So I read an article that talked about the upcoming trial of the five men accused of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The article stated that the men will plead not guilty so that they would have a chance to "air their criticisms of U.S. foreign policy". According to one of the defendant's lawyer, "the men would not deny their role in the 2001 attacks, but would explain what happened and why they did it". Furthermore, the men will give their assessment of American foreign policy, and their assessment is negative". Really?!?! I can imagine that their assessment of U.S. foreign policy would be negative, but do we even really care what they think??
Many critics have warned that the upcoming trial would provide the defendants with a propaganda platform. I feel that this article fit well into the topic of "mass media and politics" because we all know the media will cover every part of the trial they possibly can. Also, in my opinion, the critiques that will be provided by the defendants concerning U.S. foreign policy could potentially give rise to much conflict and controversy. According to one critic, "we hope that the trial proceedings are conducted appropriately and with minimal disrupton, as federal courts have done in the past".
I think it will be interesting to see how the trial plays out and whether or not it will be as controversial as many believe. I know the media will provide the public will coverage of the trial, so it will also be interesting to see how much dramatization or sensationalism is employed. Above all, however, I think that the trials are held in order to find out whether defendants are guilty or not guilty; not to hear about their opinions on policy issues.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Monday, November 16, 2009
"Obama Pushes for Open Internet in China"
I came across an article that talked about President Obama's first-ever trip to the Communist-ruled China. During his trip, the President met with students in Shanghai at a town hall meeting in an attempt to persuade the Chinese government to stop censoring the Internet. He held the position that "the more freely information flows, the stronger society becomes, because then citizens of countries around the world can hold their own governments accountable, and they can begin to think for themselves". I felt as though this article fit perfectly within the topic of "Mass Media and Politics" because it emphasized the impact of the media on both citizens and politics.
As we have discussed in class, the media definitely serves as a major player within politics. The most important role of the media is to keep the public up to date and informed with information pertaining to issues affecting the country and the world. Because the Internet is now becoming people's number one sources of information, it is imperative that citizens be able to have total access to the Internet in order to become informed of current issues. In fact, even the White House uses social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter in order to promote its agenda. Therefore, I agree with President Obama when he stated that, "freedom of expression and worship, unfettered access to information, and unrestricted political participation are not principles held by the United States; instead, they are universal rights".
The article made clear that current conditions in China make it VERY difficult for citizens to access the Internet. For instance, the article stated that "China has more than 250 million Internet users and employs some of the world's tightest controls over what they see. The country is often criticized for having the so-called "Great Firewall of China," which refers to technology designed to prevent unwanted traffic from entering or leaving a network". In fact, although President Obama's speech at the town hall meeting was streamed online by way of China's two largest national Internet portals, the quality of such was choppy and hard to hear. How can citizens be able to understand the full scope of such speech when they can barely hear or see any part of it?!
Overall, throughout his trip to China, "President Obama spoke bluntly about the benefits of individual freedoms in a place known for limiting them". To me, the Internet not only serves as a way for the public to stay up to date with information, but it also creates some accountability for government officials as well. As we are all very much aware, the media plays such an important role within a country by serving as a connection between the public and politics.
As we have discussed in class, the media definitely serves as a major player within politics. The most important role of the media is to keep the public up to date and informed with information pertaining to issues affecting the country and the world. Because the Internet is now becoming people's number one sources of information, it is imperative that citizens be able to have total access to the Internet in order to become informed of current issues. In fact, even the White House uses social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter in order to promote its agenda. Therefore, I agree with President Obama when he stated that, "freedom of expression and worship, unfettered access to information, and unrestricted political participation are not principles held by the United States; instead, they are universal rights".
The article made clear that current conditions in China make it VERY difficult for citizens to access the Internet. For instance, the article stated that "China has more than 250 million Internet users and employs some of the world's tightest controls over what they see. The country is often criticized for having the so-called "Great Firewall of China," which refers to technology designed to prevent unwanted traffic from entering or leaving a network". In fact, although President Obama's speech at the town hall meeting was streamed online by way of China's two largest national Internet portals, the quality of such was choppy and hard to hear. How can citizens be able to understand the full scope of such speech when they can barely hear or see any part of it?!
Overall, throughout his trip to China, "President Obama spoke bluntly about the benefits of individual freedoms in a place known for limiting them". To me, the Internet not only serves as a way for the public to stay up to date with information, but it also creates some accountability for government officials as well. As we are all very much aware, the media plays such an important role within a country by serving as a connection between the public and politics.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Obama Calls Health Vote "Historic"
President Obama has made Health Care reform a central theme of his political agenda and with Saturday's narrow 220-215 vote, the controversial Health Bill was passed by the House of Representatives. After hearing of the outcome of the House votes, President Obama stated that "tonight, in an historic vote, the House of Representatives passed a bill that would finally make real the promise of quality, affordable healthcare for the American people". However, many critics of the Heath Bill believe that it could potentially lead to an "electoral backlash for Democrats" if signed into law.
