Bush won't give up

...To Sum Up

2006-12-20T15:37:00.000-05:00

In my growing attempt to come up with a solution to the current problem our country is facing with relation to media and politics, I have decided to take it upon myself to go through the reasons for the status quo, the potential New Media has created, and possibly ways to reach new standards.

There are six different models for reporters, some of which are more relevant than others, but all of which contribute plenty to our current discussion.

Jan Leighley, in her book, “Mass, Media and Politics in the United States” discusses five different models for reporters. They are as follows: The neutral adversary model - a model that argues that the media plays a role in monitoring government officials. They are to act as watchdogs and a check on government. The public advocate model argues that journalists have a social responsibility to engage government officials and the public in debates on political issues. They see citizens as their prominent source and subject of news coverage. The propagandist model is when the media supports and advances the interests of those in positions of power. Goebbes, Hitler’s propagandist, when describing reporters said that, “Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play.” The reporters of objective fact model argue that reporters are just a conduit for information. They provide facts and are objective. They have no set agenda. The profit seeker model is when the media is owned privately and they rely on profits so they do what is sexy and edgy. It is a profit-seeking business with their main concern being making money for their shareholders.

A sixth model, as explained by Stephen Pimpare is the DeTocquivelle model which is best described as: the media must serve to present useful information in such a manner that citizens can readily use it.

When evaluating these models we see that many do not hold water. When it comes to journalism, the ideal we are looking for is a fair, honest and dedicated model - not a lazy, unfair, and dishonest establishment that is more interested in selling advertisements and making a profit than getting out the truth.

I think that the standard by which we should expect and evaluate media performance should be a combination of some of models stated above. They should be as objective as humanly possible, useful and a conduit of information. Most of all, I would like to suggest that the model we should want and expect is an “Intellectually Honest/Fairness Model” in which the media, and everyone involved gives an accurate and honest assessment of all situations. They should tell the story the way it is instead of trying to spin or frame a story so that it can fit better with their over-arching narrative, pleasing the hierarchal system or the current administration.

I call for a check on government, corporations and journalists all around the world. The reason for this is quite obvious. If we want to be proud of living in a democratic state we need to begin to act accordingly. We should expect honesty from our administration and especially from reporters. To be citizens living in a democracy we need to know information – we need to know the truth.

Sadly, Mainstream Media (MSM) and Big Media do not even come close to meeting my standard. Below is a video of Jon Stewart on CNN’s Crossfire trying to critique MSM’s use of power.

And his rebuttal.

See what I mean? The media is not using its powers for the good of the citizens of this country, rather for themselves, ratings, and profits. (For a full story of what Jon Stewart seemingly accomplished and the aftermath of this whole fiasco -see here)

In Geneva Overholser and Kathleen Hall Jamieson’s book, "Institutions of American Democracy: The Press" James Hamilton argues that since the 1970’s what we see in news is a shift from what people need to know to what people want to know. Instead of showing citizens what they need to know to be good and active citizens, because of the change of technology, differentiation and product definition, and corporate ownership, citizens are left with what seems to be more soft news and much less hard and truthful facts.

With the expansion of technology came cable television, satellite television and the internet. Citizens had more options. With options came a predicament for company owners. They needed to make sure people were interested and would stay interested in their programs because if not, they would have a hard time trying to get advertisers to publish with them – and, with the absence of ads comes the absence of profits.

Differentiation and product definition deals with the following question: How am I different than my competitor so that you want to watch me? Hamilton argues that this fight over ratings and audiences is what lead to a decrease in hard news and increase in soft news; an increase in negative tone and horse race coverage (who’s up and down – what does this mean for the campaign); a decrease of watchdog stories; an increase in the mix between interpretations and news; and finally, a decrease in international coverage and congressional voting.

One of the last reasons for this shift is because of ownership. A major turning point in media history is the FCC passing of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 which deregulated media and companies. Congress forced local telephone companies to share their phone lines with competitors at regulated rates. But this still permits wide spread ownership where corporations can violate the rules if they get special permission – which has happened over and over again.

McChesney in “The Problem of the Media” writes: “In truth, the bill promised the worst of both worlds…more concentrated ownership over communications with less possibility for regulation in the public interest. Accordingly, both the cable and the telecommunications industries have become significantly more concentrated since 1996 and customer complaints about lousy service have hit all-time highs. Cable industry rates for consumers have also shot up, increasing some 50 percent between 1996 and 2003.” McChesney argues that the media is not competitive and democratic rather, it is an oligopoly in which five or six companies (Time Warner, Disney, General Electric, Viacom, News Corporation and CBS Corporation) control the market.

Having said all that, we begin to understand a little more why there seems to be a few opinions told to us over and over, rather than a vast amount of differing opinions – something I will argue that we do see in New Media. Here unfortunately, companies and politicians work hand-in-hand and because of this “you scratch my back, I scratch yours” relationship, journalists become a pawn used by industries to further their own agenda.

A deceivingly way that the media attempts to distort the public is best argued by Orwell. He talks about finding the precise words to find what you mean but part of the problem with political debate is that they seek to find ways to cover up and obscure the way in which they speak. The administration does it all the time, corporations that own news broadcasts do it, and now journalists take cues from their superiors and continue to exacerbate the problem by going along with it rather than fighting it.

One way they do this is by taking facts and clothe them in names and numbers. They begin to classify some things and not others. To name is to take a stand. For example: Iraq– is it an invasion? Occupation? Liberation? To name is to take a stand. The West Bank? Palestine? The Occupied Territories? Pro life or pro choice? Terrorists? Freedom fighters? Rebels? Is it terrorism or resistance? This is all an act of framing that can sometimes be an intentional effort to distort of mislead.

Another critique of mainstream media is expressed in “Control Room” a documentary that was shown in class. They had been discussing objectivity and journalism and a journalist from Al Jazeera said “this word objectivity is almost a mirage Journalists takes a posiison all the time.” The truth is, is that every teacher, citizen, journalist is subjective. People have different views on different stories– it’s human nature. But there is no reason why media should not be more intellectually honest. There is no reason to omit information that undermines your argument. In the documentary, there was a clip of what really happened when Saddam’s statue was toppled– it was staged and directed by American forces. The story that was told was of true liberation and happiness instead of the the truth. The reason? Simply beccause it was a better story that fit the narrative. It wasn't until Katrina and the administration's lack of response that really allowed people to realize that they can be critical of the administration.

Although I will argue that currently New Media does not exemplify my model, it does have the potential for there to be a more intellectually honest and fair journalism. Part of New Media is the creation of citizen journalism.

Using Blogger individuals can express themselves and make the MSM more accountable by exposing its faults. It enables you to communicate with people around the world by creating the opportunity to engage in intellectual debates and political discourse.

As Leighley correctly points out, “The Internet provides instant and abundant information from diverse information sources, and it makes widespread participation in the political system possible via the use of chatrooms, electronic town hall meetings, low-cost communication with government officials, and, eventually, electronic voting in referenda, initiatives, and general elections.”

As mentioned in previous posts, Dan Gillmor in his book "We the Media," argues that there is much to gain from the internet. That it is to say, you can stay better informed by reading many different internet sources as opposed to watching television or listening to a radio show. Yet, as both McChesney, in “The Problem of the Media” and Leighley in "Mass, Media and Politics in the United States, argue that the positive affects of the Internet have been overstated.

At first, the Internet seemed like a system that was now going to counter the current commercial media market. The Internet was thought to give the public a new outlook on news and information– an outlook that the elites controlling MSM did not necessarily support. And it did just that. The Internet became a medium for public discourse and uncensored journalism. People were now free to express their thoughts and opinions.

The flip-side to this is best expressed here. MSM have begun to use the Internet to exacerbate the problem. They have created their own web pages such as CNN and The New York Times Fox, which is more accessible to citizens because we are more familiar with those pages as opposed to obscure web pages with new perspectives. In a way, MSM is trying to make the Internet complimentary instead of an opposition.

There are also those that fear that blogging/Bloggers will become the new MSM where the famous and more elite bloggers will become the only views people turn to.

Another critique of New Media is the issue of hyper-commercialism. You can hardly ever find a webpage or news source that doesn't have an ad somewhere on the page. This can pose a major problem because we fall into the same problem as we did with MSM. We need to keep ratings and audiences interested and if we don't we lose advertisements. With the loss of advertisments comes the lost of profits. For a more in-depth look at hyper-commercialism see here.

What the Internet does do and it is in this way that I see its potential to reach my model is discussed by McChesney and Gillmor. They both argue that the internet allows there to be political debate and discourse that is excluded from Mainstream Media.

In recent blogs, I have discussed the positive role blogging can play. If used properly, politicians can raise more money and begin more discussions. Likewise, bloggers can comment and post their thoughts on real issues and gain a fair view of politics and the world around them.

But, there are problems we must first overcome.

Part of the problem when discussing New Media’s ability to use its full potential is expressed in, “Who Controls the Internet?” and “An Army of Davids,” by Jack Goldsmith and Tim Wu.

In an e-mail exchange between the two authors and a man by the name of Glenn Reyonolds, we find that the core of “Who Controls the Internet” is about the way the national government has much more power over what people do on the internet than we would think. He mentions John Perry Barlow’s Declaration of Independence for Cyberspace to argue that the notion that the Internet is some boundary-free, "say all" is exaggerated.

Here is an excerpt of the e-mail that lists some examples of government control:

…China has succesfully suppressed dissidents online and has made it difficult for users to access content available in the United States; the French government has successfully forced Yahoo! to stop selling Nazi memorabilia to users in France, and so-called “data havens” like SeaLand-an offshore site for storing controversial information outside the reach of government regulation-have failed…Witness the death of Napster and the rise of iTunes and all the other ways government controls the Internet..."

On the flip side, it’s blogs, text messaging, the Internet as a whole, and the expansion of technology that has enabled citizens to become journalists – and good ones at that.

It was Chinese bloggers and text-messagers that revealed to the world the Chinese epidemic called SARS. They publicized and coordinated the Orange Revolution in Ukraine and the Great Compromiser. It is true that there is a problem of accountability, but just as Dan Gillmor states in his book, “We the Media,” we do need to take comments and some posts with a grain of salt, and make sure that we double check our information before believing every word. The Washington Post has begun to include links to their stories to blogs that discuss its stories, enabling readers the privilege to gain many different perspectives. The next step would be for the Washington Post to get staffers to check the comments and look for errors or offer credit to new information that bloggers have discovered. Some have called for a sort of editor for blogs, making sure that everything written is legitimate.

Senator McCain is trying to introduce legislation that would hold blogs accountable for all acitivity and comments. But as discussed here , it seems as though McCain is doing this as a political move and part of the argument for that is because McCain victimizede any evidence that correlated children being vicitimized with people who post comments on blogs.

