Optimism or Pessimism.

It can hard find optimistic journalism. The stories are generally not as well received and are read less. But can't the journalists at least try? Recently President Obama announced that another surge of troops would be happening. Looking at CNN's website for their political pieces, one finds articles with titles such as:

Key points of Obama's strategy | Will it work?

Senators question 2011
Afghan exit plan, Lawmakers Wednesday on Capitol Hill sharply criticized President Obama's plan to start a U.S. troop withdrawal from Afghanistan in July 2011.

President's Afghan drawdown plan called risky
Afghanistan timetable may be too short to achieve its aims but too long to hold American public support, observers say.

It would pretty nice if at least some of the articles could show some optimism, or if they could at least not be pessimistic. Even they don't want to support the President, some support for the troops is always welcome. As Backseatsman said so well, they are doing an awesome job and deserve our support. Why can't we at least show some optimism for their sake?

Religion's Proper Place

It's interesting seeing how the media views religion's place in politics. One second a religion can be hailed as paving the way of a brighter future. The next moment they can be condemned for meddling. A prime example of this is found in the recent news in Salt Lake City. The LDS church recently voiced its approval of a new bit of city regulation that would make it illegal to discriminate based on sexual preference. The media hailed this as an important step and the church's support added more impetus to the bill's passing. But only a little while before the church was under fire for supporting Proposition 8 in California. In both cases the church voiced its stance on legitimate concerns. In both cases the church got involved in politics. But only in one were they blamed as meddling.
Another example was given by Agrippa in his recent post, the case of Patrick Kennedy and the Catholic church. He was recently barred from taking Communion, and the reason was for some of his political actions. This was viewed as meddling in politics and as undue pressure by the church. Yet the church was acting as it saw right. It voiced its opinion and acted as it had authority to do. Yet it is called interfering.
It would seem that the only position left to religion these days is to voice approbation. As soon as a religion steps up and voices disapproval of someone's political actions or a political movement, it is labeled as meddling and crossing the line. Can they not say their piece as well? Can they not act as they see fit? They are legitimate groups protected by the Constitution of the United States, in the First Amendment, yet they are being seen as a nuisance. You would think more tolerance would be given thinking of how important religion is to so many Americans, how important religion has been in America's history, and how much religions are doing today to improve the quality of life in America, both in their teachings and in their charity given.

Stop doing what made us rich! Please?

The Obama administration is attempting to get many countries to get on board a worldwide agreement that would enact different laws aimed at stopping global warming. Obama met with China last week to propose what his administration feels are important laws to pass such as “cap and trade” laws on emissions. This effort to propose a form of universal “eco-friendly” laws has failed before and will most likely fail again for the same reasons. These proposed laws are battled here in the United States and these augments carry over globally, augments such as, critics of a “man made” global warming say the studies are inadequate and truly do not prove there is a correlation between humans and global warming, this may be the mentality many countries share. It is also important to look at the cost/benefit aspect of the new laws. Countries such as India and China are countries that produce large amounts of pollution but may be seeing huge economic benefits from their pollution, their economies are growing rapidly because of their new industries much like the United States did years ago, so now for us to ask them to stop this growth and to do something that most likely will impact their economies negatively is not going to pass easily. I understand countries not wanting to put laws on their developing business because of their lack of superior technology to compensate for it or even the fact that these laws will send many third world countries that rely on not having pollution laws to keep the businesses they otherwise would not have to an even deeper third world. Does the Obama administration analyze the cost/benefit impact that these global laws will have on not only us but the other countries around the world… because the countries they are proposing them to most likely are.

Good job Catholics

Patrick Kennedy's name didn't get him out of this pickle. The Catholic Bishop in Providence instructed the Congressman, and son of Ted Kennedy, to not take communion because of his personal stance on abortion. Now the democrats are screaming unfair because Kennedy was denied the blessing of communion. Numbers of news sources have posted negative articles about the Catholic church and it's meddling in U.S. politics but lest look at some facts.
1. The Catholic church is a formal religion in every manner that the word 'formal' can imply.
2. Kennedy's view does in fact contradict against the teachings of the church.
With these points in mind the only conclusion I can logically side with is the Catholics. Kennedy, you went against the rules and no, your name can't get you out of it. Perhaps the Bishop did do this out of spite but that does not negate the fact that he is in the right and Kennedy you are not.
I am happy that a religion, any religion, is standing up for what they believe in. To many of our politicians profess their undying loyalty to a religious group during elections year and then show up in the news being arrested in a airport bathroom. Let this be a wake up call for politicians that claim to be something that they are not and never have been. I realize my vain hope of trustworthy and honest political elite is never going to happen. The idea is even laughable that such a person could survive in American politics. Call me a cynic (because I am) but more events need to transpire in a country that was founded by Christians.

