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.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Stuttering YouTube Attack Creates 'New Low'
So here is another way in which the media was used as a tool by one political party in order to bash the other. The title of this article was the first thing that caught my attention: "Campaign Blasts Stuttering YouTube Attack as 'Cheap Shot'". The article basically involved Virginia gubernatorial Democratic candidate, Creigh Deeds, and the co-founder of Black Entertainment Television, Sheila Johnson, who supports Republican candidate, Bob McDonnell. Although I do not know much about this particular political race, I wanted to read more about the "new lows" that people will go to in order to put down another person/party. Since we have talked in class a lot about the ways in which political parties are less likely to engage in convincing debate and instead will attack each other and focus more on personal issues than policy issues, I found this article to fit in just perfectly.
BET co-founder, Sheila Johnson, was seen on YouTube mocking Creigh Deeds for his occasional stuttering. In the video, Johnson is speaking to a group of wealthy donors and telling them that Virginia needs a governor "who can really communicate and Bob McDonnell can communicate". Johnson then went on to say that "the other people I talk to, especially his op-op-op-op-opponent, di-di-did this all through my interview with him".
According to one source defending Deeds, "stuttering is generally misunderstood by people who don't stutter, which means 99 percent of the population." For instance, "too many people still equate stuttering with being dumb". Basically what Johnson's message did was "play to the ignorance of the people".
After reading the article, I was a little surprised to find that a professional person like that would take such a cheap shot to make fun of someone's disability, in this case, stuttering. As we are all aware, it is definitely not unusual for parties to digress from convincing, constructive debate and attack one another via personal issues. However, this particular situation, to me, seemed a little extreme and very immature. I think there are much more important issues concerning Deeds, such as his policy stances and beliefs that need to be focused on rather than his minor communication barrier, which has little to no effect on the big picture.
BET co-founder, Sheila Johnson, was seen on YouTube mocking Creigh Deeds for his occasional stuttering. In the video, Johnson is speaking to a group of wealthy donors and telling them that Virginia needs a governor "who can really communicate and Bob McDonnell can communicate". Johnson then went on to say that "the other people I talk to, especially his op-op-op-op-opponent, di-di-did this all through my interview with him".
According to one source defending Deeds, "stuttering is generally misunderstood by people who don't stutter, which means 99 percent of the population." For instance, "too many people still equate stuttering with being dumb". Basically what Johnson's message did was "play to the ignorance of the people".
After reading the article, I was a little surprised to find that a professional person like that would take such a cheap shot to make fun of someone's disability, in this case, stuttering. As we are all aware, it is definitely not unusual for parties to digress from convincing, constructive debate and attack one another via personal issues. However, this particular situation, to me, seemed a little extreme and very immature. I think there are much more important issues concerning Deeds, such as his policy stances and beliefs that need to be focused on rather than his minor communication barrier, which has little to no effect on the big picture.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Limiting Access to Guantanamo Raises Transparency Questions
I came across an article the other day that talked about how the Obama administration is now limiting access to the detention camps at Guantanamo Bay. I chose to read and look into the article further because while I am somewhat familiar with the situation at Guantanamo, I really wanted to learn more and be able to have a better understanding of the whole debate. Right now, I just feel that I do not know enough about the Guantanamo Bay controversy to make a solid opinion of my own about it. So here's what I read:
During the election, President Obama had pledged to shut down the controversial Cuba-based facility and ran on a platform of transparency, meaning that the media, among others, would be granted greater access to the facility in order to report back to the public the events taking place through film, photos, and written observations about the conditions. However, that is not the case now. In fact, Obama has tightened access to the detention camps and has made it even tougher for the media to speak with the guards and prisoners within the area.
Of course one would assume that this would raise questions by many critics regarding the validity of his pledges of transparency. According to the American Civil Liberties Union Director, Anthony Romero, "in light of the Obama administration saying they wish to have greater transparency, it's more than a bit ironic that members of the press are now being denied access to the camps when they had it before under President Bush".