A much larger problem facing bloggers and New Media as a whole is an issue that Jeff Chester in his article “The End of the Internet,” discusses. He explains (and this should come as no surprise to anyone) that cable and telephone companies are crafting strategies to transform the Internet to, yup, you guessed it, “a privately run branded service that would charge a fee for virtually everything we do.” They want to impose “deep pocket inspection” where these companies can know the information you are receiving and sending online. They want to do this so that "the Internet pipeline doesn' get congested and choke off the delivery of timely communications.” Meaning, for universities and businesses this can work well because they can use this to economically manage their Internet services, but, for companies like Bell South and AT&T, this is a great way for them to become the GE and Disney of the Internet.

I will be the first to admit that there is no single solution to all these problems since there are many that are interconnected. That being said, we should not be discouraged. We need to acknowledge the present difficulties and work to being to identify the pieces that can promote change. For me in particular, change starts here . Start a discussion, incite a conversation or a thought. Begin political discourse and work hard at ferreting out the facts and truth from the Orwellian terminology. Change does not happen overnight, and it is definitely not easy – but it doesn’t mean it can never be achieved.

Bloggers - Be Careful!

2006-12-18T10:43:00.000-05:00

Some of you may or may not know a blogged by the name of Perez Hilton. His blog was made to poke fun at celebrities - displaying some more than others, rather obscene, and down right hilarious photos.

But now, he is being sued for using photos from a paparazzi agency. The story goes like this:

"On one side: the paparazzi who stalk celebrities in their moments of greatest vulnerability — at doctors' offices, with their newborns, when they are falling-down drunk.

On the other: a blogger who helps himself to those photos, scrawls puerile comments on them, and posts them on his immensely popular and profitable website."

So, bloggers are a threat to journalists and paparazzi... and the answer to this - let's sue them all.
My opinions on this matter will be developed in a later blog...but feel free to question and comment on this one.

Read the full story here.

It is interesting to note that the LA Times carried this story - but the NYTimes had it no where in their paper.

How Far Can Blogs Take a Campaign?

2006-12-11T12:58:00.000-05:00

After reading Perlmutter's article I had a few thoughts and opinions,

Firstly, I could not agree more. The entire semester we have been learning about media, and blogging and how that has been effecting the world and politics as we know it. We have expanded technology and with that has come pictures, videos, free news coverage, and most importantly - citizen journalism.

Blogging in my opinion will have an effect on who will be our next commander in chief. Mainstream media has begun to check blogs and see what everyone is talking about, what they are thinking and using that to their advantage. Blogging in my opinion will be able to give presidential candidates or members of Congress or the Senate a way to shift their focus when it comes to speeches. They can tweak what they will say in order to respond to what the demand is. They see an issue that bloggers are discussing and can use that to help them win an election.

Furthermore, they can also use blogs to create a personal relationship with their supporters. Take Barak Obama's site. It is filled with updates on what the senator is doing, pictures and snippets of speeches. Or, take Howard Dean's blog. He was among the first to show the would just what cyberspace can do. He raised money (small contributions that added up to a ton of money) wrote and conversed and responded to bloggers. Blogs crearted a "community of debaters." People that demanded authenticity, and cared about politics. These are the people that campaigns want to satisfy - because they are just like you and I.

Now, you might ponder - what does she mean by that? The answer to that is - I have friends and you have friends, and the more we blog and get answers - the more that word of mouth is going to work. We are going to pass on this information of what is the best candidate and who we think can run this country. Because our friends know that we know more than them when it comes to politics, they will trust us and vote according to what we say. So, it seems like, in my opinion of course, that blogs can only help candidates. It will enable them to reach people like us in a more effective and authentic way.

One more note: I saw a C-SPAN program last week (sadly, I cannot find the clip - but if I find it I'll let you know) in which they had Jeff Jarvis, a blogger, testify in front of a panel of newsreporters and the like and discuss blogging. His conclusion was much like what we have discussed: the internet is becoming a new medium for news. The rebuttle? I think it is a worthy question to ponder - do we want to leave citizens the job of being the bearer of news, or do we want it to be left up to journalists - the ones who have been trained to take on this task.

In my opinion I think that there should a combination of the two. Clearly, citizens (on average do know as much as journalists) like we have said before, we are better at local events - with more information on things that effect our neighborhoods, communities and life - but we do not know as much as world events and how that can relate to us. We are not stationed in Iraq so we do not know the daily politics as well as a journalists. That being said, I think that papers do not do as well as citizens when it comes to local news. So when it comes to reading blogs, maybe there is something to be said about a citizen discussing the politics of education at a local public school rather than a journalist writing a few lines about it. Maybe journalists should realize that on certain issues, citizens know a lot more.

The world of politics is changing. There seems to be an increase opportunity for newspapers and potential office-holders/seekers to use that to their advantage. If they understand the rules of thumb, they can get all the free publicity they want at the click of a button.

Man VS. Computer

2006-12-05T18:01:00.000-05:00

The New York Times put out an article today called "Once Again, Machine Beats Human Champion at Chess". What is interesting to note about this, and something we have not really touched upon in class is the debate about whether humans can outpace there creations or not.
In this case - not really.

But on the flip side, there has been much debate recently about electronic voting machines: pro or con. The panel changed their minds again today - they now do not need to be decertified if they don't meet requirements - the proposal deals with the next generations of voting machines...so I guess we need to wait until the '08 elections to see if technology - or shall we say voting machines, can keep up with/ do a better job than humans.

A Blast From Our Past

2006-12-05T16:55:00.000-05:00

Ok so it's funny. But it's also sadly true. Mutz and Reeves article makes a broad statement: People do not like conflict. And in today's day and age that is all we ever see. Debates, negative ads, spinning stories - that is all politicians ever do.

They ask an important question - "Would trust in politics and politicians improve if the public simply did not wintess so much uncivil political disagreement on television?" It seems to me that it would. Imagine a world in which media and print concentrated more or policy and real issues than on what will sell better? What is more sexy?

Political disagreement is healthy. I think it should exist and it is part of the democratic theory. BUT - note that I said political disagreement. Today, campaigns and politicians are all about coming out on top and making the other guy look bad - not by accusing him or her of bad policy but because he or she did this act or said this stupid thing.

So, maybe there is some hope for the future - maybe with the new media and especially blogging, us citizen journalists, who care more about policy and salient issues will fix this. (I say this loosely for there are plenty bloggers who just love to rant and rave about anything) Gillmor talks about bloggers in chapter nine of his book and raises an interesting point which I think is very relevant to our class.

He talks about - how do we know what we are reading is true, and among his ways given to decipher the truth (checking everything out and until then taking things with a grain of salt) he says, get information from friends. That's the best and most advantageous part of the web. The ability to minimize how long it takes to pass information. Shoot an e-mail, post a blog - C-Doc gave us plenty of credible bloggers that I know I would have never known about had it not been for him. Use your friends wisely and together we can seek the truth out together.

A Heads Up

2006-12-05T14:45:00.000-05:00

The YC Book Project presents:“The Truth Is Out There: Politics and the Media Today”: a Debate on Political JournalismFROM THE LEFT: Paul Glastris (Editor-in-Chief of The Washington Monthly)FROM THE RIGHT: Matthew Continetti (writer for The Weekly Standard)Monday, December 11, 2006, 8pmFurst 535Reception to follow

As our conversation continues...

2006-12-04T13:24:00.000-05:00

Read this article from the NYT. It is about a man names Jose Padilla and his experiences as a "terror suspect." There is a video being shown (youtube did not have it) that is worth seeing. Just another advantage to having technology and cell phones. Citizen journalism at its finest.

Religion and Technology

2006-12-03T20:47:00.000-05:00

This week, I would like to discuss something novel that was brought to my attention over the weekend. It’s called using religion online. Christopher Hellan, a sociology professor, has written a lot about the rise of internet and its relation to religion.

He argues that religion on the web represents the presence of religion in Western culture. It demonstrates just how far we have come along in technology. Having religion on the web makes it easier and more accessible for practitioners. The internet is just another medium, a supplement if you will, to the practice of religion.

Think about it, having religion on the web allows you to practice or worship in the privacy of your own home. You don’t need to worry about what you are wearing, who you are going to see – you now only need to answer to one person.

A great site to check out if you are interested in this sort of thing is beliefnet.com.

Although, I think this is a fascinating idea, there is always a downside. Technology has also helped religion attract individuals with the use of propaganda. A movie came out called “Jesus Camp.” The film is about getting out Evangelical Christian ideologies and trying to spread them in an indirect way. A scene in particular that I would like to draw your attention to (if you ever happen to see it –it comes highly recommended) Kids are playing a video game – about creation. As the scene goes on the kids begin talking and discuss how ridiculous it is that people think that we came from monkeys. This small scene, just illustrates how technology can also be used to promote propaganda.

Here is a preview:

So, in continuing our discussion of Gillmor’s book, I think it is important to note that technology does have its shortcomings. It can be used for the positive, as I mentioned in my previous posts, to reunite bloggers, and citizen journalists, but it can also aid in advocating major propoganda.

From the NYT

2006-11-29T13:55:00.000-05:00

2006-11-29T10:25:00.000-05:00

“We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.” – Abraham Lincoln

Michael Richards, also know as Cosmo Kramer, went on a racist rampage last week. I would like to take a closer look at this story and document its development.

The clip of his outburst as you saw was disgusting. Is is obscene and offensive. That’s the point.

Once the backlash broke out Richards immediately begun spinning the story. He went on “Letterman” and apologized.

He then hired a PR man and apologized again – to none other than Reverand Jackson and Al Sharpton. Maybe he’ll go the extra mile and claim insanity or admit to a drug or alcohol problem and check himself into rehab blaming the whole fiasco on that. Who knows?

So let’s continue: many bloggers were grossly offended and upset as shown here.

Then there were the articles. This one in particular caught my eye.

Racism exists. I as a Jew am well aware of it. “Mel Gibson” rings more bells for me than it does for the average Joe. I think that we should learn from Gillmor and adapt to his theories. The reason this issue became as big as it is is because of technology. One little cell phone did this. There is something to be said about the power and the ability technology is giving us. Let’s use technology, our blogs and shout! Let’s force everyone to think about this issue instead of shrinking away from it. It exists in all forms. Speech, pictures, acts. But it does not have to be this way. I think that every politician and celebrity, anyone who has to answer to the public, apologies too frequently, claiming that that wasn’t the “real me.” It’s about time we say that “sorry” doesn’t always help. Sometimes actions speak louder than words and until everyone realizes that, racism will continue to exist.

