Timetables and Benchmarks are becoming overused Washington!

It just seems to be moving at a snail’s pace constantly in that White House. Due to our direct concern to funding our military, our Democratic and Republican leaders are both stubborn and unaware of how to agree on making “timetables” and “benchmarks” for this Iraq (and Afghanistan) War.
In this morning’s New York Times, an article was printed about the moderate Republicans warning at a meeting on Tuesday to Bush on his Iraq policy, following his rejection of last week’s House bill proposed by the Democrats.
The House bill would essentially provide financing for combat operations through midsummer, but require the president to provide a series of reports on the state of the Iraqi military and the progress of the government in achieving political unity. Congress would then vote in late July on releasing the rest of the money sought by the administration, about $53 billion, or restricting its use to redeployment and more limited operations in Iraq.
Bush and his officials feel that two-month payment stages are inadequate.
“There’s a lot of uncertainty in funding when it comes to two-month cycles, so we reject that idea,” Mr. Bush told reporters during a Pentagon visit. “I’ll veto the bill if it’s this haphazard, piecemeal funding — and I’ve made that clear.”
Participants in the Tuesday meeting between Bush, senior administration officials and 11 members of a moderate bloc of House Republicans said the lawmakers were unusually candid with the president, telling him that public support for the war was crumbling in their swing districts.
“There’s a sense here certainly by the Democrats and growing among Republicans that there has to be some progress, significant progress to sustain it beyond September,” said Senator Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican. Lawmakers said there was strong emphasis that they would be formulating their future position on the war on the basis of what Gen. David H. Petraeus, the commander in Iraq, says in a report this summer.
Later on Today, another New York Times story came out that Bush insisted at meeting today that he was willing to work with lawmakers to include benchmarks for the performance of the Iraqi government in a war spending bill, which is something members of both parties have been vigorously seeking.
To me it just seems like there are too many scenarios being suggested to the president and his administration, ever since the Iraq Study Group came out with that book.
At least the Associated Press had this to say about the President’s idea of agreeing on benchmarks:
A dozen or so members in Congress are attempting to strike a bipartisan compromise. Few have come forward with concrete plans - perhaps out of reluctance to champion a proposal until they know it can succeed. None of the proposals put in plain view have picked up steam.
That really made things clear to me, unlike the New York Time’s or the Washington Post’s handling of this story. All they basically said was reverberated what they heard at the press conference without any journalistic, or deeper insight to this ongoing story.
If you read the New York Times or the Post’s stories, they are almost the exact same thing, overplaying quotes by Bush, which clutter up the story.
The AP story I could understand so much more than the other ones, maybe because they are making less money due to the fact they are reporting more individualistically than following their company’s “policies”.
From the AP: Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia was one of 11 GOP lawmakers who met with Bush and his top aides Tuesday afternoon.
"We asked them what's Plan B," Davis said. "We let them know that the status quo is not acceptable." Davis said the president responded that if he began discussing a new strategy, his current one never would have a chance to succeed.
Even the article from Reuters I can follow more easily. They have THE best lead out of the other three I mentioned :
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President George W. Bush, already under fire from Democrats over Iraq, is facing mounting pressure from fellow Republicans to show substantial progress in the war by September or risk their desertion.
It’s newer-sounding. It’s fresher, I feel.
But September is looming as a critical time because members of Congress will have returned from August recess at home and will have heard from voters in their home areas about Iraq. (Reuters)
It also marks a period in which Americans will begin to take greater interest in candidates running to succeed Bush in the November 2008 election. (Reuters)
Thank you Reuters staff writers Peter Szekely, Steve Holland and Tabassum Zakaria, as well as AP writer Anne Flaherty. You helped me renew and continue my interest on this dry subject matter. New York Times and Washington Post, take a more individualistic approach!

Censorship, what goes to far?

After class on Friday I came across a particularly relevant article dealing with a push within the government to censor military blogs. In other words, active soldiers would need to run every blog entry by their commanding officer for approval. In fact it would allow commanders to restrict their units access to facebook, myspace, eBay, or even a simple email client. One blogger himself finds it ironic that in a restriction on Military blogs, the only leeway given by the Army is that articles can be posted as long as they aren't "military related." This was just one new change made to Operations Security (Op sec), an army protocol that defines procedure for controlling the flow of information and resources and how to maintain the security of said traffic.

Does this go to far? I thought at first that the easy answer would be yes, this is ridiculous. But now I'm not so sure. Obviously the soldiers who are part of the blogger community provided a valuable resource to the public at large for giving us firsthand accounts of what is going on. I mean, what better way to get a perspective on the war than by having it narrated by the participants. However, there is always a danger of leaking potentially dangerous information and jeopardizing the mission at hand and more importantly, the lives of the soldiers. It is also a question of logistics; should it really be the job of the commanding officer to read several blog posts per day and decide if they are a possible threat to safety? Won't that bog down his performance and distract him from more critical tasks and decisions? As I pondered this question I realized that the commanders themselves are probably thinking the same thing. So if these changes began to be enforced, we may eventually see the end of blogging within the active ranks, if not a severe curtail in proliferation of such documents. Surely any commanding officer with a good head on his shoulders would immediately spot the difficulties of policing his unit and bearing the responsibility for what comes out of it. It won't be long before bans on blogs of any kind period are enforced. We have glimpsed the light that is soldier-blogging, but savor it; we may soon be back in the dark.