Several sources have reported that the decision to limit access came from Washington and the Pentagon and was a result of past experiences involving the media. For instance, one of the possible "triggers" that was discussed involved the reporters' interaction with the Chinese Muslims at one of the camps. During this particular visit, the prisoners held up offensive messages, one of which being whether President Obama was a "Communist or a Democrat". Sources say that this incident was highly mortifying to the White House and Pentagon, especially since they were desperately trying to find a home for these prisoners.
Overall, after reading the article, I still do not completely understand the whole debate, but I do feel a little more informed about the situation as far as why access has been limited. While I do think that the media should have some access to the detention camps in order to perform their duty of reporting back to the people, I also feel that the media's access should be limited and monitored because we all know how the media loves to play up the most controversial aspects of a situation.
During the election, President Obama had pledged to shut down the controversial Cuba-based facility and ran on a platform of transparency, meaning that the media, among others, would be granted greater access to the facility in order to report back to the public the events taking place through film, photos, and written observations about the conditions. However, that is not the case now. In fact, Obama has tightened access to the detention camps and has made it even tougher for the media to speak with the guards and prisoners within the area.
Of course one would assume that this would raise questions by many critics regarding the validity of his pledges of transparency. According to the American Civil Liberties Union Director, Anthony Romero, "in light of the Obama administration saying they wish to have greater transparency, it's more than a bit ironic that members of the press are now being denied access to the camps when they had it before under President Bush".
Several sources have reported that the decision to limit access came from Washington and the Pentagon and was a result of past experiences involving the media. For instance, one of the possible "triggers" that was discussed involved the reporters' interaction with the Chinese Muslims at one of the camps. During this particular visit, the prisoners held up offensive messages, one of which being whether President Obama was a "Communist or a Democrat". Sources say that this incident was highly mortifying to the White House and Pentagon, especially since they were desperately trying to find a home for these prisoners.
Overall, after reading the article, I still do not completely understand the whole debate, but I do feel a little more informed about the situation as far as why access has been limited. While I do think that the media should have some access to the detention camps in order to perform their duty of reporting back to the people, I also feel that the media's access should be limited and monitored because we all know how the media loves to play up the most controversial aspects of a situation.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Obama Blasts Media for Playing Up 'Rude' Comments
I recently read an article that talked about how President Obama used the Sunday morning talk shows in order to scold the media for what he called "rude" and "outrageous" political comments regarding Republican Joe Wilson's outburst during Obama's health care address to a joint session of Congress more than a week ago. I mean...isn't it about time someone intervened in the media's out of control coverage of such petty issues??
As a result of Wilson's outburst, many new stories have emerged and the media has nonetheless given a considerable amount of coverage to each and every one. It seems that people now know more about the debate over Wilson's outburst and the stories that have followed than they do about the actual health care plan...talk about being misinformed!! We, as a people, just need to sit back, face reality, and think about which issue will affect us and our country more...Wilson's outburst or Obama's health care plan?
Race has become the new highlight of the Wilson outburst. The coverage, which should have been focused on Obama's health care plan itself, was focused entirely on Wilson's comment, which has now evolved into a racial controversy. This new debate resulted after several prominent Democrats claimed that critics like Wilson were racially motivated. I mean...really?!? Some people will just take an issue and run with it, making it more prolonged that it really ever should be. The debate has been spinning out of control and I totally agree with President Obama when he stated that "the media loves to have a conversation about race. It is catnip to the media because it is a running thread in American history that is very powerful and it evokes some very strong emotion." I just think that it is so crazy that the media is STILL dwelling on Wilson's outburst even AFTER he apologized to President Obama and Obama accepted his apology. But I guess I can't really say that I'm surprised at this point...
In his lecture, President Obama urged news networks to give more of a platform to those who demonstrate decency and civility. He stated that "the easiest way to get on the news or get your fifteen minutes of fame is to be rude . If you're just being sensible, giving people the benefit of the doubt, and you're making your arguments, you don't get time on the nightly news." That statement could not be any more true. I, along with many others I'm sure, have stopped watching the news because it is just filled with ridiculous debate and focuses more on celebrity hot topics than important issues that actually affect our country. Obama stated that part of what he would like to see is for everyone to reward decency and civility in our political discourse. He went on to say that "that doesn't mean you can't be passionate, and that doesn't mean that you can't speak your mind, but I think we can all sort of take a step back here and remind ourselves who we are as a people."