In one article I read, Republican, Mike Pence, chairman of the House Republican Conference, argued that "the House Health Care reform vote proves Democrats have not listened to American concerns about over-spending, bailouts and government takeovers". He supported his statement by referencing the protesting that took place at the town hall meetings over the summer and the latest elections wherein Democrats lost two big governor's races. In reply to Pence's statement, Chris Van Hollen, head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said "voters were upset that Republicans "did nothing" about issues like Health Care while they were in power and wanted Washington to step up to the plate". Two completely different viewpoints!
As we are all well aware, the Heath Care debate has long been very controversial and there will most definitely never be a middle ground. Now, the future of Health Care reform in the U.S. relies upon the direction in which the Senate votes, which will take place in the coming days. In another article I came across, Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, said after the House vote: "we realize the strong will for reform that exists, and we are energized that we stand closer than ever to reforming our broken health insurance system". Scary....
I feel that all in all, the media has done a good job of keeping Americans informed about the latest updates and regulations pertaining to the Health Care Bill. Also, with such a controversial topic, how can one expect NOT to have bias within the media?? Guess the next step in Health Care reform will be determined by the outcome of the Senate vote...
In one article I read, Republican, Mike Pence, chairman of the House Republican Conference, argued that "the House Health Care reform vote proves Democrats have not listened to American concerns about over-spending, bailouts and government takeovers". He supported his statement by referencing the protesting that took place at the town hall meetings over the summer and the latest elections wherein Democrats lost two big governor's races. In reply to Pence's statement, Chris Van Hollen, head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said "voters were upset that Republicans "did nothing" about issues like Health Care while they were in power and wanted Washington to step up to the plate". Two completely different viewpoints!
As we are all well aware, the Heath Care debate has long been very controversial and there will most definitely never be a middle ground. Now, the future of Health Care reform in the U.S. relies upon the direction in which the Senate votes, which will take place in the coming days. In another article I came across, Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, said after the House vote: "we realize the strong will for reform that exists, and we are energized that we stand closer than ever to reforming our broken health insurance system". Scary....
I feel that all in all, the media has done a good job of keeping Americans informed about the latest updates and regulations pertaining to the Health Care Bill. Also, with such a controversial topic, how can one expect NOT to have bias within the media?? Guess the next step in Health Care reform will be determined by the outcome of the Senate vote...
Monday, November 2, 2009
President Obama's Visit to Dover Air Force Base: A Photo-Op??
We discussed in class last week the various ways in which politicians utilize the media environment by way of stages events, photo ops, etc. I found an article online entitled, "White House Officials Respond to Criticism that President's Visit to Dover Air Force Base was a Photo-Op", and I felt that it would definitely fit within the topic of discussion.
The article talked about President Obama's recent visit to the Dover Air Force Base in Delaware in order to witness the return of caskets of fallen military personnel. However, just as with any other move made by the President, the visit was met with both praise and negative reaction. According to the article, "this was the first time a President has visited Dover in recent memory". However, the main focus of the criticisms dealt with the media's presence at Dover, thereby allowing cameras to tape and photograph the flag-draped caskets return, known as a "dignified transfer", if the family of the fallen agreed to allow it. Of the eighteen transfers that took place that day, only one family had allowed photographs to be taken. According to White House Senior Adviser, Valerie Jarrett, "the visit had to do with openness and it was a way for him as the President to convey to those families on behalf of the American people how much we appreciate that enormous sacrifice they've made”. The media's presence was a way for Americans to realize just exactly what was at stake.
Conservative talk show host, Rush Limbaugh, had a very different opinion on President Obama's visit. According to Limbaugh, “It was a photo op. It was a photo op precisely because he's having big-time trouble on this whole Afghanistan dithering situation. He found one family that would allow photos to be taken. None of the others did ”. Limbaugh also went on to slam the media by stating “and of course, when you have a sycophantic media following you around, able to promote and amplify whatever you want, then he can create the impression that he has all this great concern…”. I feel that Limbaugh's statement concerning the media fits perfectly within our class discussion of the media-politics connection and the ways in which politicians will utilize the media in order to persuade the public.
As the decision on U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan becomes more and more a concern for American citizens, President Obama said that the sobering experience at the Dover Air Force Base will have an impact on his final decision. In my opinion, the media's presence at the base will have an impact on many Americans' opinions as well.