Media Regulation and Censorship

In the "Mass media and American Politics"class today we viewed a video regarding the 2004"wardrobe malfunction of Janet Jackson. While this event is years old, there is an issue within the main one that is ongoing.

Media regulation and censorship are two issues that are on the forefront in media. Should the government be able to regulate and enforce what it thinks the American public should be allowed to see?In my opinion, this is a double edged sword. When Janet Jackson exposed herself on national television, the public was outraged, and couldn't believe how this was allowed to happen. On the other hand, if they were to crack down on the laws people would say that they were infringing on their civil liberties. The argument that the companies made was that they could regulate themselves, and not to get the government involved. But, if this were the case, this event most likely wouldn't have happened in the first place.

I think that censorship is both a good and a bad thing. What about the middle school students who come home to an empty house? Do we want indecent material available to them at all times? While censorship of media is a good thing, do we want it to continue? If the government is allowed to regulate the media, they may begin to think it is okay to regulate what books are printed, etc. The newly updated regulation laws by the FCC are an attempt to protect society from inappropriate content.

"No News" on the Front Page

A man had drunken sex with a goat. This was literally the front page article on Foxnews.com. Tombe, a good citizen of Sudan, had been having sexual relations with a goat in this home-town. News of these bizarre erotic bestiality adventures soon came to light to the proper authorities. Tombe was brought before a judge and was given a hilarious, yet extremely demeaning sentence. The judge viewed the sexual relations with the goat to be on the same level of a man having relations with an unmarried woman. The judge sentenced Tombe to marry the goat, to save her public humiliation, and pay the owner of the goat 15,000 Sudanese dinars, which is about $50. After the two lovebirds joined in marriage, the goat gave birth to a male kid. Tombe began to neglect the goat and she was forced to roam the streets alone, where she soon chocked on a plastic bag one lonely night. However, Tombe was granted custody of the kid, and will be forced to live with the guilt that forced his wife to choke on a piece of plastic.

First of all this was the funniest news article I have ever read. It was purely ridiculousness, but I loved every minute of it. I really cannot believe that Fox had the nerve to put this on the front page of their website. I mean there are a lot more news stories in the world that deserve much more recognition that man tangled love life with a goat. However, I did get caught up in the “No News” hype. As soon as I saw the article I read the entire thing. I guess this the kind of stuff that people want to come home and read after a day at work. However, I do not think that you will see this news story popping up on Fox’s television program anytime soon. The older generations watch the TV news, where as the “info-snackers”, or younger generations are looking at the internet. I think the internet can get away with reporting these types of news stories, when the TV news has to be more formal and report the headline news stories to keep the people who want the facts watching. I think it weird that fox would put a story like this on their homepage, but hey, I found it funny and kind of sickly interesting. In any event more and more of these types of articles will be displayed on the internet because it is what people want to see.

Murdoch bids for Dow Jones. Are we surprised?

Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp $5 million takeover bid (about $60 a share) over the Wall Street Journal’s publisher Dow Jones has triggered a nearly 55 percent jump in its stock price on Tuesday, according to Reuters.

Many feel that if Murdoch wins this bid, which needs to be addressed by the Bancroft family who owns over 60 percent of the Dow Jones & Co. voting power, he will use his new power for his own personal and political reasons.

Dow Jones is one of several large U.S. newspaper companies that are controlled by families, an ownership structure criticized by some financial analysts and investors as ineffective.

The Reuters article also said that if the Bancroft’s do not accept Murdoch’s bid, than it will be likely that lawsuits will emerge from shareholders accusing the directors for failing to look after investors' interests.

According to the Boston Globe, Dow Jones said its board would factor the Bancrofts' initial opposition into its evaluation of Murdoch's bid, but the stock remained strong in after-hours trading and analysts said that the drama was far from over.

In reality, all Murdoch is trying to do here is dramatically enhance New Corps national penetration and power in business reporting.

"It fits in News Corp.'s plans to become a multimedia player in financial media," said Louis Capital Markets' head of global research, Robbert Van Batenburg.

News Corp. has said it plans to launch the channel in the fourth quarter. The channel already is guaranteed to reach more than 30 million cable homes, has signed up top cable companies Comcast and Time Warner to carry the channel, and is hiring reporters and news anchors, according to sources close to the situation who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the process is ongoing. (Washington Post)

The Journal has "great journalists; it's got great management," Murdoch said. "But it's got rather a confined capital; it needs to be part of a bigger organization to be taken further."