Just for kicks

2006-11-26T19:29:00.000-05:00

You might find this interesting.

Look How Far "We the media" Have Come

2006-11-26T18:53:00.000-05:00

The year: 1996. I was ten years old and BEGGING my mom to allow us to get "AOL." With both my parents Israeli's and incompetent when it comes to anything technological, I knew I was screwed. When we finally conformed - my life changed. Do you know that you can talk to more than one person at a time when you are online? I was able to cut and paste conversations and just like Gillmor said, the internet became my very own"many-to-many" forum.

We have advanced beyond the early stages of the web and now can access information speedily. Although this may be a blessing in disguise, in my opinion it can be only if used correctly.
I only began taking advantage of the internet the summer after I graduated high school. I thought I was such a nerd throughout all my four years because I read up on the NYT daily. It was not until my senior year that I realized how inefficient my use of the internet was.

"....I realized I was getting a better overall report that anyone watching television,listening to the radio, or reading a newspaper in the United States. It was more complete, more varied." Gillmor writes this when discussing how he accumulated information from a number of different sources.

If there is anything my Political Science professor taught me in high school it was: keep up with the news - and not only through one or two papers, but from four to six.

Over and over again we see that we can create our own news by compiling many different papers together. So, even though we have come a long way since the 80's, until American's understand that in order to get a more accurate portrayal, and non biased view of the world, there needs to be more than one medium. In order to gain a more objective prospective of the world around us, we need to search many different sources to determine and recognize bias and spins.

I would just like to make one more comment on what I have read thus far that will further illustrate my point:

Gillmor argues that it was September 11th that really showed how far we came since the beginning of grassroots journalism. He says that 9/11 was the catalyst to show the world just how much we were willing to participate.
Now, don't get me wrong - I think 9/11 brought out a lot in us, and the examples Gillmor brings validates his claim. On the other hand, I do believe that some of it had to do with timing. Gillmor takes us through the process of the internet and 9/11 happened to come at a time when technology was so advanced that it was easy to relay messages and provoke thoughts. If it wasn't 9/11 I think it would have been something else (i.e. Katrina) 9/11 and then the War started people on a rampage. Blogging became more of a norm and a way to allow people to express themselves.

But here is my problem: Gillmor says that blogging is a truly democratic form, but again, as aforementioned - only if used properly. I think blogging can incite anger and at the same time open up minds - but you need to know where you are going. We are lucky enough to have C-Doc give us a list of accessible and legitimate bloggers from the far left to the far right - but we need to look at all of them, not just one. If we truly want to have knowledge and a stronger, more vibrant democracy - there needs to be a free flow of information from many different mediums. Not just one concentrating on their own private views and projecting it onto the public.

Am I Looking in the Wrong Places?

2006-11-21T23:33:00.000-05:00

I tried to find a critique but there was only much praise. "Lapdogs" was a great book trying to once again show how carefully orchestrated the Bush administration is. They have their power over the media and makes sure it is being used to their advantage. From what I read this seems like a great book and it's unfortunate that it did not get as much publicity as say, how well the economy has been doing? How great and strong our President is?

What I have to disagree with is the attention that Boelhert claimed that Cindy Sheehan did not recieve. I think the media did cover it - I remember seeing it. But then again, I did not see it over and over again.

Bush's life is not sexy the way Clinton's was. He is a Texan with moral values (with the occasional cocaine addiction or alcoholism) Either way, this book proves yet again how much the media is involved in politics.

(Although I could not find legitimate sources of critique - i did see many blogs that bashed the book. But clearly they were righty's that undyingly devote themselves to Bush.

Where do we draw the line?

2006-11-19T13:44:00.000-05:00

I would like to begin my blog with a little history.

The year was 1918. Eugene Debs, then labor leader, made a speech in Ohio arguing about the US’s involvement in World War I.

In this speech, he said, "Wars throughout history have been waged for conquest and plunder. ...the working class who fight all the battles, the working class who make the supreme sacrifices, the working class who freely shed their blood and furnish their corpses, have never yet had a voice in either declaring war or making peace. It is the ruling class that invariably does both. They alone declare war and they alone make peace."

He continued: "They are continually talking about their patriotic duty. It is not their but your patriotic duty that they are concerned about. There is a decided difference. Their patriotic duty never takes them to the firing line or chucks them into the trenches."
Debs was charged and convicted under the Espionage Act for trying to discourage enlistment into the army and encourage some sort of rebellion. Debs knew that that speech would land him in prison – which it did. He was sentenced for ten years. While in prison, he ran for presidency and won over 900,000 votes. He was later pardoned not by Wilson, the president who led us into the war, but by Harding.

Today, millions of Americans protest against the war – against killing innocent civilians, against taking our troops into this never-ending war, against the incompetence of this administration. What’s different nowadays is that unlike Debs, we do not get thrown into jail. Well, not yet at least. Free speech has developed since 1918 and we have progressed in terms of widening the scope of it.

On the other hand, we have things like the Dixie Chicks who said a few insulting words to the president and now need to make a movie about how harmful words can be to your music career. There are repercussions and consequences that they now need to face.
W.E.B Dubois argues that a way to solve this problem is by having discussions. Talk it out. Get all the sides and then see for yourself. But, as we have seen – it is a lot easier said than done.

The First Amendment states ''The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.''

You are allowed to speak. You are encouraged to voice your opinions – but there are and I think should be limitations. You should not be allowed to yell “fire” in a crowded theatre – it is just wrong and frankly, mean.

I am all for free speech – I really am but as far as war is concerned, I think that some things are improper – to say the least. Debs was correct in voicing his opinion, and if he was alive today I am sure he would be a protester – but do I think he would say that Bin Laden is brilliant and we should all learn from him? No. I don’t think he’s an idiot.

Ever since 9/11 we have all been (well at least I have) a little more scared than usual – and so we are more suspicious. Do I think that Bush is exaggerating especially when it comes to the Sedition Act of 1918 is sometimes compared to the Patriot Act because of the Patriot Act’s limitations on free speech. The Sedition Act had the explicit purpose of ridding anti-government speech while we were at war – and it was repealed a few years later. On the other hand, the Patriot Act is overstepping its boundaries. I think that there are too many investigations that are really the government’s way of racial profiling but without getting in trouble. For example, when Bush signed the reauthorization of the Patriot Act in March 2006, , he included an add-on saying that he did not feel obliged to obey requirements that he notify Congress about how the FBI was using the act's expanded police powers. I think that’s pretty bad – and so did most of the media. I mean come on, going into random houses and searching them, getting your voicemail, your records, intercepting your calls – do they have someone watching over them, I mean really watching over them?

So, as far as free speech is concerned – I am all for it but, when we are at a time of war, there needs to be limitations – but I do think the President has added one too many limitations. Where do we draw the line? I guess we can leave that up for the class to decide tomorrow.

Operation Honest Journalism:

2006-11-18T19:03:00.000-05:00

Hey everyone,

Some of you may or may not know me. My name is Maytal Fligelman, and as I'm sure C-Doc has told you all, I have an idea - I want to change the world.

Ever since "Media and Politics" my view on the world has become increasingly pessimistic. I no longer belive anything anyone says, I question everything - and most importantly, I do not trust reporters.

I want to change that. I think we all do. We NEED to raise awareness because Orwellian language is not going to suffice. Tocqueville wants us to go out and read papers - but I don't trust them. It seems like our Western democracy is not as democratic as it should be, so I would like to initiate a project.

This blog is going to be a "conversation starter." We need everyone to voice their opinions so we can figure out where we want to start. A few ideas to get us started:

1) we can start a petition and send it to legislators/ FCC

2) Have someone from the FCC or the media to come and speak to us. (I actually have someone who is very interested in this stuff. She is an investigative journalist for the Wall Street Journal)

3) Raise awareness in school - post signs, get the public to be a little more attentive.

Now, we need to talk this out to see what exactly we want to change - what rules should be in place etc. We need to be more than a watchdog - we need to be active - not just vent.

Professor Pimpare said that this can be in place of some of our final - but that means the following: NO FREE RIDING! It's why most Americans are lethargic when it comes to politics and it's why we have such a problem. We need to all get our act together and do something - together.

A note: This project will most definately continue into next semester... if you are not interested in coontinuing post this class -please voice that so we know what we are working with.

With that, comment away!

2006-11-16T19:09:00.000-05:00

Scary huh?

Finally!

2006-11-14T15:40:00.000-05:00

So I was able to get to the Al Jazeera website (go through google, type in "Al Jazeera") and here is what I found interesting:

When we read newspapers and watch the news we need to remember one more thing in addition to our long list: think about what perspective the media is writing. Al Jazeera in my view was very much oriented for the Middle Eastern/ Muslims with the same views. For example, take this article. The way it was written was very different than the way the NYT wrote it.

The article discusses Syria's intervention into Iraq. The Al Jazeera article focused on one point: Syria is getting involved and Moellem thinks, " We believe that a timetable for the withdrawal of foreign troops from Iraq will help in reducing violence and preserving security." They focus a lot on America's intervention and that - everyone look, even Syria agrees, things will get better once US forces leave.
The article was short and kept digging the same point into everyone's head: US's presence in Iraq =bad.

The NYT was very different. Firstly, you can tell that they are a lot more careful in crafting good writing but even the content varied. The NYT concentrated on Syria's attempt to intervene, but reminding us once again that Bush will not open talks because he thinks that Syria and Iran are funding terrorist organizations. The NYT also mentioned all the attacks that took place in Iraq that day as opposed to Al Jazeera who did not mention a thing.

All in all, the NYT article sounded positive: Syria ready to help, as opposed to Al Jazeera' spin which sounded more like - Syria, too agrees that the West should leave.

There can be a plethora of reasons for the discrepancies in journalism - but my gut feelings tells me it has to do with knowing your audience. Al Jazeera is not going to promote the continuous instability in Iraq and the NYT is not going to make it seem like just because Syria is getting involved that things will magically get better.

One more note: So I don't know if they abide their code of ethics or, if they have their own skewed way of interpreting it... But there is one definite fault with Al Jazeera's website and that is their polling site. It does not give us any methodology - just numbers... begging the question - how honest and factual are they?

Some more pictures...

2006-11-14T15:29:00.000-05:00

Someone Help!!

2006-11-14T15:25:00.000-05:00

The Nation’s article about Al Jazeera was what I expected it to be. Being Jewish, and Israeli, I was assuming that C-Doc would want us to get a different view on Al Jazeera. I learned that Al Jazeera was just trying to be an independent news source and the article made it seem like they were taking a lot of heat for no reason. He talks about President Bush’s plan to bomb Al Jazeera, the reason being because Al Jazeera does not want to become modern, does not want to become like the West.