As far as the Wilson debate, I will close with a statement from House Republican Leader, John Boehner, that I find to be very true: "It didn't need to happen. It is over with. As President Obama said, it's time to talk about health care, not about Joe Wilson".
As a result of Wilson's outburst, many new stories have emerged and the media has nonetheless given a considerable amount of coverage to each and every one. It seems that people now know more about the debate over Wilson's outburst and the stories that have followed than they do about the actual health care plan...talk about being misinformed!! We, as a people, just need to sit back, face reality, and think about which issue will affect us and our country more...Wilson's outburst or Obama's health care plan?
Race has become the new highlight of the Wilson outburst. The coverage, which should have been focused on Obama's health care plan itself, was focused entirely on Wilson's comment, which has now evolved into a racial controversy. This new debate resulted after several prominent Democrats claimed that critics like Wilson were racially motivated. I mean...really?!? Some people will just take an issue and run with it, making it more prolonged that it really ever should be. The debate has been spinning out of control and I totally agree with President Obama when he stated that "the media loves to have a conversation about race. It is catnip to the media because it is a running thread in American history that is very powerful and it evokes some very strong emotion." I just think that it is so crazy that the media is STILL dwelling on Wilson's outburst even AFTER he apologized to President Obama and Obama accepted his apology. But I guess I can't really say that I'm surprised at this point...
In his lecture, President Obama urged news networks to give more of a platform to those who demonstrate decency and civility. He stated that "the easiest way to get on the news or get your fifteen minutes of fame is to be rude . If you're just being sensible, giving people the benefit of the doubt, and you're making your arguments, you don't get time on the nightly news." That statement could not be any more true. I, along with many others I'm sure, have stopped watching the news because it is just filled with ridiculous debate and focuses more on celebrity hot topics than important issues that actually affect our country. Obama stated that part of what he would like to see is for everyone to reward decency and civility in our political discourse. He went on to say that "that doesn't mean you can't be passionate, and that doesn't mean that you can't speak your mind, but I think we can all sort of take a step back here and remind ourselves who we are as a people."
As far as the Wilson debate, I will close with a statement from House Republican Leader, John Boehner, that I find to be very true: "It didn't need to happen. It is over with. As President Obama said, it's time to talk about health care, not about Joe Wilson".
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Proper Discipline or Political 'Stunt'?
I recently read an article about the House of Representatives voting to discipline Republican Joe Wilson for his outburst a week ago during a joint session of Congress, accusing President Obama of lying . The vote was 240-179. Despite Wilson's apology directly to the White House and his written statement expressing regret, the final decision of the House was to take disciplinary action towards the issue. The debate taking place now is whether or not the decision of the House was politically motivated or whether it was a proper and fair punishment. As you can imagine, many Republicans are calling the decision a "partisan stunt", while the Democrats are "stepping up their condemnation of Wilson's offense".
As far as the issue of disciplining Republican Joe Wilson goes, I agree with Wilson's statement that "there are far more important issues facing this nation than what we're addressing right now. President Obama graciously accepted my apology and the issue is over." I feel that there are way more important issues worth addressing right now with our country being in its current state. Although Wilson was definitely in the wrong for his outburst, the fact that he apologized and President Obama accepted his apology should be enough to put the situation at ease. I think that too big of a deal has been made out of the outburst and once again, you see Republicans and Democrats attacking each other over what should be considered a petty issue. This reminds me of Obama's school speech where a huge deal was made and much debate was created over something that should have been pretty neutral.
I feel that it is time to stop the debate over such petty issues and start talking more about ways to improve this country!
As far as the issue of disciplining Republican Joe Wilson goes, I agree with Wilson's statement that "there are far more important issues facing this nation than what we're addressing right now. President Obama graciously accepted my apology and the issue is over." I feel that there are way more important issues worth addressing right now with our country being in its current state. Although Wilson was definitely in the wrong for his outburst, the fact that he apologized and President Obama accepted his apology should be enough to put the situation at ease. I think that too big of a deal has been made out of the outburst and once again, you see Republicans and Democrats attacking each other over what should be considered a petty issue. This reminds me of Obama's school speech where a huge deal was made and much debate was created over something that should have been pretty neutral.