I’d like to see the family owners of Dow Jones hold on as long as they can, but come on, who can stop the power of Rupert Murdoch. Hopefully this change will be for the better when it happens. Let the buyouts continue, and the quality of business reporting remain unabashed.

Women in Office

With the coming election, and a female presidential candidate, members of the media such as CNN and The Christian Science Monitor have been delving into what it may be like if our nation is to have its first female president.

CNN's article "Female voters set high standards for female candidates", states that "for the first time in history, a women has the visibility, the reputation and the cash to make a serious run at the presidency". The American public is used to an all male field, but the biggest problem a women candidate might face is the female voters themselves. Women tend to set very high standards for female candidates, in part because it is thought that most women expect the first women candidate to be a reflection of themselves, only better, states Marie Wilson, President of the White House Project. "There has never been a female president before, and we want them to be perfect. We want them to represent us." The article also goes on to state how women are up against a tougher set of standards then men are. There would be much more opposition against a women running at John McCain's age or with Barack Obama's experience. Even though women have made great advances in the last few decades, they still only make up about sixteen percent of Congress and at the state legislature level. Along with Condoleeza Rice and Nancy Pelosi, Geraldine Ferrero was one of the first major trailblazers for women in politics with her run for Vice President in 1984, sparking many women to think "if she can do it, so can I".

The Christian Science Monitor builds on this with "Imagining the world with more female heads of state". So many countries around the world have already had a female as their president. Why is it then that the United States, one of the most powerful, advanced and supposedly free thinking nations has not? Germany presently has a female head of state and this Sunday France will decide if they will have one as well. "In the United States, women can become astronauts and Supreme Court judges and cabinet ministers and governors and newspaper editors and publishers and secretaries of State, but the presidency has so far eluded them" states Hughes. He thinks that many in the United State's feel that women are not tough or forceful enough to rule, or rally troops in a time of war. If we look at history though, Ms Thatcher did very well rallying Britain's troops in war against Argentina, and when Israel was in danger of falling apart, Ms Meir was able to hold it together quite well also.

Hillary Clinton is now running for office, and Condoleeza Rice is an example of a female on the Republican side who might also be just as capable as any man running for president. At present, there are only eleven, maybe soon twelve nations throughout the world with a female head of state. Most of these are leading nations though. Maybe it is time for the United States to make a change. I am not personally, particularly in favor of Hillary Clinton but I do think that women are just as capable as men are to do the job. There have been many powerful and successful female rulers in the past and around the world today, and maybe it would bring a good change, and help to promote a better image for our nation in the future if more females came to power.

Flip Flopping and Media Watching:

As the semester for UNH draws to a close while picking a topic for my final blog, I stopped at an interesting story former CIA director George Tenet. He while promoting his new book (hint hint) he decides this would be the perfect time to unleash his feelings on the Bush Administration and the case for going to war with Iraq. Vice president Cheney gave a speech on August 2002 where he spoke about how Saddam had restarted his nuclear program, Tenet quickly realized that the assertion went way beyond “what our analysis could support”, but , “Yet, instead of confronting the vice president, he let it slide.” Tenet finally tells bosses what they didn't want to hear, well this is surprising, how many years after we started this war and after he had sat down behind Colin Powell and corroborated the credibility of there being WMD’s in Iraq as of 2001.This is down right unbelievable that a person of his stature after years of great service to the CIA, could allow a ‘slam dunk’ case like he said to George Bush in 2002 to get to the point where he is calling it a simple case of group-think syndrome. Reminder that Tenet worked for the United States of America’s intelligence agency, in case you didn’t hear once again, the CIA of the United States of America; I don’t know about you but I accept only the best from such an organization, Tenet as a civil servant had a job to do and he failed making himself and in this case some left thinking that that America is foolish.

This is undoubtedly plays to the case against the Iraq war, George seems to be playing things to his advantage, when the war was cool he was in, now it is not, so he is speaking up as the reputable guy taking the hit. Nobody outside of Washington can really think that this is face saving; if nothing else it shows his leadership skills are nothing less than horrible. As far as I am concerned this is a media stunt that has obviously done just as other stories that I have covered this semester seem to all have in common, which is using things to your advantage, if it is not George playing the game of politics for the sake of his book, it is the media giving time to people like Anna Nicole Smith or Rosie O’Donnell. The moral of this blog is not a case of for or against Iraq or even the humiliation at the expense of George Tenet, but rather a simple point- the media and its attempts to follow and produce stories that credit the unworthy, as well as the telling and retelling of stories till not them (the media) but we the viewers are blue in the face. George Tenet does not deserve any of America’s sympathy, and the media does not need to sit him down interview after interview and tell us about it. Give me some news, not a “scapegoat” looking for a few dollars after killing his career all by himself, by not speaking up when it still counted.

Intelligence “is the product that results from processing information.”(intelligence - Definitions)This means that all the information that is collected form various ways tv, reporters, spies, newspapers ect., is essentially not anything till it is made useful or deemed inadequate. Needless to say Tenet and TV reporters need to check there information and make sure they are getting it right the first time around and for the right reasons.