Unfortunately, I was not able to access the website – but I can guess what it was going to be about. The website would probably be Al Jazeera’s view on what they think is modernization and their view on the war on terror.

So, even though I can’t reach the website – Maybe we can just think of Al Jazeera as another news source, or maybe we can think of them as great propagandists who incite fear and happiness – wherever they see fit.

If anyone knows where I can get more – relevant and factual info, don’t hesitate to post.

The King of Propaganda

2006-11-11T20:59:00.000-05:00

Taking my last blog into account, I will use this one to put OÂShaughnessy's explanation of myths, symbols and rhetoric to better use.

When I think Hitler Â I think evil, Nazi regime, Holocaust, WWII. But, after doing some research, I can see why some people think leader, savior, brilliant.

One thing I think we can all agree on is : Hitler and his regime were amazing propagandists. They knew exactly what they were doing Â and it worked wonders. Hitler understood people, knew what to say to make them feel certain emotions. He scared them into thinking that everyone was a threat. He prided them in eternalizing that the Aryan race was the purest and strongest of them all, and repeatedly tested their faith.

He was a symbol of all that was good. The Jew Â all that was bad. His speeches made people cry, shout, get angry, laugh Â he had it all. And it worked. It worked very well. He manipulated the German people and took advantage of their emotions Â without them even noticing.

Here are some symbols, rhetoric and images that in my eyes did wonders:

This is a quotation from Hermann GÃ¶ring. It reads: "To help to defend and finish the FÃ¼hrer's enormous work is the happiest task and highest duty of all Germans" (#18 for 27 April - 3 May 1941)

He made people think that they were doing what they were put on the earth to do when working for Hitler. Working for Hitler was going to make your life happier.

A quotation from Hermann GÃ¶ring: "Without the victory of the swastika, there would be no German army today, much less any German honor or German freedom." (#5 for 26 January - 1
February 1942)

Look at the way this is phrased: They frame the Jew to be the enemy - and without defeating them, Germany would be weak - would have no honor or freedom. It's us or them.

Symbolism: This poster advertises the Nazi charity, the NSV. The text translates: "Health, child protection, fighting povertytravelersravellers, community, helping mothers: These are the tasks of the National Socialist People's Charity. Become a member!"

This poster is meant to portray the Nazi's as a giving group. Join us because we can fix all that is wrong in the world. We will take care of you.

This poster reads: "One people, One Reich, One Fuhrer"
He was the symbol of all that was good. Everyone needed to stick together and follow as he lead.

Now, when dealing with rhetoric, Hitler was best. He demanded full attention when speaking to an audience. He made up stories, lies and fibs in order to gain the trust of his followers. Here is an excerpt of what was written about Hitler in a newspaper.

"... What would we be without him? Spiritual movements and historical developments follow their own laws. Wars come and go like vast natural catastrophes. But it is not natural that a whole people rises to meet its great test, bringing forth miracles of bravery and confidence to a degree that no one could foresee, not even the best student of its nature. This goes beyond the natural course of things. Here we see spiritual forces that have neither historical nor biological foundations. The equation is simple: if oneAdolphves Adolf Hitler's spiritual powers, if one cuts the bands of faith that bind each of us to him, what is left? Only people who can do what is humanly possible, who can only bear what humans can bear, and who one day will succumb. It is not natural that after five years of such a war, after such sacrifices and burdens, we still believe blindly in victory and fight and work more fanatically and bitterly than we did on its first day.
The FÃ¼hrer does not speak to us often. It is too seldom for us to attribute his power over our hearts to his direct personal impact. But he is there, he thinks and works for us, it is as if we feel the presence of an omnipresent will. The soldier in a difficult position who feels he can no longer master the situation with his own strength finds comfort in thinking of the man struggling with fate at his headquarters. He knows that everything humanly possible will be done to help him. And he knows that even a sacrifice, if it must be brought, is a meaningful sacrifice, part of his great plan. He never feels alone. Nor are the people at home alone who suffer the heavy burdens of air terror. They know that someone is there who knows their needs. He does not only cover their needs with the cloak of his sympathy; he is the one who is coining victory from their sufferingÂ..But there is one man who cannot lay down his burden, who carries a hundred times more than anyone else, who does not weaken or falter, who does not confuse the forest with the trees. He is a granite wall we need not worry about, who is everything that is good and brave and true in us, who warms us with the glow of his great soul: the FÃ¼hrer!
Come what may: He is victory! ..."

We have discussed being deceitful, being honest, propaganda for the good or the bad, a means to an end. How about thinking about this in terms of party propaganda. Was Hitler successful? Certainly. Was it positive? In his eyes, yes. It's subjecridiculoust rediculous how easily people can subject themselves to inhumane acts because they are so hypnotized by pretty pictures and even stronger words? Is it scary to realize that you don't have as much control over your emotions as you'd like to think? I think it is.

Propaganda

2006-11-07T23:35:00.000-05:00

Propaganda has no clear-cut definition. It encompasses myths, images, symbolism, emotions and the like. It is vague, irrational and its aim is to influence the opinions of people.

One thing is for sure: Propaganda exists. It tries to advance a particular agenda, whether it be something positive or negative, legitimate or illegitimate. It uses emotion and feelings, building on fear or nostalgia, happiness or contempt in order to to appeal to targeted individuals. It is not objective, and does nothing to try and honestly persuade or change someone’s opinion using facts and truth. Instead, it differs and is more subjective and stretches the truth in order to gain approval by its viewers.

We can go back and argue that citizens with more political awareness and more educated, are less likely to be affected by propaganda, but then again, that all depends on how each viewer respectively sees the images in front of them and how they interpret it. I for one until recently did not realize how effected I am by the media and political ads that try to force their agenda and influence my opinions without me even noticing it.

P.S. The pictures on the right are war propaganda -- very successful because during time of war, citizens cling to their commander-in-chief and do not ask many questions. People are scared and react well to propaganda.

The Madness Begins...

2006-11-07T17:10:00.000-05:00

From The NYT...