The article talked about President Obama's recent visit to the Dover Air Force Base in Delaware in order to witness the return of caskets of fallen military personnel. However, just as with any other move made by the President, the visit was met with both praise and negative reaction. According to the article, "this was the first time a President has visited Dover in recent memory". However, the main focus of the criticisms dealt with the media's presence at Dover, thereby allowing cameras to tape and photograph the flag-draped caskets return, known as a "dignified transfer", if the family of the fallen agreed to allow it. Of the eighteen transfers that took place that day, only one family had allowed photographs to be taken. According to White House Senior Adviser, Valerie Jarrett, "the visit had to do with openness and it was a way for him as the President to convey to those families on behalf of the American people how much we appreciate that enormous sacrifice they've made”. The media's presence was a way for Americans to realize just exactly what was at stake.
Conservative talk show host, Rush Limbaugh, had a very different opinion on President Obama's visit. According to Limbaugh, “It was a photo op. It was a photo op precisely because he's having big-time trouble on this whole Afghanistan dithering situation. He found one family that would allow photos to be taken. None of the others did ”. Limbaugh also went on to slam the media by stating “and of course, when you have a sycophantic media following you around, able to promote and amplify whatever you want, then he can create the impression that he has all this great concern…”. I feel that Limbaugh's statement concerning the media fits perfectly within our class discussion of the media-politics connection and the ways in which politicians will utilize the media in order to persuade the public.
As the decision on U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan becomes more and more a concern for American citizens, President Obama said that the sobering experience at the Dover Air Force Base will have an impact on his final decision. In my opinion, the media's presence at the base will have an impact on many Americans' opinions as well.
Monday, October 26, 2009
"Into the Lion's Den"
The title of this article was the first thing to catch my attention. It read "Into the Lion's Den: Emanuel to Speak at Chamber of Commerce Dinner". One can see that a definite dramatization factor was employed by the media in its analogy comparing the Chamber of Commerce Dinner to a "lion's den". But I have to say that the media tactic worked since it caught my attention and did get me to read the article. Not only was I curious as to what the term "lion's den" applied to, but I also wanted to know more about the conflicts between the White House and U.S. Chamber of Commerce leaders.
The article basically addressed the fact that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce leaders have long been engaged in a bitter war of words with the White House over the current health care reform and climate change legislation. However, the two parties will now finally have a chance to hear each other out and potentially work together in areas where there is agreement, such as creating jobs. According to the article, "White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, will speak to some of the White House's fiercest critics at a dinner for the Chamber's board of directors on Nov. 4, journeying into the lion's den in an ongoing feud with the pro-business lobby over government spending and growth".
After reading a little about the ongoing feud and disagreements between the White House and Chamber, I think it will be interesting to read about the outcome of the dinner and to find out whether or not anything was actually accomplished. For instance, the article stated that "the White House has criticized the Chamber for its opposition to current efforts at health insurance reform and climate change legislation, singling it out for trying in a well-funded ad campaign to "weaken" and "kill" White House efforts". Also, Emanuel stated that "a series of Chamber ads were "scaring the shit out of me," according to an account in "The Thumpin'," a book about the 2006 elections". Both these comments seem a little extreme to me, but then again, I am very unfamiliar with the ongoing feud and debate. Maybe the media has just added a bit of sensationalism by selecting the more harsh comments in order to make the disagreements between the two parties seem a little more heated than they actually are. I definitely want to read more about the ongoing feud between the White House and Chamber of Commerce after reading this article to see if it really is as heated as the article portrays or if the media is just employing dramatization and sensationalism factors in order to draw reader's attention.
The article basically addressed the fact that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce leaders have long been engaged in a bitter war of words with the White House over the current health care reform and climate change legislation. However, the two parties will now finally have a chance to hear each other out and potentially work together in areas where there is agreement, such as creating jobs. According to the article, "White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, will speak to some of the White House's fiercest critics at a dinner for the Chamber's board of directors on Nov. 4, journeying into the lion's den in an ongoing feud with the pro-business lobby over government spending and growth".
After reading a little about the ongoing feud and disagreements between the White House and Chamber, I think it will be interesting to read about the outcome of the dinner and to find out whether or not anything was actually accomplished. For instance, the article stated that "the White House has criticized the Chamber for its opposition to current efforts at health insurance reform and climate change legislation, singling it out for trying in a well-funded ad campaign to "weaken" and "kill" White House efforts". Also, Emanuel stated that "a series of Chamber ads were "scaring the shit out of me," according to an account in "The Thumpin'," a book about the 2006 elections". Both these comments seem a little extreme to me, but then again, I am very unfamiliar with the ongoing feud and debate. Maybe the media has just added a bit of sensationalism by selecting the more harsh comments in order to make the disagreements between the two parties seem a little more heated than they actually are. I definitely want to read more about the ongoing feud between the White House and Chamber of Commerce after reading this article to see if it really is as heated as the article portrays or if the media is just employing dramatization and sensationalism factors in order to draw reader's attention.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Presidential Ads: Then & Now
This week in class, we were able to view many different presidential ad campaigns ranging from the very first televised ad in 1952 to the latest ads used in the 2008 election. It was so interesting to see the evolution of the television advertising in election campaigns and how much has changed over the years. It seemed to me that the older television ads were more straight forward and policy-oriented, while the latest television ads were more concerned with character attacking and entertainment. Although times have definitely changed since the very first televised ad and more technological resources are now readily available, I do not think it would be a bad idea to revert back to the way in which presidential ads used to be. Everything that is portrayed in the media today, including the presidential ad campaigns, has become so dramatized to the point that people begin to lose sight of the real issues at hand and are more informed about one's character rather than his/her policy stances.