I feel that it is time to stop the debate over such petty issues and start talking more about ways to improve this country!
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Remembering 9/11
I wanted to write a post about remembering 9/11 because it will always remain a day that no one will ever forget. September 11, 2001 was a tragic day in our nation's history. It has become an infamous day and also a day of remembrance for our nation. Eight years later, President Obama has declared September 11 to be a National Day of Service. He stated that "we honor all those who gave their lives so that others might live, and all the survivors who battled burns and wounds and helped each other rebuild their lives."
This day brings out a selfless spirit among everyone and helps to bring our nation closer together in order to remember the devastation of the events that took place and also the heroes that gave their lives to save others. I read an article that talked about volunteers in New York who tilled gardens, wrote letters to the soldiers, set our flags, and at ground zero, joined the somber ritual of reading the names of the lost. I think that it is so wonderful that people are continuing to come together to honor the heroes of that day. I do not think that people will ever be able to forget September 11 because it impacted our nation to such a great extent. It makes me so sad every time I think about the number of lives that were taken on that day and those who lost friends and families. I just cannot imagine what I would do if I were in their situation.
I also found another statement in the article I read that I felt portrayed September 11 fairly accurately. It stated that "September 11 will always be a day that represents humanity at its worst and humanity at its best".
Overall, September 11 will always be a somber and reflective day for our nation and I think that everyone should take time to give thanks to the heroes and pray for those who are continuing to suffer from losing loved ones. I also feel that it is important not to forget about those heroes that are fighting for us now over in Iraq and those who have lost their lives for our country. We should be giving thanks to those soldiers as well because without them, our country cannot succeed.
This day brings out a selfless spirit among everyone and helps to bring our nation closer together in order to remember the devastation of the events that took place and also the heroes that gave their lives to save others. I read an article that talked about volunteers in New York who tilled gardens, wrote letters to the soldiers, set our flags, and at ground zero, joined the somber ritual of reading the names of the lost. I think that it is so wonderful that people are continuing to come together to honor the heroes of that day. I do not think that people will ever be able to forget September 11 because it impacted our nation to such a great extent. It makes me so sad every time I think about the number of lives that were taken on that day and those who lost friends and families. I just cannot imagine what I would do if I were in their situation.
I also found another statement in the article I read that I felt portrayed September 11 fairly accurately. It stated that "September 11 will always be a day that represents humanity at its worst and humanity at its best".
Overall, September 11 will always be a somber and reflective day for our nation and I think that everyone should take time to give thanks to the heroes and pray for those who are continuing to suffer from losing loved ones. I also feel that it is important not to forget about those heroes that are fighting for us now over in Iraq and those who have lost their lives for our country. We should be giving thanks to those soldiers as well because without them, our country cannot succeed.
Monday, September 7, 2009
Obama's School Speech Controversy
The latest controversy to hit the airwaves has been President Obama's "back-to-school" speech to the nation's children. According to the White House staff, the primary purpose of the President's speech is to encourage students to stay in school and work hard in order to better their education and reduce the drop out rate. However, many people have become so enraged at the thought of this speech and believe that President Obama will use the speech as an opportunity to somehow "brainwash" the young minds in order to better his own political agenda. Many school officials and administrators have been caught in the middle of this mess and have the difficult task of deciding whether or not to show President Obama's speech on the classroom televisions. While some school principals have left the decision in the hands of the individual teachers, others have chosen to show the speech stating "we'll trust his judgment". According to the Republican Governor of Minnesota, Tim Pawlenty, the classroom is no place to show a video address from President Obama. Governor Pawlenty also stated that "at a minimum it's disruptive. Number two, it's uninvited. And number three, if people would like to hear his message they can, on a voluntary basis, go to YouTube or some other source and get it. I don't think he needs to force it upon the nation's school children".