"Please don't deport Daddy"

Protesters began their march early Saturday morning in a hot Houston neighborhood mostly occupied by Mexican-Americans. 300-400 people of all ages beat drums and marched, calling for law makers to create a far-reaching immigration policy to allow undocumented workers to stay in the states and with their families. Grace Bandercan, a 5 year old supporter held a sign that read, "Please don't deport my Daddy." Grace and her mother are American citizens, and her father, an immigrant construction worker is trying desperately to obtain legal papers. Grace's mother told reporters that her husband pays his taxes and is a good citizen, if only the government would recognize him.
“They need to remember the human side of things,” said Elizabeth Bandercan, referring to immigration enforcement officials. “We just want to live as a family.”
MSNBCStory

Meanwhile, on his weekly radio broadcast President Bush urged lawmakers to come together on immigration policies. Bush called it, “a critical challenge” before the nation, which is presently home to an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants.“We need a system where our laws are respected. We need a system that meets the legitimate needs of our economy. And we need a system that treats people with dignity and helps newcomers assimilate into our society,” Bush said.
Bush also challenged Congress, who are currently at a stalemate to come to a decision on immigration, arguing that his proposal doesn't mean amnesty. A recent poll done by the Wall street Journal and NBC News shows that 51% of Americans oppose Bush's immigration proposal offering a path to legal status, while 44% are in favor. Bush's argument is that illegal immigrants are taking the jobs of American citizens. Republicans proposed the idea that illegal immigrants should have to pay a fine of $10,000 to become legal citizens, but this idea was shot down by Bush, saying that illegal immigrants shouldn't;t be pushed to the front of the line, making immigrants who haven't broken the laws wait even longer to obtain citizenship. VideoLink

Also on Saturday, President Bush spoke at Miami-Dade College in Miami about immigration, a move that took some say took a lot of nerve seeing as though more than half of the graduating students were from a background not American. His message to the new grads was to get their elected officials in Washington going and make a decision about the immigration laws.
“You see every day the values of hard work, and family, and faith that immigrants bring,”the president said. “This experience gives you a special responsibility to make your voices heard.”
Bush spoke of how our immigration system is badly broken by saying,“We must address all elements of this problem together — or none of them will be solved at all."MiamiDade

As the elections draw near and Presidential candidates make their campaigns it will be interesting to see which way the public leans; will we remember that we all started off as immigrants at one point, or will we seek to send newcomers home with the message from America being, you're not welcome?

Must have some down time...

In browsing through "On The Media" this week, I noticed something unusual. The first two stories listed (and thus the two stories most likely to be watched) were about people who were dead. The first story spoke about the obituaries for Boris Yeltsin, and the next story focussed on the war exploits of Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman. While Jessica Lynch isn't dead, Pat Tillman and Boris Yeltsin certainly are. This leads to an interesting question: are dead people just more interesting than live people, or did they just have nothing to talk about this week?

I would submit that the first assumption is more correct. Dead people are almost always more interesting than people who are alive. When we turn on the news, we expect to see stories of people being shot, or the heroic death of a fireman, or the tragic death of an innocent in the wrong place at the wrong time. On the other hand, we rarely care about people who are living and succeeding. Because we spend all day trying to "succeed" at life and get more money or a better car, we don't want to come home and see people on TV doing better than we think we're doing. Instead, we need to feel like we accomplished something today. To hear that there are three more people in the world who won't be doing better than we are is a reassurance that the work we did on that day is actually worth something.

I was reading an article on slate.com earlier today and came across a review of the recent Democratic candidate debate (http://www.slate.com/id/2165132) on MSNBC. The author made several good points, but one that got me thinking was a brief comment on the format that MSNBC had employed. Debate format, especially for presidential primaries, is something that always falls under scrutiny and is a good example of how the media can make or break the performance of a candidate. Here's an example; MSNBC limited each response to no more than 60 seconds, and often demanded extremely punctuated rebuttals. This would benefit candidates like Clinton or Joe Biden who are well articulated but stiff in comparison to the others. But it would also lend a disadvantage to the Barack Obamas and John Edwards of the campaign who need time to develop a relationship with the audience and show the charisma and emotion that constitutes the basis of their appeal.

Clearly with the number of candidates running, more rigid time constraints are necessary to rein in those eager to steal the spotlight. But with no interruptions or camera hogging, it was pretty clear that the debate was lacking in the flare department. Instead of fiery responses and contradicting rhetoric, it seemed that all 8 were swimming in a sea of mediocrity for a large portion of the show.

I think that it should have been clear to everyone that this special should have been an hour at the most. 90 minutes is an unnecessary amount of time to be spending this early in the race, especially with so many candidates and a short response time. MSNBC picked right in having lead anchor Brian Williams moderate, but most of the time he was more long winded then the candidates themselves and is probably the reason why the creators had it last an hour and a half in the first place (aka Brian shut up and just ask the damn question).

