"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.

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.

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.

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.