November 7, 2006
As Voters Pass Judgment, Many Confront Technical Bugs
By JOHN HOLUSHA and BRIAN KNOWLTON
With control of Congress hanging on a handful of races, voters streamed to the polls today in a midterm election many people have viewed as a popular referendum on President Bush and the war in Iraq.
Polls opened in many places as early as 6 a.m., and with about one-third of the precincts across the country using new electronic voting technology, a range of technical problems soon began frustrating voters in states like Indiana, Ohio and Pennsylvania.
Some of the worst problems were reported in Marion County, Ind., which includes Indianapolis. Roughly half of the 914 precincts reported difficulties getting machines started. Insufficient training for poll workers was part of the problem, County Clerk Doris Ann Sadler told The Associated Press. Officials in 175 precincts were forced to turn to paper ballots.
Election officials in Delaware County, Ind., said they would seek a court order to extend voting hours. Voters in 75 precincts were frustrated because the cards that activate machines apparently had been programmed incorrectly. A Circuit Court judge extended the voting until 8:45 p.m., The Indianapolis Star reported.
Democratic Party officials in Colorado asked a judge to extend voting hours after lines grew to as many as 300 in Denver, The Associated Press said. Among those waiting 1 hour and 40 minutes to vote was the Democratic candidate for governor, Bill Ritter.
“It’s actually heartening,” he said. It means people “understand the process is important enough to be patient and wait in line.”
Lisa Doran, a spokeswoman for for Colorado’s secretary of state, said, “Despite the training, some of the election judges are intimidated by the machines.”
In Crawford, Tex., President Bush voted early today at a fire station near his home and he urged all Americans to exercise their voting rights.
As Mr. Bush and other leading political figures urged people to participate in a midterm election with an unusually large number of close races, some voters found that casting their ballots was not so easy.
Speaking shortly after 7 a.m. Central time, Mr. Bush said, “We live in a free society, and our government is only as good as the willingness of our people to participate in it.”
He urged people, regardless of party affiliation, to “cast your ballot and let your voice be heard.”
He said he planned to watch the results this evening in Washington.
Another early riser was Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey who was the 11th voter at 6:30 a.m. at the Wallace School in Hoboken. Senator Menendez arrived at the school with his adult children, Alicia and Rob, and quipped as he opened the curtain of the voting machine, “You only get to do this once.”
Senator Menendez then headed for a series of rallies across the state that is scheduled to end with a party in New Brunswick that he hopes will be a celebration of a victory against State Senator Thomas Kean Jr., his Republican opponent.
Mr. Kean and his wife, Rhonda, cast their ballots at the Westfield Public Library in Westfield, N.J., accompanied by their two daughters. He was also campaigning today and in his Web blog he posted a message on Monday saying that he expected the race to be extremely close. He also urged all his supporters to remind 10 Republicans to cast their ballots.
Today, he expressed optimism, saying: “I’m going to win the election. We’ve got the momentum, we’ve got the energy and the people of New Jersey are going to stand up for their future in New Jersey so that this state will be affordable and safer for generations to come.”
In New York, where polls suggest that Democrats are about to sweep the statewide offices, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton reported that her daughter, Chelsea, had run into trouble trying to cast her vote in Manhattan.
Greeting early morning commuters at the train station in Chappaqua, N.Y., Mrs. Clinton said that when her daughter went to a polling site at 20th Street on the West Side, workers told her that her name was not listed in a book of registered voters.
Investigation found that book containing her name had been sent to the wrong district, so she could not enter the polling booth. But election officials offered her an affidavit vote, similar to the provisional votes used in other states, according to John Ravitz, executive director of the Board of Elections.
“Her vote will count,” he said.
Senator Clinton later accompanied her husband, former President Bill Clinton, to vote at a polling place near their home in suburban New York.
Elsewhere in Manhattan, the Democratic candidate for governor, Eliot Spitzer, voted before 7 a.m. at Public School 6 on the Upper East Side, shortly after Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg cast his vote in the same location.
Mr. Spitzer then was joined by Andrew M. Cuomo, who is running for Mr. Spitzer’s current job as attorney general, in a get-out-the-vote drive at a nearby subway station.
Mr. Cuomo’s Republican opponent, Jeanine F. Pirro, cast her ballot this morning at her polling place in Harrison, N.Y. Her daughter accompanied her to the voting station at the Harrison Avenue School.
When asked where her husband was, Ms. Pirro said, “I just hope he votes.”
Ms. Pirro’s marriage came under scrutiny in the campaign when she held a news conference to acknowledge that she was under federal investigation because she had been heard on a wiretap inquiring about the possibility of secretly recording her husband. She believed her husband was carrying on an affair.
In the St. Louis suburb of Kirkwood, Mo., change was on the minds of voters. They jammed a recreation center on a foggy, drizzly morning along with the Democratic Senate candidate Claire McCaskill, in what was shaping up to be the near-record turnout for which Mrs. McCaskill yearned.
“If the turnout is like this everywhere, it isn’t going to be a long night after all,” Ms. McCaskill said outside of the Kirkwood Recreation Center, referring to her tight race against first-term Republican Senator Jim Talent. After arriving to vote about 7 a.m., Ms. McCaskill had to wait in line for 40 minutes.
Hadley Sleight, 64, a design consultant, said he hoped that Ms. McCaskill was correct and that Iraq was on his mind.
“The current administration seems out of touch with the people,” Mr. Sleight said. “There’s no accountability. I’m old enough to remember Vietnam, where we went, then left with nothing gained. And Iraq is the same thing, except worse, because this time we’re trying to impose our culture on the people of Iraq.”
Reece Forbes, a recently retired businessman, said Iraq was one of the issues that changed him into a Democrat for the day.
“Usually, I’m fairly independent, but it works out I’m voting for all the Democrats now, because we need a great deal of change and that’s the best way to get it,” Mr. Forbes said. “We need to get out of Iraq. Our presence there is harming more than helping. It’s just killing people, that’s all its doing.”
A variety of voting problems were scattered across the country.
Poll workers in Pittsburgh and parts of surrounding Allegheny County had trouble starting electronic machines. Problems with printers and malfunctioning computers also cropped up, preventing at least some people from voting at 13 polling sites.
But no similar cluster of problems was reported elsewhere in Pennsylvania, so Barry Kaufmann, executive director of Common Cause/Pennsylvania, a voting rights group, said, “It sounds like there’s either not adequate training going on, or, in the worst-case scenario, a bad batch of computers.”
In New Jersey, Republican officials said that close to two dozen voters across the state had complained that when they entered the voting booth, the name of Senator Menendez was already lighted, and that it could be de-selected only by pressing it again. A party official, Mark Sheridan, told reporters that this had caused widespread confusion, and led some people to inadvertently vote for Mr. Menendez.
“We’re not sure exactly what the cause of it is,” Mr. Sheridan, the Republican state committee counsel, said in a conference call, “but it’s become too widespread to believe it’s a coincidence.”
He suggested that the problem was either “a significant computer malfunction or an attempt by someone to manipulate the vote.” Mr. Sheridan said that state authorities had been notified.
In a crucial Senate race in Virginia, some machines displayed, on their summary page, only the first name and middle initial of James H. Webb, the Democrat seeking to unseat Senator George Allen in an extremely close race. Mr. Webb’s full name appeared on the actual voting screen. The problem had been reported earlier but not fixed.
The F.B.I. was investigating claims in Virginia of voter intimidation and polling place misdirection, according to several reports. ABC News said it had obtained an audio file of a phone message left for one registered voter in which a caller, claiming to be from the State Board of Elections, told the voter that he was not registered in Virginia and that he would be criminally prosecuted if he attempted to vote.
The Webb campaign said it believed Republicans were behind the calls; Republican officials denied this.
In other parts of Virginia, voting was said to be running heavy, and going smoothly.
As in Indianapolis, inadequate training appeared likely to have contributed to troubles in some precincts. One machine used in many precincts, the AccuVote TSX, is delivered with a setup guide that includes 42 steps. Problems had been expected.
Election Data Services, a Washington-based consulting firm, said that the chaos of the presidential election of 2000 and the enactment two years later of the Help America Vote Act had led to the biggest shift in voting equipment in United States history, affecting perhaps 55 million voters in today’s election. And changes were most common in smaller jurisdictions, which often are short on resources to correct election-day errors.
In Maryland, where serious machine problems caused chaos during the primary election in September, Montgomery County officials had ordered election officials to check Monday night that they had the automated plastic cards needed to start machines. The cards had been omitted in some precincts in September, prompting Gov. Robert Ehrlich, a Republican, to suggest that voters might find absentee voting more reliable.
In Cleveland, voters rolled their eyes as election workers fumbled with new touch-screen machines that they could not start, The Associated Press reported.
“We got five machines — one of them’s got to work,” said Willette Scullank, a troubleshooter for the elections board in Cuyahoga County, Ohio.
In the Columbus area, the Franklin County phone system collapsed amid a crush of calls from voters and poll workers, The Columbus Dispatch reported. A similar collapse in the May 2 primary delayed final returns until 2 a.m.
Some machines in Hartford, Conn., were closed temporarily, and paper ballots issued, after the machines failed to display some candidates’ names, the Web site of The Hartford Courant reported.
Minor troubles were reported in Miami-Dade and Broward Counties in southern Florida, the scene of many of the problems that caused the election debacle in the 2000 presidential elections. Secretary of State Sue Cobb told The A.P. that she did not expect serious problems with the touch-screen machines.
“History has shown that the machines are far more accurate than paper so we’re quite confident in it,” Ms. Cobb said.
Both the Justice Department and private groups are supplying added observers, legal advisers and election-machine companies like Diebold provided hundreds of technicians in case of trouble.
Some states had passed new voter identification requirements, meant to reduce fraud. But some courts have struck down identity requirements as possibly discriminatory.
In Missouri, Secretary of State Robin Carnahan, the state’s top election official, was asked to show identification — three times — while casting an absentee ballot on Friday despite a recent state high court ruling upholding a lower court decision that photo IDs were not necessary to vote.
“I was asked repeatedly for identification,” Ms. Carnahan said. “The law is very clear.”
And in Louisville, Ky., a poll worker was arrested today after being accused of choking a voter and pushing him out the door, Paula McCraney, a spokeswoman for the Jefferson County Clerk, told The A.P. The cause of the dispute was unclear.
“That about tops off the day,” Ms. McCraney said.
John Holusha reported from New York and Brian Knowlton from Washington. Ian Urbina contributed from Washington and Jim Orso from St. Louis."

Part One

2006-11-05T21:45:00.000-05:00

I will make this blog short and offer examples instead.

I think O'Shaughessy raised some good points about propaganda. Yea, we probably do not have a good enough definition, and I was surprised to see that there is dispute about whether propaganda has to have intent or not. He is right when he says that "Usually, Americans in particular think of propaganda as as activity that is enganged in by authoritarian or totalitarian governments. Because prior to this, I thought propaganda mostly as a WWII or Soviet Union kind of thing. This chapter helped me realize that propaganda is everywhere. The example O'Shaughessy gave with Kerry was a brilliant one. The words were not there - but the images were. With Midterm elections a day away, we see both Republicans and Democrats trying to frame issues and tell the voters what specific issues to think about. This is all very disconcerting - but as usual, I no longer expect anymore from our government until C-Doc tells me how I can fix this maddening world!

I took a look at Times articles from the UK and honestly, it sounded like something I would read in the NYT. The article criticized the Bush administration with all its recent faults: Katrina, the debt, the war, Foley scandal and then proceeded to discuss how the Bush family is still trying to get more votes to save the House and Senate. The article ended with - "Bush is still trying we will find out on Tuesday if his efforts paid off"

They spoke about how Republicans are losing hope and brought in two Republicans who used to love Bush and voted Republican but now are thinking about voting Democrat. Can we call this propaganda? I don't know. If we do, then everything on television is propaganda. EVERYTHING. Every commercial, every ad, every speech. Every politician is trying to get our vote. Do they succeed because of their ideological issues and issues or because the "box" is telling us to?

and now for your enjoyment...

The polls tell us all...

2006-10-31T19:18:00.002-05:00

President Bush’s approval rating was on a high after September 11th, and the entry to the Iraq War. It makes sense – citizens cling to their president, their chief, at a time of war. We were mad and wanted to punish someone for all the hurt we were caused.

Gershkoff and Kushner’s piece talks about how more than 70% of Americans supported the war. Why you may ask? Because at the time we did not care about the expected casualties, the poor effects it would have on our economy, or even the increase likihood that terrorist activities would increase in the US. They belive that the main reason the Bush administration succeeded in gaining so much support for the was was because they convinced US citizens that there was a link between Saddam Hussein and terrorism – and specifically, between Saddam and Al Queda. The Bush administration and even more so the media, was great at framing the war in this light so then why wouldn’t Americans want to support a fight against terrorism?

I blame it all on the media. The media sets the tone and frames everything. They give us cues on what to think about and how to think about something. “The more people watched television news about the war in Iraq, the more they were exposed to the Bush administration’s rhetoric.” (526) The timing of the frame was perfect too. We were so scarred by the events of September 11th that we were easily convinced by Bush’s rhetoric.

Gershkoff goes through 2003 and notes the decline in the support for the war. American troops are still fighting. The economy is still not up to par with what it should be. The 9/11 commission found no direct link between Iraq and the September 11th attacks. But we are still there. We still have faith in our president... we even re-elected him.

Today, there are more Americans who disapprove of Bush than do. So we all led to believe. There are Bush haters and Bush lovers. But answer me this question: If so many Americans hate Bush and think he is doing a horrible job, then why was he re-elected? The media, once again contains all the answers. They frame, the set their agenda... The truth? I do think there are many Americans who disapprove of President Bush and the current administration... but on the other hand, regardless of what the polls or the media says, I wouldn't be surprise if come next Tuesday, the Republicans still hold control.

P.S. I wish there was some way to see just how much control looking at these polls effect the way we look at the President and our feelings toward the administration. I wonder how many people see these polls and then think, hey, you know what things really are so bad. But I guess it does it job - sort of, it attempts to create some debate... to arouse some emotion - maybe it's not the correct ones, but at least it gets Americans to think.

The polls tell us all...

2006-10-31T19:18:00.001-05:00

2006-10-31T19:18:00.000-05:00

2006-10-31T12:45:00.000-05:00

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2005/10/29/GR2005102901606.html?referrer=emaillink

How Ironic??

2006-10-29T18:10:00.002-05:00

After going through all of the reading, I began my quest to find a great poll to comment on. I found this.

It is a poll discussing the publics attitude toward the press – which has been declining for years. It talks about how citizens have questioned the news media’s fairness and objectivity.
Here are some snippets:

“Yet despite these criticisms, most Americans continue to say that they like mainstream news outlets. By wide margins, more Americans give favorable than unfavorable ratings to their daily newspaper (80%-20%), local TV news (79%-21%), and cable TV news networks (79%-21%), among those able to rate these organizations. The margin is only slightly smaller for network TV news (75%-25%). "

“This is not the first time a Pew Research Center survey has shown the public to be broadly critical of the press, yet still favorable in its overall view of news organizations themselves. In fact, the public has long been two-minded in its views of the news media faulting the press in a variety of ways, while still valuing the news and appreciating the product of news outlets. In the current polling, those who expressed favorable opinions of daily newspapers, local TV news, network news and cable news struck similar themes in explaining their positive views of these news outlets. Respondents most often cited the fact that they are able to get the news and information they seek in a timely fashion; the breadth of coverage; and the ability to stay informed about a wide range of news developments, both locally and globally."

