be... and not just by a handful of elites throwing around big checks. Let's hope our friends on the right figure this one out before they're staring down another defeat.

One blogger said it before I could:

"It's a matter of simple math. If two people have the same amound of money, but one has large bills ant the other has small bills, there are more small bills than large bills.

100% of the contributo­rs will not vote. But if the majority of them do it will be very difficult for the republican nominee to match Obama's numbers. The right can hype up their donations and dial up their propaganda­, but the numbers will tell the story. In fact, althugh it is unlikely to be less, it is entirely possible for Obama to win the election with LESS money simply because his money represents actual voters.

The republican­s have a problem."
-l78lancer


Hypothetically speaking, if Trump sponsored Romney's entire campaign, at the end day, he can only cast one ballot. His billions are only worth one vote. If Obama was sponsored by the four broke bums in the alleyway, he may not have as much money, but that a handful more votes. 


Maybe the cameras and the reporters aren't paying attention to what's important this election season. It's not the Trumps or the rich, close friends lining the candidates' pockets. Those only constitute a few votes. Where the cameras aren't pointed, the "small people" with the "small donations" are constituting for HUGE VOTES. Now that's my kind of math.


Everyone loves the good ole underdog stories, right?




http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/05/obama-2012-campaign-romney-fundraising_n_1255618.html?ref=politics