Overall, MSNBC seemed more focused on developing a debate format that would hook viewers with simple, rapid fire answers and concise platforms. What they got was a loquacious media icon grilling eight people of extremely similar opinion and little to get angry about. Yes the format kept the conversation rolling but left no time for anyone to give a well articulated and complete answer. In this way, networks are only contributing to the perpetuation of cookie-cutter verbosity.

Leaving Iraq???

While reading up on the Daily news I cam across an article that made me very hopeful. This article was regarding the possibility of exiting Iraq. To be honest I feel as if Iraq has taken a back burner to other events on the home front such as the VA Tech tragedy. This is fine by me because I feel like it has been the presidents top priority for too long.

In this article it stated that Congress has passed a bill that "insists on a date for surrender." While this is a huge step in the right direction, there is a problem. The president has promised to veto the bill as soon as it reaches him. The problem now becomes what does Congress do once he does this? The article states that a few people in Congress feel that some word changes might fool the president while others feel that Congress has made their anti-war statement and should now focus on funding the troops while still putting pressure on the pentagon and such. To me this is not an option. They should not just stop acting, even if their first attempt fails. If everyone stopped working if their first try didn't succeed, then no one would get anywhere. If they feel so strongly about this issue they should devote everything to it. I know that a lot of people think we shouldn't be in Iraq anymore, and will be very happy to know that Congress is trying ways to get us out, but very upset when they stop after one try.

The troops on the other hand can not just be deserted in Iraq either. We can't simply cut them off as a statement because it's not the men and women defending our ideals that we don't support, it's the reason they are there that we do. A phase out is simply not enough either. If we gradually pull out our troops more and more of them will be susceptible to attack as our numbers decrease and the enemies increase. If we want to make a statement and say defend yourselves now, we must leave Iraq 100%. We have done all that we can at this point, and by passing this bill, Congress agrees as well. All they need to do is be persistent, and do all that they can to accomplish their goal.

Taking A Couple Steps Back

Since the Virginia Tech there has been much controversy; whether the school was to blame for the 2 hour gap between shootings, NBC for showing the video tape of the gunman or the media and entertainment forced the gunman to violence. There are many more arguments that can be brought up with this subject but one thing holds true; people have passed away, their lives were stolen from them in the most selfish fashion. The shootings at Virginia Tech have touched the world, and now I have come to an article that has taken me back a couple steps. The New York Times had all 29 victims pictured, with short and memorable passages beneath the photos.

This is the first good thing I have seen the media do since the shootings at VT. I did not know any of the victims’ names before I viewed this article. After looking at the pictures and reading the passages from loved ones, it made me stop and really think what it would be like to be affected by a horrific act. First and foremost the people affected by this tragedy should be given the proper time to be able to grieve and find a sense of closure, which will be extremely heart wrenching if not possible to do, before the media goes off on rants about who is to blame. To be honest, I was caught up in the “media frenzy” when I first heard the news of the situation. I could not believe that the school didn’t take proper precautions after the first shooting. But, that’s a different story.

The media should be doing more to extend the personal side of this tragic event. Anyone can point fingers, but to take the time and really assess the personal lose of loved ones is the best thing that can be done at this time. The NY Times impressed me with this article, and I think more has to be said about the people who were lost, and not who and what factors caused them there lives. They were all innocent, sitting in class, and probably didn’t even know the gunman personally; but their lives were stolen from them. The victims need to be remembered and the media is the best portal for it to happen.

"PBS Shelves Film on Moderate Muslims"

Recently, a debate has been started over the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's (CPB) and the Public Broadcasting System's (PBS) decision not to air a documentary on moderate Muslims. This documentary, titled 'Islam vs. Islamists,' was originally going to be a part of PBS's "America at a Crossroads," a six-night series featuring 11 documentaries. It was removed from the listing by PBS, however, because it "needs work" and is a "work in progress," said CPB spokesman Michael Levy (The Washington Times). However, people are outraged that PBS would remove the show, and Frank Gaffney, a production team member, says it is "a well-documented, textbook case of the abuse of taxpayer funding by elements in the public broadcasting system to advocate their agenda and ensure that people who have different agenda don't get on the air." This is a very controversial accusation to make, especially against such a program as PBS, but could there be some truth to it?

PBS has said that there simply was not enough room to air the documentary, and that they felt it was not ready to be aired just yet, but it could be shown later on its own. This seems to be a legitimate reasoning, and since they ultimately are the ones who get to choose what they show on their station, it does not seem to be worthy of such outrage. However, the producers of 'Islam vs. Islamists' disagree, accusing PBS of shelving the film for political reasons, namely that it shows Muslims in different countries, including the US, trying to live a moderate Islamic life amidst the pervasive fear of radical Islam. This apparently goes against CPB and PBS's views of Islam as a militant, radical religion. Personally, I am not sure that I believe PBS and CPB have these extreme views, but I can see how frustrating it is to the producers of this documentary to have their work shelved in such a manner, especially when the message they are trying to get out is such an important one. These producers are trying to show Americans how hard it is for moderate Muslims everywhere to live in societies where all people know of Islam is the radical images they see on the news. Why would PBS not want this viewpoint to be shown?