The real G.I. Joes

During class a few weeks back we discussed war coverage by the media and as a class debated whether the media has changed its style of coverage of being in a sense more pro-war by covering victories and heroes to become more anti-war and coving the defeats and deaths. When the issue of war coverage is raised I understand why many journalists chose to write negative articles about it because there are many tragedies that come with war, I do however worry that at many times it is not the politicians who are affected from this form of coverage but the men and women actually fighting the battle. I will always remember when my brother came home after serving months in Afghanistan, my family all gathered around him as he spoke about his war experiences and the things he witnessed. He seemed to speak about the heroic things he and his fellow soldiers did for each other and for others around them, he also spoke more on the positive things he experienced than the negative. I was very confused on how someone could have had positive experiences participating in something so evil (I was easily influenced by the media at this age) and it bothered me to think my brother enjoyed certain aspects of his time at war. I remember trying to change his attitude toward the war by explaining all the horrible things I had heard about it and his reaction to my attempt was unforgettable, all my brother did was turn to me and say, “I don’t care if you believe in the war or if you agree with it but believe in the troops and support them no matter what, never lose sight of the guys in the trenches and always be thankful for what they did and do for you.” The look in his eyes and the tone in his voice was enough to help me understand that many of the soldiers knew support for the war was low and this negativity carried over into the soldiers’ feelings of self worth and accomplishment there. This moment has forever changed my view of war, I am not saying I support war but I am saying I will always be more aware of the affect my voice has on those who fight the war and I believe the media should do the same. Why can’t the media highlight the soldiers more? Why can’t the media cover their bravery and individual acts of courage more? I know there is a way where media can keep covering the negative aspects of war but still cast a continual positive light over the men and women serving in it. We have to remember these men and women who join the military are not the ones who decide when we fight a war they are only the ones willing to fight when called upon and to me this makes them heroes, heroes who should get proper credit for their bravery.

Terrorist? Media name calling

As well as reading the local and national newspaper every morning I also subscribe to TIME magazine. Last month's magazine was focused on the shootings at Fort Hood that occurred this month. One of the most interesting things about the article, to me, wasn't the details or the "expert" opinions but the cover of the magazine for the month. It consisted of a portrait of Nidal Malik Hasan with is eyes blocked out with the word Terrorist? So why the ? Why has the media been so back and forth on what to call Hasan and how does their indecision on his identity influence on how the public views the incident?

CNN recently interviewed a criminologist by the name Pat Brown. His his interview Dr. Brown was quoted as saying this about the personality of Hasan. "He was simply a lonely guy who had issues, problems, psychopathic behaviors that escalated to the point where he wanted to get back at society, and he took it out on his workmates like most of them do." Never once while being interviewed would Dr. Brown discuss the possible impacts of Hasan's recent enthusiasm for Muslim faith or what the role of his faith had on his decision to attack the base.

The White House initially treated the situation in the same way. On November 5, after being notified of the killings President Obama addressed the nation in a rushed press conference. But instead of seeing an image of a somber Commander we saw a man who seemed completely unsympathetic. Opening the conference with "shout-outs" and jokes was not what people were expecting or what they wanted to see.

With this kind of reaction taking place my next question would be what the motivation is for avoiding calling him what he appears to be. One explanation could be political. If Obama should start calling him a terrorist then that would mean an act of Terrorism took place on U.S. soil during his presidency. Another could simply be that the national media and government is stuck in a definition debate. Should we call every Muslim that commits a murder or a crime in this country a terrorist? Is a terrorist only someone that is born on foreign soil and wants to hurt others? I don't have an answer to that question... and I would bet that the media doesn't either.

But what I do know is that a publics reaction to an event like this depends a lot on how the media frames it. And to just call Hasan a "lonely man" paints the wrong picture of what happened. As the details continue to emerge it is looking more and more like Hasan acted because of his beliefs. With personal emails linking him to fundamentalist groups, and cards referring to him as a fighter of Islam, it might make sense to call him a Terrorist. The TIMES article mentioned the idea of referring to him as a lone-wolf terrorist, or a terrorist that can self motivate from just the knowledge of other groups. And if its true that Hasan should be called a terrorist then does that mean that men like McVeigh should also be referred to as committing acts of Terror?

This issue is complicated and I won't go about pretending like I know the answers to these questions. But it seems to me that the media has for one reason or another failed to give this incident the intensity that it deserves. The tragedy at Fort Hood is the largest attack on a national military base in our country's history. And whether or not the military tribunal that will sentence Hasan refers to him as a terrorist, it is my sincere hope that they give him the death he deserves. But before then the media should give him his proper title.