I can definitely see legitimate points from both sides of the spectrum. While I do believe that a speech from the President encouraging our nation's children to stay in school and work hard is harmless and should raise no controversy, I also agree with Governor Pawlenty on the fact that it could potentially be disruptive in the classroom and people should be able to choose whether or not to view the address on a voluntary basis. Overall however, I think that the whole debate going on right now concerning the school speech has become very distorted and people are beginning to lose sight of what the whole purpose of the speech was, which is to encourage children to stay in school and work hard. How much controversy should a subject of that matter really raise? I feel the answer to that question should be "none at all".
I can definitely see legitimate points from both sides of the spectrum. While I do believe that a speech from the President encouraging our nation's children to stay in school and work hard is harmless and should raise no controversy, I also agree with Governor Pawlenty on the fact that it could potentially be disruptive in the classroom and people should be able to choose whether or not to view the address on a voluntary basis. Overall however, I think that the whole debate going on right now concerning the school speech has become very distorted and people are beginning to lose sight of what the whole purpose of the speech was, which is to encourage children to stay in school and work hard. How much controversy should a subject of that matter really raise? I feel the answer to that question should be "none at all".
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Media Bias & Half Truths
The media has tremendous power in shaping political discourse and setting the public agenda. This is why it is essential that the media be challenged time and time again to be fair and accurate. The role of the media is to deliver unbiased and straightforward information to the American public and let the people form their own opinions towards issues. However, we all know that the media has never been and never will be that way. Instead, the media uses their own ideologies to manipulate the viewers' political reactions. In today's media especially, the important issues are spinning out of control due to the lack of real, concrete, unbiased information. Stories are usually reported on by favoring one ideology over another. For instance, the media may use expert testimony to support stories that favor their viewpoint or use language to "spin" the facts so that they favor one side over another. It is impossible now to watch a news station, listen to the radio, or read an article without some sort of sensationalism and bias to the story.
The media is also notorious for delivering "half truths" throughout their coverage of events and issues. Various external and internal pressures have driven the media to sensationalize stories in order to attract viewers and increase ratings. This results in facts either being distorted or omitted completely, thereby delivering incomplete or false information to the public. How can we be expected to make a decision regarding where we stand on certain issues if the information we are receiving is lacking? New policies and regulations, especially in this difficult time today have, and are going to continue to have, a profound impact on the lives of the American public and we deserve to not only get unbiased, but accurate information regarding these issues. Essentially, we expect to get the truth.
The media is also notorious for delivering "half truths" throughout their coverage of events and issues. Various external and internal pressures have driven the media to sensationalize stories in order to attract viewers and increase ratings. This results in facts either being distorted or omitted completely, thereby delivering incomplete or false information to the public. How can we be expected to make a decision regarding where we stand on certain issues if the information we are receiving is lacking? New policies and regulations, especially in this difficult time today have, and are going to continue to have, a profound impact on the lives of the American public and we deserve to not only get unbiased, but accurate information regarding these issues. Essentially, we expect to get the truth.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Is the Media 100% at Fault???
A hot topic of debate in class so far has been whether or not the media effectively serves the needs of the American people. While I do believe that the media is more concerned with celebrity stories and gossip, we have to consider whether the media is really 100% at fault. In my opinion, both the media AND the public are to blame for the lack of information regarding today's government and policies. As mentioned in class before, all media networks are competing against one another for viewers. Therefore, they must report the stories that attract the most viewers, thereby increasing their ratings. This is where I feel that the public may be at fault as well. Most people today seem to be more concerned with the latest news and gossip in Hollywood rather than news regarding the latest government policies and regulations. I'm not sure whether or not this is because the media highlights the entertainment news, making the public very informed about these topics, and usually puts important information that actually affects our country in the background. This also leads me to wonder whether people may just be more concerned with entertainment news because that is what we see most of the time on news stations today. Or maybe people just really do care more about entertainment news and gossip. It can be really scary sometimes to hear how many people are not informed at all about what is going on with their country. But ask someone about Michael Jackson's funeral and they could probably tell you every detail about it. All in all, I feel that the media is definitely to blame for the lack of information today, but I also feel that the public is to blame as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