I think that this is an important issue on more than one count. First, it deals with the rights of television shows to choose what they want to air, despite public outcry, and how much public opinion influences the media. But also, it shows how important different viewpoints are, and how hard it can be to give them a voice. I agree with Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, chairman of the Arizona-based American Islamic Forum for Democracy, who said that "Until mainstream media and mainstream America understands the need to help this debate and expose the plight of moderates who push back against the Islamists within the Muslim community, we will continue to lose ground against militant Islamism (The Washington Post)." What do you think?

Impeaching The "Attack Dog"

Dennis Kucinich, a Democratic Representative from Ohio, introduced articles of impeachment against the Vice President of the United States, Dick Cheney. He introduced these articles yesterday which consist of three articles of impeachment. The first accuses Vice President Cheney of making up the accusation that weapons of mass destruction were in Iraq, which has caused a great deal of public outcry over the years. The second article accuses him of fabricating a connection between al-Taeda and the Iraqi government, which has also been proven to not be the case. The third article refers to what Cheney is doing currently, which is "threatening war against Iran." Kucinich has claimed that threatening Iran with the possibility of a war is a violation of the Constitution, but I have never heard of such a thing (he probably knows the Constitution better than I do though).

Some people claim that Kucinich is simply doing this for his own political gain since he is relatively unknown among the Democratic candidates for president. He claims that he is doing this to Cheney through the following quote: "Our country couldn't afford this last war. We can't afford to go into another one. And somebody has to challenge the conduct of this Vice President." He also claims that he is targeting only Cheney because he believes that the country isn’t ready for two consecutive impeachments. Many people throughout America have been calling for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney and for the Congress to stand up to the Executive for quite some time and they have finally responded both with these articles of impeachment and with the recent war funding bill with an attached timetable. Although these reasons probably had a great deal to do with it the fact that he introduced these articles of impeachment at this time suggests that he has ulterior motives for impeaching the Vice President since he is not currently a Democratic frontrunner. Perhaps he feels that this will give him the advantage of some positive press and positive sentiment from the Democratic base as well as boosting his name recognition among the American people.

A Rap Mogul That Approves Censorship?

There is a lot to say about this. Following the Imus shindig, Russel Simmons, one of the label entrepreneurs who has released music by well known artists, gave a public statement saying that 'racist remarks' should be viewed as 'extreme curse words'. This is the part where my brain explodes and I transform into The Hulk and start smashing things. Jeff smash.

Let's begin with 'extreme curse words'. Curse words exist because, as an adult, I feel curse words help me relieve 'extreme anger' (e.g. when rap moguls condone censorship). All adults should have the privilege to utter whatever 'extreme curse words' they have in their arsenal. As an asian, I feel sometimes it is necessary to scream 'CHINK' as loud as I can to express the contempt I have for people who just don't get it. What are people not getting? They fail to recognize that language is our purest form of expression and to suppress it in any way is a violation to individual rights. If I want to burn the American flag, I will. If I want to write a song about black people and women, I will.

I won't lie to you, if our government made an amendment to ban profanity. My rage would build up to a point where the only other expression I'll resort to is physical. That's probably what happened to the shooter at VT. Everyone knew he didn't talk. Since he didn't talk, he didn't get to vent his anger. So it accumulated to the point where he snapped and shot everyone.

So, Mr./Mrs. Righteous-Puritan, are you condoning the VT shootings? You are if you believe profanities should be banned from our language (yes, even racist remarks).

Author's note: This was a little more extreme than my usual posts. I am a firm believer in individual rights and if people move to step on it, I will lay down the law and pimp smack potential usurpers. I do not condone flag burning or racism, but as I said earlier, I believe in individual rights. I would be a self-collapsing vortex of hypocrisy if I were to tell others what and what not to believe in.

Policy Makers Discuss Security, Mental Health Resources, and Communication on Campuses

In a senate hearing on April 23, lawmakers came together to discuss mental health resources, security plans, and communication systems on campuses. After reading the article “Senators Discuss Preventing College Attacks,” I have realized that through all of this tragedy something good can result. I think that the way the media has handled some of the coverage of the Virginia Tech shooting has raised awareness about many issues. At first, the major press coverage was about gun control, how the college didn’t notify people of the shooting soon enough, then it turned to interviewing the families of victims, and finally to Seung-Hui Cho’s press release about why he did what he did. After days of overkill from the press, I am finally able to see how this coverage has raised awareness to lawmakers. The devastation at Virginia Tech has brought up an issue that is long overdue to be discussed and that is a communication system on college campuses that can reach masses. I work at a college and we have no way to communicate with the student body, unless we go to their classrooms. This is very dangerous, especially if there was a shooting, a bomb, etc. My point here is that the shooting has motivated educators and lawmakers to realize and implement security and communication devices on college campuses nationwide. Another issue brought up at the meeting was whether or not schools have been providing adequate mental health resources and I was shocked to read what Dr Federman, the director of counseling and psychological services at University of Virginia, had to say. He quoted statistics of the number of students who suffer from mental problems and the surprising thing was when he said that in 2006 there was one full-time clinical staff member for every 1,697 students. This is ridiculous.