Open and ready for business.

The Senate on Saturday(21st) voted to open the session for debate on the Health Care legislation that could change the USA for better or worse. That is what I think is being over looked by all of the negative statements coming out of both camps of political thought. Yes the GOP might disagree with the legislation and the Dem's might love it but one thing is for sure. It has taken many hard and difficult hurdles for this debate to be heard. Even without dwelling on individuals personal preference one should often take a glance at the system and say, we'll the framers got something right.
This has been a long and painful process. Even yesterday on cnn.com I saw a article informing us that curiosity and interest in the entire health care debate is weaning. Perhaps this is because of the double digit unemployment rate? Who knows, I just wanted to point out the subtle obviousness of the system working much like it is suppose to.

Meet me at the flag pole at lunch!

Majority leader Harry Reid is pretty pissed off that another old leftist doesn't see eye to eye with him on the health care debate. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's comment that even the liberal Washington Post columnist David Broder has some reservations about how the health care reform bill the Democrats announced is looking made Reid prune up just like his juice. David Broder is said to have some "reservations as a citizen" about the proposed bill. When this was brought up to Harry Reid he with all the self restraint he has said, "to focus on a man who has been retired for many years and writes a column once in a while is not where we should be. Where we should be, is recognizing that America deserves a debate on health care reform." Now this can be expected by the old coot but what strikes me as interesting is 1. Reid actually responded to the Minority Leader and 2. What in the world are politicians doing responding to a journalist. I thought it was suppose to be the other way around. This just goes to show that the main stream media still has a position to say they are the fourth branch of the government. I'm just glad that Reid and McConnell have time to worry about what some reporter said.

Fred Thompson and Jane Fonda Walk Into a Bar ... Stop Me If You've Heard This One

By Andrew Baker

I wanted to take a moment to share how displeased I am with former senator, presidential candidate, and actor Fred Thompson. According to The Admonition, a blog that touts itself on being politically incorrect (its sub-headed this way: "Political Correctness + Lack of Common Sense = Demise of This Republic") Thompson, in what appears to be some type of pod-cast, said that "the war in Afghanistan has been lost." I won't waste the precious space on the inter-web going on about Thompson's reasoning behind his claim, I've embedded the video below for the purpose of providing context to the situation. What I would instead like to focus on is two things: (1) the difference between the right to dissent and the good judgment of knowing when to keep your mouth shut, and (2) the coverage (or lack thereof) of these comments.
First of all, I don't wish to claim that Thompson was some foaming-at-the-mouth loony that supported execution and escalation of our war efforts in Viet Nam, the scope of this blog doesn't afford me that ability (read as: I'm too damn lazy to do the research). But being a Republican who grew up during the Viet Nam era should afford enough evidence to say that he was probably on the right side of the left-right Viet Nam argument that pitted an anti-war left against a right that was very concerned about winning military campaigns in Southeast Asia and protecting the region from the threat of communism. The question that I have to ask at this point is: what is the difference between how the left of the 1960's sabotaged (in a sense) our war effort in Viet Nam and the comments of Thompson today? The simple fact of having this type of sentiment being fomented damages public opinion and harms the war effort. It did in the '60s (although their tactics were more advanced) and it does today.
Secondly, why the hell isn't anyone covering this? I'll excuse the Times and Post, they tend to be late to the party on these matters. But, there is not a byte of coverage of this on Politico (at the time of draft) nor on the Huff (they seem to be too busy covering transsexual prostitutes and "Boobs and Balloons At the Victoria Secret Fashion Show"). Get with it! I can't be the only one who can smell this stinking pile of hypocrisy. Aside from the lack of coverage this has garnered thus far, I was pretty frustrated trying to source this (I usually like to source these post's with reputable journalism and good reporting). Googlenews' primary link for this is the one I provided above to The Admonition. We'll discuss the issue of how Google provides news later on today in class but I just wanted to get the first couple punches in on this issue. Prioritizing smaller outlets is absolutely a noble goal for Google to strive for but it may end up yielding a harvest of uninformed, misinformed, or opinion based content that undermines some important tenants of journalism.

P.S: Googlenews' is really struggling finding a picture of Fred Thompson to place with the link. The pic has changed twice and it still doesn't show Fred Thompson (I think they have Gordon Brown on there now).

