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.