These issues needed to be addressed and I hope that something good can come from the tragedy those innocent students at Virginia Tech suffered. Hopefully everyone will be more aware of what can happen and realize that it is a necessity to take all precautions necessary, especially on college campuses where large groups of people are targets.

FCC Says Too Much Violence on TV

In the wake of the massacre at Virginia Tech, it is not surprising that much of the media is looking to put the blame on people or organizations other then the killer himself. As far back as history goes though, violence has been a part of it. Violence is a part of life, but that doesn't mean that it necessarily needs to be thrown in our face all the time through the media. I don't really think though that the killings at Virginia Tech were the fault of anybody except the killer himself and the fact that he was a very troubled human being.

Even so, the FCC has now decided to crack down on the amount of violence that is allowed on TV. MSNBC is reporting that the "FCC seeks to rein in violent television shows". Federal regulators are stating that they are "concerned about the effect of television violence on children, and will recommend that Congress enact legislation to give the government unprecedented powers to curb violence in entertainment programming". According to the the Federal Communications Commission, doing this would be in the best interest of the public. For the first time this plan is looking to target basic cable TV channels. They also state that in the past four years, the amount of violent acts depicted on TV have severely increased. The FCC acknowledges that there is heightened sensitivity around this issue due to the killings at Virginia Tech, and is pushing further with its recommendations.

Maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea to get rid of some of the excessive violence on Television. Watching violent acts on a daily basis could give the wrong idea to people, on the other hand though, people are also able to see the negative effects of some violent acts and learn what not to do as well. When it comes down to it, I think it should be up to each individual to make up their own decisions on what they feel is acceptable and what is not.

Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck and Left Wing Nonsense:

Rosie O’Donnell from The View, or (Tokyo Rosie) as she is known by some is alienating the country with her political radicalism. ABC is a conglomerate of Disney will they continue to allow her spread her left wing radicalism across mainstream media? Disney is a company that one typically does not evoke “mean spirited” as synonymous, but yet this is the direction they are headed with Rosie on board. The View, this year has lost numerous viewers in relation to all other years which the show had gained, is this some kind of conspiracy or are people sick of being fed the anti-American gibberish.

This show is supposed to provide opinions to a forum of ideas but Rosie is no match for Elizabeth Hasselback on the show who by large is her greatest adversary in terms of political matters. Rosie the biggest Bush administration hater in all of media, openly advocates nutty theories like terrorists mean us no harm as the US “demonizes” them, “Don’t fear the terrorists. They’re mothers and fathers.” She continually speaks on behalf of 9/11 being some kind conspiracy, (The Lies that Led to War). She referenced two weeks ago now on the show “look at the Gulf of Tonkin” a Vietnam era conspiracy theory. Rosie also supports Iran and if you go to her website it will link you to this outrageous site,(Tell-A-Friend: StopIranWar.com) where they say things like “And isn't it easier to undertake such a dialogue now, before more die, and more martyrs are created to feed extremist passions?”. Apparently Rosie has never herd of sanctions and how they are a form of deterrence for preventing them from gaining the WMD capability, sanctions are threatened or actual interruption of economic ties by an initiator state against a target state for the purpose of that state meeting the political demand of the interior state. No body in the US wants to end up in a war with Iran, that is why sanctions are in place. How should an uneducated person know this though, well maybe that is why we should stop letting people like Rosie on TV to say whatever she feels, rather someone that actually knows what they are talking about.

Bill Maher was fired from ABC after saying the 9/11 terrorists had courage. Why is it that they let Rosie stay when she spreads hate for America and says things like "do not fear terrorists"? This is far beyond left and right party lines, how can people like her be allowed on the mainstream TV. This underlines another story we have seen most recently in the firing of Imus which comes down to the single factor which is, hate. I know that we will never see the day when five days a week we get to see Anne Coulter on a program. Anne Coulter is smarter than all of the ladies on The View combined, and yet we only get to see one side of the spectrum, left wing extremist Rosie an uneducated conspiracy theorist.
(FOXNews.com - Free Video Player)

