Mike Wallace: 1918-2012

Mike Wallace. © CBS News. All rights reserved.

I may have grown up in the 90's, but it sure felt like the 50's. The one television in the house only got two channels over the air, ABC and CBS. I can remember sitting in front of the TV on Sunday evenings, watching 60 Minutes with my dad as far back as 3 or 4 years old.

A hidden bias

The Monkey Cage has an interesting blog up now about opinions on term limits for Supreme Court justices.  I like the entry, because it's a friendly conversation between different bloggers and political scientists. It's a neat article, and you should read it.

If you don't want to, that's ok. I bring your attention to the end of the entry.  There is a criticism of a bias that I think has been hiding in the shadows.  Journalists talk to journalists.  They don't talk to political scientists very much.  Of course, we see correspondents on television, but they are saying what they are "supposed to say", not discussing their involved and difficult-to-understand research.

This may be journalists' fault, but it may also be the scientists' fault.  Scientists' have had a notorious issue explaining their research findings to the everyday Joe.  Through the media, Joe the plumber is starting to be able to understand politics (at least more than he understands chemistry research), but at what cost? I wonder if this bias will affect the new media as research starts to penetrate the media through interwebular outlets.

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.

Religious Freedom vs New Health Care Mandate

So, we all know that with the new Health Care Reform implementation, employees of religion-affiliated institutions will be required to have access to birth control coverage. The strict Catholics who do not support the use of contraceptives or any sort of birth control are in an uproar about this because they feel that "their religious freedoms are being violated," blah blah blah. Not that I'm not sensitive to their specific beliefs, but I have been more interested in tracking how the various news outlets have chosen to add their spin to what could be an objective story. I just never thought the news outlets would be so blatant with their slanting and framing of the story.

The Washington Post's coverage of the issue is clearly leftist-- supporting Obama's decision, bringing quantitative polls into the picture that show public support of this, publishing the support of specific convents and other Catholic institutions, and essentially presenting Obama as the fair and compromising Messiah.

Of course, blogs posts from outlets on the other side of the aisle are clearly right-leaning-- opposing Obama's decision, bringing in quantitative data and qualitative interviews with Bishops that show dissent, and essentially presenting Obama as a socialist devil bent on world destruction, one religious freedom at a time.

In class we have been discussing how bias may just be perception. I tend to believe the opposite. Every news outlet is biased in some way and their coverage of stories is no different. I will admit though, it seems that liberal news outlets are a little more balanced in their reporting of all of the facts, but the influence from bias on both sides can be very influential on the public.

We discussed examples in class about the framing of news coverage. One that illustrates a story about an adolescent male in poverty might evoke public feelings of detachment while one that illustrates the same story, but of a county's poverty-stricken population might evoke feelings of concern and an urgency to aid. Similarly, the conservative blog frames the story as though there is great dissent from all Catholics and that President Obama is being insensitive to their religious freedoms by citing that some of the convents viewed his compromise as "insulting." The liberal blog from the Washington Post frames the story so that the Catholic men and women are the victims to the insensitive male Bishops who are doing more to control with their top-down approach to govern the Catholic women's bodies. It illustrates that 57 percent of Catholics support the legislation and presents Obama as being very considerate in his consciousness clauses of the bill.

While the majority of the public remains ignorant of politics and key political events, they could easily read these articles and be significantly influenced-- this is the main point of our discussions thus far in class. Should the media be more objective in their reporting? Should the public rise to the occasion and become the informed and responsible citizens the Framers never thought they could be? I would argue a little of both. The public has an obligation to be informed, but like Jefferson stated, if they don't, it is the job of the institutions to educate them. Are they really doing a sufficient job in presenting balanced media coverage? I highly doubt it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/15/us/obama-shift-on-contraception-splits-catholics.html?_r=1&ref=contraception

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/02/16/religious-freedom-vs-new-health-care-mandate-dnc-chair-debbie-wasserman-schultz-and-catholic-league’s-bill-donohue-debate/#more-83510

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sarah-oleary/catholic-bishops-contraception_b_1268683.html

Tweets v. Likes

Tweets vs. likes: Ana Analysis of Monkey Cage Data

Joshua Tucker on February 26, 2012

Joshua Tucker, writer for the Monkey Cage once posted a question about why some blog posts are more likely to be “tweeted” and why others are subject to being “liked” on Facebook. Later, Georgetown student compiled data from the Monkey Cage and made an analysis of why certain blog posts are tweeted or liked.

The student’s analysis theorized that blog posts are liked based upon their graphical content. Blogs that have graphics or graphs are more likely to be “liked” on Facebook because of this social network’s graphical and picture orientated nature. On the other hand, blogs with more “wonkiness” received more tweets as Twitter is a text based network.

This basic study reveals some insight about the orientation of both social networks. Facebook is highly dependent on graphics and pictures for their internet traffic. Twitter is based on amusing, witty, and short “tweets.”

Another aspect of the tweet and like war is the public versus private spheres. Twitter is seen more as a public forum while Facebook has some “perceived” privacy towards your own friends and family. Due to this difference, Tucker commented that he is much more likely to post highly partisan ideas on the semi-private Facebook wall than on Twitter’s public forum.