The White House is a joke compared to Eric Cartman

The White House has openly challenged Glenn Beck and the topics he covers on his program trying to discredit Beck and his program, this has done little to hurt The Glenn Beck Show and many argue that it may have helped raise his ratings. However, maybe the new approach that has begun will finally cash in on some of Becks credibility. There are a few extremely popular shows on television that have recently attacked Beck, shows such as South Park, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and SNL. These shows for some reason (hint: they may or may not… well, scratch the may not… lean left) have chosen to follow the lead of the White House and discredit Beck by doing over the top comical impersonations (sort of over the top ha!) of Beck and his show. We debated in class whether news media leans left and we found it hard to prove it did but proving whether the more popular comedy shows on television today lean left could be a lot easier. We talked about one of the problems with a bias media is it could skew information which in turn could alter people’s perceptions on certain topics, however, due to the fact that it is hard to prove the news media is bias it is hard to say if news media has changed anyone’s perception. I would argue on the other hand that popular shows (especially comedy) that give use misleading or over exaggerated information do mislead people. I am a direct example of this dilemma. Before I began to study Political Science I knew little about politics and the issues that revolve around it because of this I was extremely influenced by the things I saw on my favorite comedies. I received my news information form Stephen Colbert for crying out loud! Seriously though, I used the things Colbert talked (joked) about on his show and presented them as facts in political arguments I had. Although I knew South Park was a bit outrageous, the stances they took on certain people and situations altered my own reality on the subject in favor of the view South Park portrayed. The same influences these shows had (have) on me in my life continued to be manifested in the words and views of many of my friends. My friends who have no political knowledge have already begun to talk about the things they have seen about Beck on South Park and have already tried to present them to me as facts… this is not good. The problem I see here is that the White House can only go so far to prove someone wrong until they eventually win the battle or until they eventually lose credibility themselves, these comedy shows on the other hand don’t need to prove they are credible because they say they don’t claim to be nor need to be credible! They are comedians for crying out loud! If only the people I know watching the shows understood this! This misinterpretation of reality could be the reason why South Park has to show a stated warning before every show explaining to people the things in the show are not actual reality but are false… certain people obviously have believe the things they have seen on the show. These shows only prove how powerful humor can be. I will always believe humor is one of greatest weapons anyone can use in their day to day activities and these programs have mastered that weapon. People in general wants to be friends with the guy (or girl) who can make them laugh, and in most cases they would chose the humorous guy over the straight forward guy (or girl). If any attack were to discredit Glenn Beck I think this attack by comedy has the best chance by playing off people’s ignorance (maybe Beck haters believe what goes around comes around). I only hope if Beck goes down it is from real issues not comedy.

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/33033/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/25/snl-mocks-glenn-beck-for_n_299568.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/06/jon-stewart-does-glenn-be_n_348129.html

Again and again and again… and again

Media and Politics has answered many of the questions I have concerning the different aspects of media, but there is still one aspect of media I don’t understand nor do I feel it has been fully addressed in class, the aspect I am concerned with is how the media can take a topic and continuously cover it until the viewers become physically and mentally ill. Case in point… Michael Jackson. I know the media is driven my ratings and will try to cover topics that will bring in viewers and money so it only makes sense that they cover the death of one of the greatest legends in the music world/NAMLBA world (too far?) but I don’t understand why we have to hear every little detail of Michael Jackson for months?! Some stations turned into the M.J.N. (Michael Jackson Network) talking about him 24 hours a day, every day (BET I think you know who I am talking about)! This repetitive coverage made me not want to go near my television! Is this the type of coverage that draws in viewers or pushes them away? After a few weeks of hearing the same stories over and over at all hours of the day I don’t think a whole lot of people were pleased, at least nobody I spoke with. I have also found multiple surveys online that show an overwhelming distaste for the amount of coverage the event received. So, I ask again, why so much coverage? The same type of coverage is happening with Lebron James, Reporter: “Lebron, where will you play next year?” Lebron: “I don’t know, we will see when the time comes.” Again, Reporter: “Lebron, would you rather play in Cleveland or New York?” Lebron: “I don’t even think about it, we will see when we get there.” (Repeat these questions 5000 times for full frustration effect). Don’t get me wrong I am a huge sports fan and I am excited to see what Lebron decides to do next year but I don’t want to hear about it every day for the next year! With all this exhaustive coverage of where he might end up and after being asked 5 trillion times where he will go, it is no wonder Lebron came out and said he will no longer answer questions concerning his free agency until the summer of 2010. I must again state that I understand that the media covers topics the people want to see and when the news broke on these two stories the demand was defiantly high but after the same question was asked 10,000 times only to get the same answer, people get sick of it. What drives this form of media then? Am I just ignorant to the fact people unconsciously have desire to receive this repetitive coverage? I don’t know if I will ever know or ever truly understand this form of coverage.

http://www.observer.org.sz/index.php?news=3754

http://www.vindy.com/polls/2009/jul/how-do-you-rate-news-coverage-michael-jacksons-dea/

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/people/july_2009/70_say_media_coverage_of_michael_jackson_s_death_was_too_much

Back off Happy Valley Retirement Center I have a few tricks left!

