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
Showing posts with label knowledge. Show all posts
Showing posts with label knowledge. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Monday, March 19, 2012
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.
On the Monkey Cage, John Sides blogged about public knowledge of recent political events, ones that we can assume were reported on by the mass media. In this blog titled, Why Campaigns Have So Few "Game-Changers," he commented that the survey showed that Americans cared very little about this campaign and the political events that have occurred.
While these are the findings of the survey, Sides concludes that although the inability to answer specific "events-related" questions accurately is shown, Americans are certainly not unintelligent or bad citizens. They just don't follow politics very closely, which is entirely normal.
Sides's most important comment however was what we can deduct from this survey- it does more "to question the assumptions of commentators, who are often anxious to inflate every argument during the campaign to a 'game changer'—even if many Americans aren’t really watching the game." This conclusion is interesting because it seems to contradict the nature of the "marketplace" with regards to the mass media providing what Americans desire to "consume." If Americans are not really watching the political game, then why would the media place emphasis on the campaign and what candidates are saying? Possibly, the media is fulfilling their role by still providing political coverage despite what the public truly desires to watch or read.
Typically, an average individual remembers the frivolous remarks or reports of the news such as the ones utilized in the survey-"Santorum’s statement about birth control, Obama’s call to Sandra Fluke, and Santorum’s comment about Obama’s snobbery." If Americans cannot even recall these highly reported events, what exactly are they doing? And if no one is truly watching, and the media still reports on it, are they doing their job?
Most importantly however, Sides's final conclusion raises the question of the media's role in influencing public opinion. If viewers aren't actually comprehending or using the news provided by the mass media, then they will never have a large effect on influencing public opinion.
While these are the findings of the survey, Sides concludes that although the inability to answer specific "events-related" questions accurately is shown, Americans are certainly not unintelligent or bad citizens. They just don't follow politics very closely, which is entirely normal.
Sides's most important comment however was what we can deduct from this survey- it does more "to question the assumptions of commentators, who are often anxious to inflate every argument during the campaign to a 'game changer'—even if many Americans aren’t really watching the game." This conclusion is interesting because it seems to contradict the nature of the "marketplace" with regards to the mass media providing what Americans desire to "consume." If Americans are not really watching the political game, then why would the media place emphasis on the campaign and what candidates are saying? Possibly, the media is fulfilling their role by still providing political coverage despite what the public truly desires to watch or read.
Typically, an average individual remembers the frivolous remarks or reports of the news such as the ones utilized in the survey-"Santorum’s statement about birth control, Obama’s call to Sandra Fluke, and Santorum’s comment about Obama’s snobbery." If Americans cannot even recall these highly reported events, what exactly are they doing? And if no one is truly watching, and the media still reports on it, are they doing their job?
Most importantly however, Sides's final conclusion raises the question of the media's role in influencing public opinion. If viewers aren't actually comprehending or using the news provided by the mass media, then they will never have a large effect on influencing public opinion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)