He believes that this certainly has some impact on political behavior over social networks. Tucker theorizes that the difference between the public v. private domains of Facebook and Twitter will help differentiate the effects of social media on the audience.

Social media seems to counter act the hypodermic reception theory. Because users can be more selective in their media source options, the audience is more active and is not a passive recipient. The internet also balances the “agenda setting” behavior of televised news. The “agenda” on social media sites is entirely set by the users, not by the company trying to make profits off of popularizing a particular view. Therefore, social media and media on the internet may allow its audience to become more active and aware members of society.

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.

Academic Hope for TV News Station

http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2012/02/13/melissa-harris-perrys-new-tv-show/

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/13/business/media/host-of-msnbcs-melissa-harris-perry-is-a-professor.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

Much of the "concerned" American public has strayed away from televised news due to its disappointing nature and lack of actual important academic content. Much of us are bored and simply do not care for the infotainment about Whitney Houston, award shows, or the murderer that may or may not be in my neighborhood (who can blame some news stations though, as "infotainment" is their business model).

MSNBC will become the first major news program to feature a talk show by a real tenured professor. The news station has a new program with Melissa Harry-Perry, a professor of political science.

MSNBC's newest academic addition scratches at the surface of the media's role as the protectors and promoters of the public interest and education. Perhaps this new model will become a trend for other televised new programs to follow? In hopes that it certainly does cause a new trend, the American public may prove to be more than just a mindless consumer market place. Academic scholars in well established news programs will provide an opportunity for a change in mass media towards its original goals of professionalism and objectivity.

Maybe, there is hope that televised news programs will provide "intellectual stimulation" for the general American Masses.

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.

Facebook, the Political Media and Networking Site

We are all well aware of Facebook’s absurd popularity, success, and wealth through its ability to allow devotees to post their every thought, expression, and movement on the public internet for anyone and all to view. Facebook shockingly became the world’s premier social media site, with your basic every day users acting as the company’s unpaid “reporters.” Recently, the company that encourages its popular cult to publicize their every move announced its upcoming application called “2012 Matters: What Matters Most.”

This application will allow Facebook members to interact in political affairs by answering poll questions and statuses on the issues that matter most this election. Most interesting, is Facebook’s new method of posting user data and thoughts- the very public and very large Nasdaq digital billboard in Times Square, New York.

Facebook’s direct newfound interest in politics is quite peculiar. With this new application, it will be the only major social media and networking site to inspire its users to become political activist. So why would a social media site be so concerned with giving its dedicated users this opportunity of public political activism?

Tanzina Vega, writer for the “Media Decoder” of the New York Times, cites in her discovery and coverage of Facebook’s new application that “Facts don’t spread. Emotions do spread.” This statement by Adams, a brand experience manager for Facebook, indicates the newest general trends of the media- rallying the audience towards one pole or the other by appealing to personal emotions in hopes of providing enough media coverage to influence voters towards a particular candidate. Ultimately, if that media outlet has the most influence on voter opinion, then their desired candidate will win and major profits will be had- a major win for the “winning” company’s finances and policies.

Is political activism for profit Facebook’s goal for this new application? Will this application perhaps uncover a bias in Facebook’s corporate structure? Only time will tell what the impact of the political polling application will be. One thing is certain however…users will jump at the chance to publicize their mediocre political opinions on a massive Times Square billboard.

Original Blog: http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/29/facebook-users-to-put-political-views-up-in-lights-on-times-square/?ref=politics

TL;DR

     There’s quite a menagerie to American politics. At one end of our zoo, there are the donkeys and at the far right, the elephants. Neither are very cleanly creatures, and both of them—like monkeys—have a tendency to fling feces. Candidacy itself is described as a horse race, and candidate debates have turned into a dog and pony show. For their part, the media are parrots, repeating what is told to them and squawking every time they want ratings. (If you care for a reference, see Nancy Grace to the left and Bill O’Reilly to the right.) The publics are like sheep and everyone involved has a tendency, like ostriches were once said to do, to bury their heads in the sand when real issues are raised.

No, Noah. They're not worthy.

     But, please, don’t take my word for it. The January 26 CNN debate will speak for itself. Or not—sure, there was a lot of talking, but even the media do not seem to be quite sure of how much was actually said (viz Proverbs 29:20*).

     I’ll be the first to admit that I didn’t watch it. The pomp was just too much, and we’re in an age of technology, after all. It was just too easy to close the youtube window. It was then I was forced to wonder if this represented a problem with the American publics’ attention span or the usefulness of political reporting. Maybe we should check the polls.

     I’d have watched it in real time, but—like many young Americans—I have a real job. Instead, I went to the transcripts, where the audience isn’t subjected to the fake smiles and peacock feather fluffing.

     There were plenty of cockfights that the media gobbled up like hungry swine, but the overall quality was sloppy. With pretty, overarching phrases like, “secure the border,” “free trade,” and “immigrant grandmother,” we didn’t get much more than those 8-second sound bites for the media to play until we’re sick of hearing them.