One thing that I found surprising was the fact that President Obama had placed a campaign ad in an Xbox game. I mean...isn't it pretty sad when it gets to the point that a presidential candidate feels the need to put an ad in a video game in order to reach members of the public?? But I guess times are changing and political candidates have to keep up with the technology and do what they need to do in order to reach the people.
Overall, after seeing the evolution and change among the presidential ad campaigns this week, one can see that entertainment and dramatization are clearly huge factors in grabbing the attention of the American public.
One thing that I found surprising was the fact that President Obama had placed a campaign ad in an Xbox game. I mean...isn't it pretty sad when it gets to the point that a presidential candidate feels the need to put an ad in a video game in order to reach members of the public?? But I guess times are changing and political candidates have to keep up with the technology and do what they need to do in order to reach the people.
Overall, after seeing the evolution and change among the presidential ad campaigns this week, one can see that entertainment and dramatization are clearly huge factors in grabbing the attention of the American public.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Obama Not an MVP Yet
The Norwegian Nobel Committee's decision to award President Obama with the Nobel Peace Prize was announced Friday and needless to say, many were astonished. I have read a few articles the past few days concerning the Committee's decision and although it is a great honor to have America's president receive such a prestigious award, many have questioned exactly what President Obama did to receive such an award. The Nobel committee said that its decision to honor the president was motivated by Obama's initiatives to reduce nuclear arms, ease tensions with the Muslim world, and stress diplomacy and cooperation rather than unilateralism. However, these were all PROMISES made by Obama, not actual accomplishments. In fact, I did not realize this, but President Obama was nominated to receive the Nobel Peace Prize eleven days after his inauguration. This is hardly enough time to set any of his promises into action. According to one source, "Obama has certainly talked a game that many around the world like better than the Bush foreign policy agenda. However, whether it works out or not, we will have to wait and see".
"In his will, Swedish industrialist and inventor Alfred Nobel said the Peace Prize should be awarded "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." According to political contributor, Ed Rollins, "while Obama did have a great election and a very exciting inaugural, I'm not sure he has done much for world peace yet". In fact, Rollins also stated, "sometimes, winning the Nobel Prize is the highlight of a presidency, but in this case, we hope it's just the beginning". President Obama will definitely be receiving even more pressure than he already is to live up to such high expectations.
Above all, needless to say, the Norwegian Nobel Committee's historical decision has sparked much debate among citizens and one can definitely see a bias in the media on this particular subject. Depending on which source one gets the news from, many different viewpoints are expressed, some even being a little extreme. For instance, I came across one article that even went so far as to say that the Norwegian Nobel Committee was "anti-American", which is definitely a form of dramatization. In my opinion, I feel that as a result of President Obama being awarded with the Nobel Peace Prize, the media will keep him under strict scrutiny even more so and will keep an even closer eye on his actions and words, watching for any mistakes or criticisms that can be made.
"In his will, Swedish industrialist and inventor Alfred Nobel said the Peace Prize should be awarded "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." According to political contributor, Ed Rollins, "while Obama did have a great election and a very exciting inaugural, I'm not sure he has done much for world peace yet". In fact, Rollins also stated, "sometimes, winning the Nobel Prize is the highlight of a presidency, but in this case, we hope it's just the beginning". President Obama will definitely be receiving even more pressure than he already is to live up to such high expectations.
Above all, needless to say, the Norwegian Nobel Committee's historical decision has sparked much debate among citizens and one can definitely see a bias in the media on this particular subject. Depending on which source one gets the news from, many different viewpoints are expressed, some even being a little extreme. For instance, I came across one article that even went so far as to say that the Norwegian Nobel Committee was "anti-American", which is definitely a form of dramatization. In my opinion, I feel that as a result of President Obama being awarded with the Nobel Peace Prize, the media will keep him under strict scrutiny even more so and will keep an even closer eye on his actions and words, watching for any mistakes or criticisms that can be made.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