The poll goes on to find, just as we saw in class that more and more people are now turning to the internet to get their news than from MSM.

"The internet continues to grow as a source of news for Americans. One-in-four (24%) list the internet as a main source of news. Roughly the same number (23%) say they go online for news every day, up from 15% in 2000; the percentage checking the web for news at least once a week has grown from 33% to 44% over the same time period. While online news consumption is highest among young people (those under age 30), it is not an activity that is limited to the very young. Three-in-ten Americans ages 30-49 cite the internet as a main source of news. The importance of the web for people in their working years is even more apparent when the frequency of use is taken into account. One-third of people in their 30s say they get news online every day, as do 27% of people in their 40s. Nearly a quarter of people in their 50s get news online daily, about the same rate as among people ages 18-29. "

So now that we have discussed some issues raised in the poll, here are some facts.

1) This poll was done via telephone between the eigth to the twelfth of June.
2)1,464 people ages 18 and older were polled
3) This poll claims that there is a 3-4% margin of error.

Now the problems with this:

Michael Schwartz wrote that any individual poll can be off by 15%. ( I am not quite sure if he was only referring to election polls but either way, let's think about it this way: It is the middle of the summer, and the sample was not huge. Many said that they believe local news most, but did the pollster ask if each individual had both cable and local newstations? Where was this poll taken? What group of people ( this builds on my "do they have local and cable news question) The list goes on and on - you can find it here. Also, we do not who the poll was done for, and the framing of each question. What worries me most, and worries Schwartz too, is if someone reads this poll they might begin to think like the poll. They might turn their local television on that night and believe what the news anchors tell them because the "poll said that they do not usually give opinion." But, like we learned in class, every news channel is owned by some huge cooperation that tells them what to talk about, or better yet, the journalists know what to report on and what not to report on if they want to keep their job.

We need to think twice before taking a poll to heart. Think a little deeper, ask a few more questions - think about the margin of error, or the 95% rate... is the poll we are looking at part of the 95% or the 5%. They'll never tell...

I guess, and I'm sure by now you are no longer surprised at what I am about to say - it is ironic that we are taking a class on how biased and unobjective MSM is, yet, Americans, even though their opinion on the truthfulness of the media is declining, they are still believing almost all that they hear. Scary huh?

P.S. I know the assaignment was to only write about one poll, but here's the link to another one I think is worth a look.

To Add To My Lists Of Reasons:

2006-10-25T15:24:00.000-05:00

If I had to name the one theme that we keep coming back to in this class it would be: The more knowledge you have, the less susceptible you will be to the media.

Orwell’s piece on diction proves to us yet again that since most citizens are incapable of understanding the politics around them, we accept what is going on around us and become increasingly susceptible to the media’s framing.

He continues and argues that people, especially politicians should find precise words to convey their message rather than find ways to obscure and cover up what they truly mean. We see this everywhere: the way legislators propose bills to be voted in is a classic example. The inheritance tax or death tax was a pejorative name the Republicans used in order to create a sense of “this is something bad.” And, why wouldn’t it work? Someone hears “death tax” and would yell “of course this is not something I want!” Unless, that person had KNOWLEDGE and would not be as SUSCEPTIBLE to diction used by politicians to further their agenda.

Orwell, unlike McChensey did suggest some ways to correct this problem but the truth is – Orwell’s right – politicians will keep on saying the same lines – democratic or republican – because that is what they are fed. I mean, for goodness sake, look at President Bush, I can probably give you one of his “Iraq speeches” verbatim – it has been the same speech since we entered: America will prevail, we will succeed, we will win the war on terrorism!

Language is a very powerful device used by politicians and especially journalists, newscasters, writers – even professors as a way to convey a message to the listener. And, as I become more and more pessimistic I once again remind my readers: take everything you hear with a grain of salt – no one is honest anymore. Instead, read more and investigate even more. Maybe I am being a little too harsh but can you blame me?

MSM VS. New Media

2006-10-22T19:07:00.000-05:00

Is there a difference? I'd have to argue yea, sure there is a difference.

"Those who believe that all they need is a website and protection from government censorship to leapfrog the commercial media are dreaming. Good journalism - and good media generally- requires money and institutional support." (McChensey, 220)

Sure the invention and expansion of the internet has helped with the "free flow of information," and in theory there is a difference - but I would have to argue that it depends where you look. Like McChensey is arguing, since there is so much money needed to start and maintain these websites - MSM is taking over New Media.

unfortunately, this class has made me a pessimist. All I can think about is how MSM is taking over new media, politicians - and our minds. Few major companies have taken over the world - and it has been effecting New Media. I use to think that the itinerant has helped relive the biases that MSM creates, but in truth - it really all depends where you look.

As we said in class, the most searched pages are the NYTimes, CNN, Fox - and other major MSM - so instead of relieving biases, the internet is only make it easier and cheaper for citizens to once again submit and be told what to think about.

Sadly, there are great blogs out there which make great arguments - but the problem is, and I think we will come back to this time and time again, is adverstising. These blogs and independent papers have such a hard time getting the word out, that although I find there to be a major difference in MSM and New Media, the inability for citizens to get the true sense of what New Media is gets lost in MSM's monopolistic tendencies. We think we are choosing what we see - but nope, MSM is finding ways to make sure we think about what they want us to think about. New Media is not here to make a profit and to be sexy, it's here to find the truth but with companies taking over the internet, New Media, true media, in all its glory is having a difficult time trying to stay afloat.

The Problem of the Media

2006-10-09T23:06:00.001-05:00

Robert W. McChesney’s book,"The Problem of the Media,"describes the ways in which corporate interests and values control the news around us. He discusses what we have spoken about in class – how the media is obsessed with maximizing profits regardless of what the reprecussions are. And how can one tell that there is a growing problem in the US? Simply turn on the television – there is a decline in hard news, a concentration of ownership (Disney, Time Warner) and much less debate than there once was. McChensey talks a lot about the problem of journalism itself. Journalists continuously report on stories. Whether they are true or not is irrelevant – the important question is will people believe it and whether or not it will get them some ratings.

An example of this is the Foley scandal. I was watching ABC news when the case first came out and at the end of the segment one anchor said to another “Hey, it is sad, but it keeps the ratings high!” Everyone laughs – and cut to commercial. I mean, honestly! What is that??? With a few weeks left to midterm elections we decide to instead of give updated coverage on races, we will talk about how yet another Congressman is having sex with young pages. ( For those that don’t know this has been happening for years and in some cases, legislators were elected back into office with just a “warning”) And we will talk and talk and talk about it – why? Because Americans love to hear about it! They could say whatever they want as long as, just as McChensey argues and the anchor on ABC confirmed “it keeps ratings high.”

McChensey describes media "deregulation" as regulation in the interest of corportaions. “Deregulation” is just a nice word to cover up a bad thing. It’s like the “Death tax” – who would vote for anything like the death tax?? Likewise, who would be against deregulation – being free. McChensey uses the radio to show just how deregulation works – but be careful, when understanding this. McChensey argues that the government built this whole system – as opposed to entering in after it was created. Here is an excerpt further explaining deregulation.

“So to understand how deregulation works in these debates, look at something like radio. This is an industry we were told was deregulated in 1996, when Congress, with no public participation, lifted the national cap at how many radio stations a single company can own. And understand that radio stations – there are roughly 11,000 of them in the United States – basically have licenses to monopoly rights to use the spectrum that no one else can use in the community. The government grants this monopoly privilege to private companies, at no charge. And in 1996, the government said, "Okay, we're going to let a single company own as many of these nationally as they want, and up to eight in a single community."

Overnight, radio was transformed, and turned into a commercial sewer. Companies like Clear Channel came along and bought up 1,200 stations worth. For decades they'd only been able to own 7, or 10, or 12. Local radio station ownership collapsed, and the system became the playpen of a handful of huge companies. And we're told radio's deregulated now, because capitalists can own more radio stations.

But it's not deregulated. If it was deregulated, someone could go up and start broadcasting at any signal in your community. You go try broadcasting on one of those Clear Channel monopoly signals and see how deregulated it is — you're going to end up doing 20 years in Leavenworth if you persist at it. Regulation is every bit as severe as ever before, but deregulation just means it's purely to serve private corporate interests. It has no pretense of serving the general public.”(http://www.motherjones.com/news/qa/2004/10/09_401.html)

All in all, I would say that McChensey’s book is an astutue look at the problems with the media and I look forward to reading about his ways to alleviate the sitaution.

Forever Relevant

2006-10-09T22:18:00.000-05:00

Hey Guys,

While I was surfing the web, I came across this article. It's really worth a look.

Media and Campaigns (UPDATED)

2006-10-08T21:51:00.000-05:00

I would like to apologize in advance for how my table came out. I guess I am still trying to figure this whole "blogging thing out.

For this blog I would like to take a different approach. Last week, while watching television I am sure that most of you saw dozen of political ads. Some as Leighley describes were “attack ads,” where one candidate is clearly attacking his opponent; “contrast ads,” where one candidate would discuss his opponent but also give useful information about himself, and last but not least, there are the “advocacy ads,” which show candidates in a positive light and tells about their positions.

I chose the Lieberman – Lamont race as my project – but that was only the beginning. I was going to write the typical “wow there is too much coverage on this one race, media cannot stop talking about Lieberman’s pro- Iraq positions versus Lamont’s supposed “I hate Israel” views.” With the two of them fighting head-to-head, the papers would not stop talking and I thought this would be a great way to show the bias of media coverage.

But then I did some research. When I first began digging I saw hundreds of articles on this one particular race. So I began to think: I wonder how much the media is focusing on this race in relation to other races going on. Here is what I found (a word of caution: the results are disturbing)I took the NYT and the Washington Post as my search guides and began to do some investigating. I searched the amount of articles dedicated on the Lieberman-Lamont race against the races in Washington, Michigan, Tennessee, Minnesota and Maryland. This is what came up.

Race Washington Post NYT
1) Connecticut 138 177
2)Maryland 5 7
3)Tennessee 23 6
4)Minnesota 13 3
5) Michigan 10 4

The chart shows that there is a overwhelming amount of stories dedicated to the Lieberman-Lamont race in both the Washington Post and the New York Times. Now granted, this is a VERY small scale – and I get that, trust me – I do. But I would like to use it to prove a point. Leighley argues that when covering a campaign, journalists have shifted from being neutral or objective models to becoming more interpretive on what their view of campaigns are. Jornalists are not able to be public advocates because there is simply not enough coverage (the kind of coverage you need to make an educated decision) for them to be deemed public advocates. We know that because if we want to get more information on campaigns and issues we need to look at many different mediums.