I never realized how out of the “social” loop I have been until this blog assignment came into my life, and it is safe to say I now know what it feels like to be an old geezer living in a world of fast pace technology and change. I have always felt like I had a strong understanding of most of the events happening around me and that I was well connected (like most 80 year old)… then I found out about the blog-o-sphere. Don’t get me wrong I heard about blogs years ago and I have spoken to many people who do blogs but what I never knew was how much influence blogs have on people’s lives. I have learned that many people turn to blogs instead of well know news sources for their information, bloggers are becoming more” creditable” sources whether we like it or not (at least they are given credit by their readers), and people have actually made blogging their career, and to think I spend money to blog by paying for the class that requires me to write this! Learning about blogs makes me feel like my grandmother when she was given a cell phone for her birthday, she had no idea why anyone would ever require the need for a portable phone and then she found out why…. to call grand kids every other day to make sure they know she loves them. Much like my grandma with her cell phone I never thought I would get involved with blogging, I would just leave blogging up to my sister and the rest of her relief society friends… man was I wrong. Blogs can be powerful, they can expose presidential scandals, and blogs can give up to minute coverage from individuals involved directly in protests, blogs give everyone a voice and not just a hollow unheard voice but a voice that can give a normal every man power to expose the President of our country. Now that I am starting to understand what blogs are I now have to learn how to get involved in this ever growing world and this is no easy task! I have seen the blogs posted on this blog site and I must say I am a little intimidated! The posts are well articulated and well thought out, they have great links and on top of all that, they have pictures! I now know I am the young grasshopper of bloggers in a world of Mr. Miyagi bloggers. I feel for the frustration my mother felt when it took her thirty minutes to learn how to text a message that read “Hi Shawn, I learned to text!” Although I know I have a mountain to climb until I feel comfortable with my blogs I am still not to the point where I give up on fast pace technology and apply for my AARP discount card membership (even if the magazine they send out has pictures of hot women) now is the time to learn and get involved in the world around me, and who knows… maybe I can expose the President one day… or my classmates, both are definitely win/win.

Here are link from class that talk about the growth of blogs
http://sullivanarchives.theatlantic.com/culture.php
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/leigh200511150825.asp
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2004/05/10/blogs_colliding_with_traditional_media/

Now Hiring: A NEW Type of Press Corps

By Andrew Baker

Maybe they thought that by changing the messenger they could stem the tide of bad news. Maybe they thought that they could bully them around. Or maybe new media finally has arrived in Washington for good. Any way you spin it, it's a big deal for new media. The "big deal" that I speak of is this month's invitation extended by the U.S Treasury Dept. to bloggers. The Treasury Dept. seemed to welcome bloggers to be a part of their press corps and report on their actions.

I stumbled over this story while trolling nytimes.com for possible blog fodder (you can check out The Times' account here). I found it particularly relevant because of what we had recently discussed in class about the relationship between bloggers - as a new medium for political discourse - and government officials. This article goes a long way to answering some of the questions about how bloggers, if credentialed, would react to being placed as the medium responsible for reporting on the Treasury. I've also included a link to interfluidity.com whose author Steve Randy Waldman was one of the bloggers present. Unless you enjoy reading financial blogs, I would suggest just looking at the first couple paragraphs as they speak very well to the interplay between the two entities involved here. One passage in particular seemed to say a lot, "Whatever disagreements one might have, in statistical if not moral terms it was an extreme privilege to sit across a conference table and have a chance to speak with these people." The author eludes to a very important development in the progression of new media with regards to the development of original content:although disagreements are undeniable, there is great respect and deference for these officials of Treasury Dept. This development seems to suggest that new media is well on its way to becoming a legitimate source for original reporting because, in large part it has adopted at least some conception of journalistic integrity.

(Photo credit: www.lpin.org)

What a game, too bad they missed it

This weekend marked a landmark moment for the Real Salt Lake soccer club. For the first time since its inception Real won their way into the Conference finals to play against the Chicago Fire for a spot in the MLS championship game. The chicago stadium was soldout as thousands of fans gathered to watch what was one of, if not the best, MLS game of the season. 120 minutes of aggressive attempts and blocked shots left Real and Chicago without a victor, and on course for a game deciding shootout. Real came away with the win, taking the game 5-4 leaving Chicago fans silent and astonished at what they had just witnessed. Real Salt Lake are now on their way to challenge the Los Angeles Galaxy in Seattle for the MLS championship. Now you would think, the Utah media would spend some time on this subject, afterall this might be the greatest moment in Utah sports in its history. But sadly Papers such as the Salt Lake tribune and the Herald Journal gave almost no regard to Real's win on saturday night. Instead the Tribune devouted their sunday sports section to covering the uneventful, landslide victory of BYU against the unmatched Wyoming football team, and the Utes womping by TCU. The Herald Journal included a summary of the Real game that was placed in a column parallel to the weeks High School Swimming results.