     In the first question (“Can you tell me what specific actions you'll take to address the costly consequences of illegal immigration while preserving the rights of those who seek to immigrate legally?”), only Ron Paul gave a real response. Santorum spouted a lot of crap about securing the border, following laws, and sanctions against employers. Gingrich basically agreed, adding that legal immigration should be easier to acquire and gave an endorsement to his consorts in big business—American Express, Visa and Master Card. (Someone got laid for that… proverbially, of course.) Romney stood by self-deportation. None of them gave details or answered how they would accomplish these goals or with what resources. Save for Paul, who clearly and succinctly said that we should stop focusing on other countries, and place the resources there back home. (http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/push-it-somewhere-else-patrick)

     If you know anything about history, you’d remember that that was Rome’s version of self-preservation. Something about not overextending oneself with conquest and performing baseline defense. Good strategy. A classic.

     Shortly thereafter, we get to the prettiest cockfight of the debate, one that no one watching or reading the news can seem to escape. Like a freshman repeating the first incident wherein a professor cursed in class, the media can’t seem to get enough of Romney’s overuse of the phrase “inexcusable.” It wasn’t even as good as the Sicilian’s equally abused, “inconceivable” of the Princess Bride. Nevertheless, Gingrich and Romney fought bitterly over the former’s use of the superlative (“most anti-immigrant candidate”) in describing the latter.

     Not to say there was any real political consequence to this clash. In the end, people won’t—read: shouldn’t—be swayed to vote in their primaries either way based on the few-minutes clip of their posturing.

     And the real problem with the American media is that they focus on events outside of real consequence. Not just events.

     At this point a question is asked concerning relations with Latin American countries. There is some tension here between Paul and Santorum, wherein Paul suggests free trade as an answer and Santorum suggests “closer ties.” Paul responds cattily (the animal puns keep coming!) that Santorum doesn’t define his idea of closer ties and accuses that closer ties involve “that we impose ourselves, go and pick the dictators, undermine certain governments, also sending them a lot of money.”

     Santorum responds that Paul “obviously wasn’t listening to” his closer ties argument.

     Let’s pause for a moment and go back to history. Iraq is close enough that you don’t have to do any real research. We took out a dictator that was, by Santorum’s terms, “a threat” to democracy. We have tried to mold them into “friends who want to engage and support America, who want to be great trading partners and great allies for our country.” And to do so, we imposed ourselves, picked the dictators, forced democracy (read: undermined certain governments), and threw a lot of money at it to “accomplish” these noble goals.

     Who, Mr. Santorum, was listening?

     Now, we get to another catfight. Romney accuses Gingrich of having another consort (he does get around, doesn’t he?) in American big business—Freddie Mac, who reportedly hired him to maintain the marriage and strength of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae (the only marriage he’s been able to save). Gingrich responds like any upset 2^nd grader—with an ad hominem attack.

      “Well you have stock in these companies. Who you calling cootie queen, you lint licker?” Okay, I might have paraphrased.

     In the end, Romney plays dumb. He did this just before the Fannie and Freddie fight, concerning an ad about Gingrich, wherein he accuses Gingrich of calling Spanish, “the language of the ghetto.” He claimed he didn’t recall the ad, and CNN researchers quickly hunted it down, proudly endorsed by Romney at the end. In this case, he claimed that his finances were “managed by a trustee”—must be nice, huh? So, it didn’t matter that he made millions of dollars in the housing bubble. It wasn’t his fault, right?

     In the end, they both looked like asses—with or without the animal puns.

     Now, in the animal world, we get to see a prime example of the fight or flight response. Observe:

     Returning from commercial break, Blitzer confronts Gingrich about his response to Romney’s finances. Here, we see flight. Gingrich calls it a nonsense question, and with sweet-talk unrivaled by lyrebirds in courtship, implores the moderator to skip the question.

     Now, we see fight! Like a proper predator, Mr. Wolf sticks to his guns and quotes Gingrich in saying Romney, “lives in a world of Swiss bank and Cayman Island bank accounts.” Shrewdly as a snake and with the innocence of a dove, the moderator pointedly adds, “I didn’t say that. You did.”

     I’d paraphrase here, but I can display Gingrich’s horror no better than he, himself. “I did,” he admits. “And I'm perfectly happy to say that on an interview on some TV show. But this is a national debate, where you have a chance to get the four of us to talk about a whole range of issues.”

     Romney skips the dove part and strikes like a cobra. “Wouldn't it be nice if people didn't make accusations somewhere else that they weren't willing to defend here?”

    Well, sir, wouldn’t it be nice if you didn’t say that to exploit over quoting in the media for face time?

_________________________________________________________

*(NIV) "There is more hope for a fool than someone who speaks without thinking.

How Newt lost the conservative media

Newt Gingrich has made it a campaign policy to rail against the liberal media, the most famous recent example being during the recent CNN South Carolina Primary debate. Newt charged in response to John King's question about the allegations made by Mr. Gingrich's second wife, Marianne Gingrich, that the "[…] elite media [is] protecting Barack Obama by attacking Republicans," but really, how much sense does that make at this point in the campaign?