Ok, so I am willing to accept that maybe this race means more than just another seat, because it does. If Lieberman wins, I have seen many papers (not quite sure if it was Time or Newsweek – but a few of these magazines) saying it will pull incumbent Republicans Simmons and Shay along. Clearly, if Lamont was not in the picture, the Democrats would have a better chance. And what if Lieberman wins and votes Republican? This race could mean the difference between Reid or McConnell as majority leader.

So, I think (plus, I find it to be consistent with my findings) that the media is devoting so much time to this specific race because, yep – you guessed it, “profit seekers.” The Lieberman- Lamont race is getting so much coverage because it’s entertaining. It’s sexy. There is controversy – security issues, the war, who is a liar – who is telling the truth? It has become a soap opera. No worries though – only a few more weeks to find out what really matters.

Just a thought...

2006-10-05T08:54:00.000-05:00

I would like to point something out with this whole "Foley" business. I know I have not posted in a while, and trust me I have my thoughts on the Foley issue - the most troubling one was the fact that the Speaker did nothing about this. But I would like to turn all of your attention to something else. As I was going through other posts, the most overwhelming topic is Foley. I want everyone to take a step back and realize that this is exactly what we have been learning in class! This is agenda-setting at its greatest. The media is telling us what to think about so much so that we all feel the need to blog about it! The war is still going on, North Korea is becoming a greater threat, Darfur is still happening -- there is still a lot more going on... yet, everyone (including us!) can't stop talking about Foley.

Media and Campaigns

2006-09-26T22:55:00.001-05:00

I would like to apologize in advance for how my table came out. I guess I am still trying to figure this whole "blogging" thing out.

For this blog I would like to take a different approach. Last week, while watching television I am sure that most of you saw dozen of political ads. Some as Leighley describes were “attack ads,” where one candidate is clearly attacking his opponent; “contrast ads,” where one candidate would discuss his opponent but also give useful information about him, and last but not least, there are the “advocacy ads,” which show candidates in positive lights and tells about their positions.

So, with the midterm election coming up I took a closer look at what is going on out there.
I chose the Lieberman – Lamont race as my project – but that was only the beginning. With the two of them fighting head-to-head, the papers cannot stop talking.
What troubled me was the media being unable to stop focusing on this race…even at the expense of other races. Here is what I mean:

I took the NYT and the Washington Post as my search guides and began to do some investigating. I searched the amount of articles dedicated on the Lieberman-Lamont race against the races in Washington, Michigan, Tennessee, Minnesota and Maryland. This is what came up.

Race Washington Post NYT

1) Connecticut 138 177

2)Maryland 5 7

3)Tennessee 23 6

4)Minnesota 13 3

5) Michigan 10 4

Now granted, this is a VERY small scale – and I get that, trust me – I do. But I would like to use it to prove a point. Leighley argues that when covering a campaign, journalists are not neutral or objective models like what we hoped they would be because they started to create their own view on campaigns. They also are not public advocate models because there is not enough coverage for them to be deemed public advocates. We know that because if we want to get more information on campaigns and issues we need to look at many different mediums.

Ok, so I am willing to accept that maybe this race means more than just another seat, because it does. If Lieberman wins, I have seen many papers (not quite sure if it was Time, Newsweek – but a few of these magazines) saying it will pull incumbent Republicans Simmons and Shay along. Clearly, if Lamont was not in the picture, the Democrats would have a better chance. And what if Lieberman wins and votes Republican? This race could mean the difference between Reid or McConnell as majority leader.

So, I think (plus, I find it to be consistent with my findings) that the media is devoting so much time to this specific race because, yep – you guessed it, “profit seekers.” The Lieberman- Lamont race is getting so much coverage because it’s entertaining. It’s sexy. There is controversy – security issues, the war, who is a liar – who is telling the truth? It has become a soap opera. No worries though – only a few more weeks to find out what really matters.

"The Challenges of Government Secrecy"

2006-09-20T00:59:00.000-05:00

Last night, I had the privilege to hear Steven Aftergood, Director of the Government Secrecy Project of the Federation of American Scientists speak. He began his presentation with the infamous August 6,2001 PDB about Bin Laden striking the US. We started asking questions. Was it smart to conceal this? Would things have been different? The answer: we will never know. The point is that exactly. We can never know, because the current administration never made anything available – they did not mobilize their resources.

There were 14.2 million items classified last year, up from 8.6 million in 2001. I asked Aftergood during his lecture what that relation actually means, because sadly I am not well versed in how much is “too much.” I did not know if 14.2 million was a large number or not. I was told, and not very surprised when I heard this, that the rate of classification was lower and the rate of declassification was higher during the Clinton administration. I was not surprised because Clinton was all about being “open.” (Maybe too open as suggested by our recommended reading when President Clinton went on 60 minutes and said:

“I have acknowledges wrongdoing. I have acknowledges causing pain in my marriage. I think most Americans who are watching this tonight, they’ll know what we’re saying, they’ll get it, and they’ll feel that we have been more than candid. And, I think what the press has to decide is, are we going to engage in a game of gotcha?” (Clinton Agonistes, pg 216)

Aftergood brought our attention to a quote: “Those not authorized to receive classified information much resist the temptation to acquire it, no matter what their motivation may be,” so said Deputy Attorney General, Paul McNulty. The problem with the government being so secretive is that it aids them to gain political advantages – for instance, if citizens do not know what the government is doing, we are unable to argue. When that debate is shut off it’s serving governments interest, not the citizens.

The government being secretive proves to be costly (9 billion dollars does seem like a rather large price tag), but a much easier option. The more they conceal, the less they need to explain.

One comment that Aftergood said that really got to me was “the government plays a paternal role to protect us.” Here is what disturbs me about that:

The government should be protecting us and I trust them to do so, but when there are stories like the Dover case, where the government did not want the press to take pictures of the coffins – clearly because it makes them look bad, it makes me think twice about how many times does the government mess up, conceals it, and hopes that no one will ever find out.

We use the media as a link to understand more about salient issues and the government as a whole. They, in a sense, act as our parent. But not only does the media tell us what to think, they also as Leighley describes tells us what to think about.

Leighley mentions that when crime rate was going down, citizens continuously put it on their list of things that worry them. And why shouldn’t they? Local news loves stories about crime! So even though, crime may be decreasing, the media is telling us over and over what to think about. What issues to care most about.

This is troublesome because depending on certain characteristics (education, partisanship, political interest, media exposure, and informal political discussion) citizens will become more vulnerable to what the media is exposing you to. But that is not what should be happening. The media should be a “public advocate” and should use objective journalism to give over the most pressing issues – not the ones that will gain more viewers.

The media can act as a check on government, but who checks the media?
We do. Aftergood’s lecture really opened up a can of worms. Yes, we should all worry about government secrecy, but I would like to argue that we should start at the grassroots – the media. Professor Pimpare opened up this course stating that we can do something – and I am beginning to believe that he might be right. The first step: awareness. Maybe I am being too skeptical, but I shall suggest the class do as I am beginning to do – don’t take everything the media says at face-value.

Untitled

2006-09-12T22:54:00.000-05:00

"Say first, of God above or man below,
What can we reason but from what we know."
- Alexander Pope, An Essay on Man

Or what we don’t know. Or what we choose to know and choose to ignore. Or what the media deems necessary for us to know. Or maybe, what the current administration wants us to know.

In chapter six, Leighley discusses just how ill-informed the public is.

This week we were told to look for a blog and read the comments. I found an interesting blog made by Little Green Footballs. (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=22524_Al_Jazeera_Arabic_Poll-_49.9%25_Support_Osama_Bin_Laden)

It was a poll that was being displayed on JihadTV (Al Jazeera) taken by 41,260 Arabs.

1) Is the world safer after September 11? Yes - 4.2 % No - 95.8 %

2) Do you support Osama bin Laden? Yes - 49.9 % No - 50.1 %

3) Do you think that the war on Iraq is a war on Islam? Yes - 79.8 % No - 20.2 %

4) Do you think that there is a link between the war on terrorism and the war on Iraq? Yes - 23.4 % No - 76.6 %

5) Do you wish to travel to the United States? Yes - 27.6 % No - 72.4 %

As I began leafing through the pages and pages of comments, there were a few things that caught my eye. Firstly, I noticed a lot of hatred with comments like “Can we bomb them now?” or “Let’s be democratic about this, we bomb them when it reaches 51%” etc.
We also need to be weary of answers to questions like number five. Of those 27.6% how many want to come to the US to seize opportunities – to chase that “American Dream.” How many want to come to the US with malicious intentions? And, there is reason to believe that question five is in fact untrue. There were a few bloggers that referred to NYT articles that show that “In 2005, more people from Muslim countries became legal permanent United States residents – nearly 96,000 – than in any year in the previous two decades.”

Also, assuming this study is real, they do not give us specifics on where the study was taken – what did the Sunni’s think, what did the Shiites think?

Another point that needs to be made clear is while we talk about the media, let’s just think of who Al Jazeera is. They are propagandists that spoon feed Arabs what to think and how to feel without ever presenting the other side.

While we are discussing the abilities of the media…

The PIPA poll shocked me. Well, sort of. I was not surprised to see that citizens watching Fox News are more likely to have misperceptions while citizens watching other newscasts (PBS or NPR) are less likely.

There were misperceptions that there was evidence of links between Iraq and al Qaeda, that WMD’s were present in Iraq and that Iraq was directly involved with September 11th.

The media has this blinding power over us. I was one of those citizens that had a misperception of the war! I thought Iraq was to blame for the towers and Pentagon being hit. I was a victim of this scary industry.

In “What Americans Know about Politics and Why It Matters,” Carpini and Keeter make one argument that I happen to disagree with. They claim that it is our civic duty to be informed and that “political knowledge promotes civic virtues like political tolerance.” They bring in tables and polls that show that the more you know about courts and civic liberties, the more tolerant you are – it is a direct correlation. I disagree. I happen to think that by virtue of the fact that I am a political science major, I happen to know a bit about courts and civic liberties. I also know that it does not make me any more tolerant of the current administration and how it has been dealing with the war. I am not satisfied with our inconclusive evidence and Bush’s messages of “we need to finish what we started.” Or better yet, “we need to stay positive and revive America’s spirits.”