This blog was founded to discuss the impact that media has on the outcome and reactions of political events in this country. But linked to this issue is the effect that media has on shaping what citizens allocate their time to watching and taking interest in. Why would the local media ignore such a significant moment in Utah sports? That lack of interest, compared to the several pages given to the New York Yankees on their winning of the World Series is not only frustrating but a cause of hostility towards the press. The media has the power to direct our attention to what they think we should be taking notice of. But what if the media chooses to discourage the viewership of an event by simply keeping it absent from our minds? with a team such as Real, most Utahns will only hear about them if their local media provides coverage. If the local media doesn't, is it acting against the interests of Utah citizens? Especially when our state has more youth soccer clubs and participation than almost any other state. It is my opinion that it does, and that if anyting Utah media is hurting the chances of Utah soccer fans and future veiwers in celebrating what has already been an incredible year of Utah soccer.

On November 22, 2009 Real Salt Lake could be the championship team of the MLS. The best soccer team in the nation... I just hope local residents hear about it sometime before Christmas.

Makin' 'em look Stupak

By Andrew Baker

Who would have ever thought Bart Stupak would cause such a national commotion? The Democrat from Michigan was the one who proposed the amendment to the health care reform bill that, as Politico.com puts it "restrict[s] the sale of insurance policies covering abortion through the proposed national health insurance exchange." Here's the link for the rest of that story. Stupak's amendment is extremely significant with regards to the healthcare debate because it brings to light an issue Democrats have wanted to keep on the back burner and out of the public mind throughout this whole process. Politico's coverage will tell you all about that in the link above. Another reason it's significant for me, especially as a Democrat, is it really shows how far apart people in the party are on some of these important issues. To provide more prospective on this you can check out The Huffington Post's coverage here. I think this article does a real good job of demonstrating my point on the difference between "Barbara Boxer Democrats" and "Max Baucus Democrats".

Critique time:

What they got right

• I wanted to cite these two stories together because I think "new media" like Politico and The Huff do a great job of breaking news and following developing stories like this one was on Saturday.
• Politico does a very good job of giving context and background to the story. They add great depth to the issue.

Where they missed the mark

• I mentioned above that Politico does a good job of providing context. Let me qualify my statement: context is only a good thing insofar as it doesn't swallow up the larger story. Towards the end of the piece I began to wonder if I was reading the same story because the focus completely shifts to the president.
• Theres no easy way to say this, so I'll just go ahead and put it out there: The Huffington Post's opinion pieces are so numerous and so biased I had a hard time finding a real news story amongst all the one-sided commentary.

When all is said and done, the internet is a fabulous tool for breaking news quickly. That is if you can wade through all the bloviation and bias.

(photo credit: insidecatholic.com)

An Introduction to the Importance of Net Neutrality

Episode 2: The Government Strikes Back... against itself?

In my last blog I went about exploring the topic of the Internet in general. How it works, why it works, and why thats a good thing. But as we concluded earlier, the Internet as we know it today is under attack by legislation looking to change how the internet works.

Originally this part of the series was to be set aside to criticize the Internet Freedom Act of 2009, but the more I researched the bill the more confused I became on where I stood. Looking at it face value, the Act looks to be just another bill that's title is ironic of its content. This overview of the legislation could lead many to tease the sponsors of the bill, John McCain/Marsha Blackburn, with one remarking the oddity of naming a bill a freedom act when its core goal would be to block net neutrality. Jon Stewart was quick to tease McCain on this issue. But when I looked at the bill more closely I noticed that what started on the surface as a battle against net-neutrality might be John McCain proposing a very Libertarian piece of legislation.

How Libertarian? Libertarian enough for the political group called the Libertarian Republican to give their full endorsement... so pretty libertarian. So what else does the Act seek to do if passed? Well the most noticeable goal is that the act would abolish a lot of the control the FCC was given in the Federal Communications Commission. The FCC, McCain argues, should not have the power to regulate the content that is on the internet. Removing the FCC from the internet would disable their ability to block what ISPs choose to feed on their connections.

So McCain says that net neutrality is a government devise aimed at a government takeover of the internet... but that can't be the whole story. And its not. McCain, even though he claims to be fighting for the rights of the people, may be wrong on this issue.

So now we know what the internet is, we know a little about what McCain thinks he's fighting for, so now we must find out why the majority of people side with the principles of Net Neutrality. And why Net neutrality might be worth fighting for.