The media controls so much. They have the ability to sway public opinion. Unfortunately, we are no longer in the sixties – we just don't care enough to go out and take time to make a difference. G-d! Imagine if they had the ability to blog back then? Maybe Vietnam would have ended even earlier. Maybe if we tried harder we could change the world? We should be ashamed that we do not contribute more to the political debate. There is this ongoing sense of apathy and indifference that should cease to exist. Instead of shouting and making our voice heard, we do as we are told. We do not do enough to investigate and therefore find ourselves acting like puppets – doing all that the media, our master, tells us.

We can't handle the truth

2006-09-10T20:38:00.000-05:00

While I was working on Capitol Hill this summer, I was exposed to many press conferences and the sort. I suppose that aided me in getting ready for this assignment.

In chapter five, Leighley discusses how the government gives over news and talk to the public. Press Secretary, Tony Snow, holds press briefings for reporters and on September 8th, he did his job just like any other day. Mr. Snow came in, gave over the President’s schedule for the week and then proceeded to take questions. Leighley discusses three types of news: fully controlled, partially controlled, and uncontrolled. Clearly, government would like it best if they had a fully controlled event. Which is why they stage events, like visiting schools – where reporters cannot really do anything but show the President off in a positive light. But partially controlled events, like a press conference, is not always the easiest thing to deal with. Although the Press Secretary knows what he is getting into before he enters the room, there is always that one or two questions that reporters’ are not willing to back down on. And so we begin…

What stood out to me while watching C-SPAN was repeated attempts by reporters to start up some controversy. As we learned, they want to give the people “something to talk about.” For example:

Q Returning to the bright lines being drawn between Democrats and Republicans, I'd like to follow on a question the President was asked yesterday in an interview. He was asked by Charlie Gibson, does the President believe if the Democrats control one House or another of Congress, that America will be -- that security for America will be somewhat compromised in some way, that it's a less safe country if the Democrats control one of the Houses?
MR. SNOW: I'm just not playing ball on that.
Q It's not playing ball. It's a legitimate question, based on the last four speeches in eight days.
MR. SNOW: But I would invite you to go back and look at every one of those speeches and find for me the area in which the President tried to cleave between Democrats and Republicans.
Q So there's no attempt right now to show a distinction between Democrats and Republicans in how they handle the war on terror?
MR. SNOW: No, I think what's happening is that the President is making clear what his position is, and critics will respond, and people will be able to draw their distinctions.
Q Hang on a second. It is implicit what the President is doing.
MR. SNOW: No, but wait a minute -- the question -- no, it's not. Let me walk through a couple of things here, and I'm glad you asked.
For instance, to the notion that in coming up with suggestions for handling detainees that somehow was timed politically -- this was the first time it was possible to introduce this. The Hamdan decision came down in late June. It took a long time for people to go through this. We have had ongoing and very active efforts of senior members of this administration going back and forth to Capitol Hill, working with members of congress to try to deal with this seriously because it has interrupted out ability to collect intelligence. It has denied people the opportunity to know that people who have been charged with acts of terrorism are going to face justice. This is the first opportunity. Wednesday is the first day that both Houses of Congress were back from recess. That was the time to do it.
But what you've asked is, is there some sort of -- we're just not going to engage in speculation because we think we're going to win both Houses.
Q Okay, but -- I guess, let me rephrase that, because maybe I've done a poor job of setting up the premise. Obviously, the President is engaged in a process of drawing distinctions between Republicans and Democrats to lay out for the American people what the differences in the parties are.
MR. SNOW: Sure.
Q Okay --
MR. SNOW: He's framing the debate.
Q So let's take that to its logical conclusion. If the Democrats win, is America less safe?
MR. SNOW: We don't think the Democrats are going to win.

I think this badgering back and forth is pathetic. We can clearly see that Snow was not going to cave – I mean, he would get fired if he revealed any kind of information that would get President Bush “in trouble.” Snow also has the ability to ignore a repeated attempt and just move on. What bothers me is that reporters know Snow will not cave, and they continuously attempt to get him to slip so that they can have something interesting to write in their article.

On the other hand…

Later on Snow begins talking about September 11th and how we are trying to “revive America’s spirit.” What he meant to say was that President Bush was a hero then, and is not anymore. We are trying to get Americans to remember the President they loved. Snow says that the administration is “looking forward.” “You acknowledge what happened. But if you spend your time lingering on what happened without thinking how do you address it so it doesn't happen again, then you're not doing your job.” Snow is trying to frame President Bush’s trip tomorrow to be one that will “revive spirits” rather than one that will cause ruckus.

This summer taught me something important: Either way you look at it, both sides have an agenda. Their target? The American people.

What is "BIG" news?

2006-09-08T10:58:00.000-05:00

I just thought the class would want to know what is on the front page of Yahoo!

"'THE 9': Scene stealer
Lindsay Lohan gets ripped off, and a cockroach steals the spotlight from a TV weathercaster.» Watch 'THE 9'"

And, if you want - there are photos!

"The True Path to 9/11"

2006-09-07T16:39:00.000-05:00

This Monday is September 11th. ABC is running a mini-series based on the September 11th attacks. There have been movies trying to depict the trauma and pain that day brought upon us all, and now, ABC would like to do what Diana from Network did. They would like to take something that was very real and traumatic and turn it into this sexy, racy mini-series. It's a dramatization for the love of G-d! Many victims of the 9/11 attacks are outraged by ABC's insensitivity - and I could not agree more.

I am really sick of the media taking serious events and turning them into series in order to increase ratings. I know we spoke about ownership and ratings and advertisements, and I get all that.. But, I was sitting in class when the planes crashed. I saw the smoke from the window. I saw burnt papers all over New York that was getting carried by the wind. I know victims of these attacks.

I just think it is too soon.

How Many Number Two's?

2006-09-05T14:02:00.000-05:00

Hey Guys,

So I did some research into the matter and found something interesting. Listed below are links to the articles I found - they are from two time periods 1/19/06 and 9/3-5/06. As you will be able to see, in January the number two leader was Ayman al-Zawahri who was supposedly killed but I did not find anything confirming that he was.

In recent news, the number two leader was Hamed Jumaa Faris Juri al-Saeidi. Well, enjoy!

http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe/document?_m=e173437a0be930ae140cff7b3ae9bbee&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLbVzz-zSkVb&_md5=7db9b5e855bd7cc14f360ece49ebfde8

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/03/AR2006090300196.html

http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe/document?_m=860892c75081877b910ea813fd57ac22&_docnum=57&wchp=dGLbVzz-zSkVb&_md5=ac99b8cfdfff9feb473f905b7663dae0

"I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore"

2006-09-05T13:44:00.000-05:00

Sidney Lumet’s 1976 satirical production of the television industry was both hysterical and discomforting. “Network” contains it all. We first meet Howard Beale, the newscaster, when we find out that he is being fired because of his poor ratings. But then, Beale resurrects as an angry newscaster that is being mistaken for what Diana Christen (the VP) thinks is a messiah that is a blessing for their ratings. Beale, in her eyes is going to save the network because he is perfect for Christen's idea for a new "reality-based" show. She wanted drama, suicides, assassinations (they were going to turn an eight minute tape of a robbery into a reality series!) Before we hate her let’s consider shows like COPS, the nightly news and even segments of MSNBC, CNN and Fox.
Beale then creates his new character: "Mad Prophet of the Airwaves." He is here to get to his viewers and instill them with his messages that “the voice of God” delivers to him each night. Beale tells everyone to “get mad” at society and all its corruption and injustice.

I would suggest to the class to watch George Clooney’s film “Good Night and Good luck” based on CBS news anchor Edward R. Murrow who famously states that television could “teach, illuminate, and even inspire,” as long as the people in charge set that as their agenda. The UBS execs, unfortunately were brilliant at spinning everything in order to gain ratings.

I found the movie to be sadly truer today than ever. (As well, as the fashion – talk about the 70’s being back!) In a business driven by ratings above all, we may begin to re-think the way all news broadcasts produce their shows.

JonBenet Who?

2006-08-29T15:33:00.000-05:00

http://www.nytimes.com

"The case against John M. Karr in the 1996 killing of 6-year-old JonBenet Ramsey in Colorado collapsed Monday when DNA tests refuted Mr. Karr’s claims that he had committed the crime.” The New York Times reported today. Now, one would assume, finally, we can put this to rest. Alas, now the question is why was Mr. Karr believed to begin with? Rather than go into more detail about this trivial case and a development that was likely to occur, I would like to put my two cents in about the media.
Thoreau, a writer, and more importantly, a transcendentalist, believed unlike Tocqueville that perhaps we should all retreat to the woods and leave behind society and the newspapers. When I first read this book, “Walden,” I was taken aback. As a political science major I was floored at the thought of “leaving the papers behind.” Then I got to thinking: look what’s in the news. I would love nothing more than to forget about this Jon Benet Ramsey case, and let go of it all. When the media, day in and out focuses on something that happened ten years ago, just because some random individual decided he wanted to give himself publicity disturbs me. I mean, what would Tocqueville think? This is not what he meant when he said that newspapers were society’s way of keeping in touch. He meant, we should not only think about our lives but rather of the lives of Iraqi’s, or Israeli’s, the displaced Lebanese or Katrina Victims. We need to stop reading about Jon Benet and start paying mind to the more important cases going on in the world.

2006-08-23T17:05:00.000-05:00

Firstly, I would like to welcome all to my blog. I would like to preface my blog with the fact that this is the first time I have ever done something like this so bear with me as I try this…

With so much coverage on the War in the Middle East, and lately of the immense coverage on the John Benet Ramsey case, I would like to talk a little about President Bush and the War in Iraq. At the last conference the administration held, Bush declared to the world that “''We're not leaving so long as I'm president.'' Now, I think we should all take a minute to actually realize what the President is saying. As public opinion polls indicate, the publics support for the war, and the President continue to wane, yet, Bush is still stubborn. He is not going to leave. There were no WMD’s, thousands of soldiers and innocent civilians are dead, a civil war is erupting in the region and finally, we do not know where Osama Bin Laden is – and I actually heard a poll on CNN today that stated American’s. During the news conference Bush admitted that Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th. If that’s the case then I was misled! I sat in class as the towers were hit, and then the Pentagon – next thing I knew, we were going into Iraq to “get them back.” Americans wanted to punish someone, anyone for what was done. We’re Americans- they can’t hit us! The Bush administration played up our nationalism as they set their agenda to enter Iraq. Job well done! We have been there for years and now we hear that Bush and his entire administration won’t give up. They continue to try to get the public to believe that we need to be there – forget that it is ruining our standing in the international community, it has killed thousands of people, raised oil prices, is sending us into more and more debt and that there is no public support for the war. It doesn’t matter – Bush won’t give up.