Different Perspectives

A few weeks ago while on the bus I had the opportunity to become acquainted with an Israeli living here in the U.S. After our initial encounter, we have had the chance to discuss several more times. During one of the conversations we were talking about a recent project in one of my classes where I was assigned to study the group Hamas. When this came up he proceeded to tell me of some of his Israeli experiences with the group, and of some of the crimes they commit that are so infrequently reported by the media. He told me of the media's bias in favor of Hamas.
A few days ago I was sitting in my class while we were going over the conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis. In the row just behind me was an international student who has the habit of mumbling his opinions throughout the class time. The teacher was discussing the wrongs committed by the different parties involved in the conflict, and was doing a fair job of making sure everyone was assigned blame where it was due and making it clear that no party was clean in the affair. But every time the teacher said anything that was in favor of Israel on a certain point the student would mumble some more. The student seemed to be, from what I could divine from his mumbling, under the impression that the class was going easy on Israel and that it was biased towards them in the conflict.
After listening to the two students, and after having the discussions of media bias in a number of my courses, I found it somewhat amusing to find this real life example of different perspectives.

And Now for Something We Can All Agree On

The newly christened USS New York arrived in the city of it's namesake yesterday for commemorative ceremonies. You all may have heard of this already, so the point of this post isn't so much to inform. I just wanted to use my stump to say how proud I am today to be an American. I was always hoping we would just build the tallest building in the world at ground zero, but I think this is a much more appropriate and meaningful way to commemorate the heroism and sacrifice of 911. Reusing that steel from the towers to build the newest part of our naval fleet is, for lack of a better term, bad a**. Just wanted to share my feelings on this with you. I've linked you to the New York Times' coverage which includes a photo slide show and embedded video from MSNBC News here.

God Bless America!

(photo credit: nytimes.com)

An Introduction to the Importance of Net Neutrality

Episode 1: Understanding the Internet

Friday night, as i sat in front of my computer uploading the latest episode of Heroes onto my computer, I began to realize something interesting. that I have no idea how the internet has come to exist on my computer. Like millions of individuals around the world, I have taken the idea of the internet for granted. In fact, like most, I can't imagine a world without the internet. So how does it work?

Looking for an answer, I turned ironically to the internet. What I learned was that a lot of what the Internet is, is right there in its name; A group of interconnected networks. Since the Internet began in 1969 hundreds of millions of networks have been created by host computers that link together using different routers. Every one of our computers is connected to one of these networks, and its this connection that gives us the ability to watch people around the world injure themselves from the comforts of our home on YouTube.

These networks are owned by companies, in fact I was surprised to learn that most of the internet is ran by only a few companies. Who, lucky for us, agree to use a common set of NAPs. NAPs are the routers that let someone using Network A access and view information from a computer using a different Network company. Because of this agreement everyone around the world can see and use the same material the internet has to offer at roughly the same convenience and speed. At its heart, the Internet is nothing more than a gigantic agreement between companies to intercommunicate freely around the world.

The Internet works the way it does because Network companies agree to a standard known as Net Neutrality. A standard that recently has found itself under attack.

The aggressor is a very curious piece of legislation titled the "Internet Freedom Act of 2009". This legislation is the topic for our next installment.

No wonder there is such hysteria…

By Andrew Baker

Although I can only base my feelings about the swine flu off of anecdotal and first hand experiences, I don’t really see it as any more threatening than Influenza A, a more common type of flu. Having had swine flu and lived through it I don’t feel particularly fortunate, like I snuck through the death trap that is H1 N1. I don't really feel like it's THE DREADED, TERRIBLE, AWFUL, DEADLY thing media outlets seem to be painting it as. Don't get me wrong, people are dying from it, but most of us have little to worry about (other than the ickiness of being sick).

However I can see how some people are beginning to feel so alarmed. The yesterdays’ media coverage of the swine flu out break beginings may lead some like myself to throw around scary words like fear-mongering, sensationalism, hysteria, and even chaos. This article from the Times may be my favorite example of such sensational reporting. This week’s news from the Washington Post and New York Times isn’t much different. But maybe one of the most interesting things about the outbreak is how it has opened up another discussion of “Is the government doing enough?” I don’t know the answer. I’ve had swine flu and lived through it to write this blog. But here’s a discussion between David Fidler, a professor at Indiana University and online readers of the Post that may add a little bit more to your understanding.

One thing is for sure, politics has not been entirely left out of the media's reporting on H1 N1. Stories like the Post's are all over broadcast news and commentary shows as well as the blog-o-sphere. What I want to do is – once again – take a critical look at what the coverage of the swine flu pandemic looks like this week. For reference, I’ll be referring to the links above.

What they got right

• The Post in particular does a great job of putting forward a source on the issue of epidemiology and health care in their published dialogue on government action (I’ll touch this point a little more below).
• I found the Post story about Tamiflu shortage to be very well written with a particularly engaging lead. This makes me wonder if it was also a part of their print copy for the day.
• This isn’t breaking news, but the Times does a very thorough job of reporting for the city of New York; good sources, good facts, good reporting.

Toss up

• Both of these outlets (excepting the online discussion from the Post) take a decidedly anecdotal voice in there reporting in their stories. All use parents and common individuals to help tell the story of the dilemma common people are facing. I call this a toss up because it is an important side of the story but anecdotal “infotainment” tends be looked at disapprovingly in some circles.
  

Where they missed the mark

• As I mentioned above, one of my biggest knocks about the coverage of pandemic disease is the hysteria it creates in individuals. By framing these stories in different ways (schools, medicine shortages) the Post and Times continue to pervade the public with H1 N1 worry.
• As much as David Fidler may know about global health, he is simply not an authority on politics. In one answer to a question specifically about the politics of government provision of vaccines, he provides a good answer but one that should be looked at in particular (the question is from Washington D.C). This seems to be an example of media in general prancing out experts that may not actually be able to address the question as well as someone else. Granting them some leniency because of financial and other constraints, I would have preferred to see a panel.
• Some information should just be left out of a story. In particular, I mean the second paragraph of the Times article. If there is no city-wide figure, why say that the number is “between 5 and 50 percent of parents”? Seems like kind of a rough estimation to me.

As you can see, the media doesn't really do many favors when it comes to reporting on pandemic disease, short of providing the basic information. With H1 N1 in gerneral they seem to be looking at it more and more through the lense of government response to the out break. What with vaccine being delayed, then arriving, then having problems, then being delivered again, it starts to make you wonder if this will be President Obama's Katrina (that is another discussion entirely). One thing is certain, infotainment is still lying just a few lines below the lead.

(photo credit: allword-news.co.uk)

Hey, Supreme Leader, your disregard for human dignity is showing!

By Andrew Baker

Sometimes injustice comes cloaked in a shroud of false evidence and hear-say. This time it slapped us across our collective face. According to an October 10^th New York Times article, the Iranian government plans to execute 3 citizens that were arrest amongst many others for protesting Iran’s June 12^th presidential election. Go read the Times article here . I didn’t know the fate of those mentioned in the story at the time I drafted this but I can be sure that what they are being executed for offends one of the most important tenants of a democratic government, the free ability to dissent and protest. American’s tend to be suckers for a good revolution – it’s a part of our national identity. Our political restlessness has to be at least a contributing reason for the amount of coverage this event received over the summer. We saw compelling images of young people peacefully demonstrating in the streets. Some were beaten or shot to death by Iranian “peace keepers.” Four months later we finally hear something about the fate of those that stood up. I want to take a critical look at the story mentioned above from the Times - see how they did at reporting this matter that should be close to all American’s hearts

What they got right

• To my knowledge they were the first to report on this issue (maybe its just cause I get their RSS feed) and they provided their readership with a good piece of reporting.
• They also gave a really detailed account of the status of the remained incarcerated.
• Because getting the truth from state media in Iran can be a real stumbling block, they seem to have done a pretty good job of getting perspectives from other sources – I’ll touch on the short-comings of this later.
• They seem to do an effective job reintroducing the importance of the issue at hand by reconstructing the events of June.

Where they missed the mark

• Even granting a little leniency, some of the sources the Times uses don’t hold up to the smell test. One being a “Reform-aligned website” another being an unnamed Iranian government official.
• Some of their reports aren’t backed at all by identifiable sources; namely, the parts of the article that mention abuse to inmates seem to lack some clout.
• I don’t mind as much that they provided the American perspective on the issue, again a function of lacking sources close to the situation. But if they are going to show the American perspective (Amnesty International) they should have at least tried to obtain comment from at least one official in the Obama administration. I think it could have strengthened the story.

Although not an exhaustive list from a media expert, I hope this provided a little depth to the issue. I’ll try to provide some type of critical evaluation of news reports on important issues throughout the life of the blog.

(photo credit: vimooz.com)

Mission Statement

The focus of our discourse will be centered around the affects of media on politics and vice verse. However, we also hope to provide critical evaluation of reporting practices and hope to give some meaningful analysis of how these current events will affect our political climate. We hope to maintain a standard of post-partisanship and contribute to the blog-o-sphere in a meaningful way; to mature the public discourse instead of standing idly by as it continually slides into petty bickering and name calling. Through our conduct we hope to, at least in a small way, change these red states and blue states (and the attitudes there within) to Shades of Purple.