War Spending Bill assumed to be vetoed by Bush

As I drudge through different ongoing stories leading up to the proposed $124 million war spending bill approval by the president that could come up as close to the end of this week, I yawn and rub my eyes.
After the New York Times reported last Friday the Democratic majority leader Harry Reid said “this war is lost”, a bold statement contradictory to what the Republicans would argue as demoralize the American troops in Iraq.
In Washington, Mr. Reid delivered a biting critique of the Iraq war, saying there was no military solution to the conflict. At a news conference, he recounted a private conversation with the president about the Vietnam War, saying he told Mr. Bush not to follow the path of President Lyndon B. Johnson, who “did not want a war loss on his watch.”
After the procedural motion was passed last Thursday about a Sept. 1, 2008 return of troops, Representative Jack Kingston, a Georgia Republican, said the administration’s troop increase deserved a chance to succeed. But if progress is not achieved by fall, he said, “a heck of a lot of us will start peeling away.” (Times)
According to Reuters, Congressional Democrats, ignoring a promised veto by President George W. Bush, on Monday pushed ahead with a war funding bill that sets March 31 as the goal for pulling most U.S. troops out of Iraq.
The article went on to describe Reid’s mentioning of President Bush’s state of denial. Reid said: "The White House transcript says the president made those remarks in the state of Michigan. I believe he made them in the state of denial."
Assuming the legislation passes Congress but the expected Bush veto is not overturned, Democratic leaders would then try to quickly write a new bill to continue funding the troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is still unclear whether any conditions would be attached.
According to The Washington Post, the bill also establishes benchmarks for the Iraqi government to meet, including the creation of a program to disarm militias.
On the local front, the bill the agreement keeps Walter Reed Army Medical Center open for now, overruling the federal commission that had planned to shutter the Washington-based facility. The bill provides $20 million for repairs at Reed, keeping it open while upgrades are made to its successors.
The final legislation will no longer fund peanut storage facilities and relief for spinach farmers harmed by product recalls. Nor will it aid Christmas tree farms, or beet or sugar cane growers.

If it bleeds, it leads

On the program "On The Media" this week, the main topic of discussion was the Virginia Tech shootings. This is no surprise as it has been the main topic of conversation across the United States, and even on the international field.

As was discussed in "On The Media", NBC took the largest step of all the major networks in airing the home video made by the shooter. While NBC's ratings were extremely high at this point, their criticism also reached a peak. Many people believe that there are just some things you shouldn't show on TV.

Personally, I believe that we expect the mainstream media to go as far as possible. While we may not agree with their actions, we have all come to count on the media to play the images that are too graphic and report on the topics that are too gristly for the public. In addition to this, we have also come to count on the internet to fill in the gaps in the few areas that the mainstream media doesn't cover. Despite all the criticism that networks may receive, they will continue to strive for perfect ratings, and the saying will continue to apply: If it bleeds, it leads.

New Study: Childhood Obesity and Advertising

On March 28th, 2007, the Henry J. Kaiser Foundation released a study linking TV ads to childhool obesity. The study reviewed 8,854 television ads for age groups 2-7, 8-12, and teens. Out of these thousands of ads, not one was found promoting fruits and vegetables targeting children or teens. Before I begin the discussion, I will just lay out some shocking statistics that this study explains:

Children 8-12 see more than 7600 food ads per year or 21 per day while teens see more than 6,000 food ads per year or 17 per day.

"Of all genres on TV, shows specifically designed for children under 12 have the highest proportion of food advertising (50% of all ad time)."

"Of all food ads in the study, 34% are for candy and snacks, 28% are for cereal, 10% are for fast foods, 4% are for dairy and 1% for fruit juices."

In regards to nutritional food and exercise public service announcements:
"Children 2-7 and 8-12 see an average of one such message every 2-3 days (164 a year for 2-7 year olds and 158 a year for 8-12 year olds)."


Looking at these statistics, we see that children ages 8-12 are viewing 7600 food ads per year (of which around 34% of are for candy and snacks) but only 158 nutritional food or exercise public service announcements a year. Compare this to a study done by the American Obesity Association which finds that "the prevalence of obesity quadrupled over 25 years among boys and girls." The sample group was U.S. Children ages 6-11 and the study conducted was done from 1971 to 2000. These statistics seem to be revealing strong evidence that children are being targeted by food ad companies and it is contributing to childhood obesity. Now I understand that there are other factors to this problem but in our "fast-paced" American lives, having a television helps parents get more done in their lives while the television is a substitute parent. With more children watching television, ad companies understand that at young ages, say 8-12, children are extremely influential. They are just growing into themselves and becoming independent consumers. This age seems to be when children form brand loyalties or buying habits of one brand or another. If Ad Companies can target these children and gain their loyalty, the Ad company may have a buyer for life. Get them while there young.

I find this evidence extremely engaging and I think it is showing us something of a deeper problem. The influence of the television on the youth. I believe that the more negative images that are imprinted on a child's mind at young ages, the more likely those images will mold into that child's personality. Not that a child who sees murder or stealing on television will automatically turn into a murderer or thief but that it brings down the moral rectitude to understand that those things are not ok in a civil society. As children see more and more negative images on the television (rudeness, rape, violence, sexism etc.) with few moral and positive images to counter the negative, I believe young kids see these things as norms. We need to recognize how powerful the television really is over the mindsets of Americans, especially children, and work to counter a growing culture of immoral nihilists.

Virginia Tech Massacre on Wikipedia

As of today, the media coverage of the shootings at Virginia Tech have begun to wind down, which I am sure in many ways is a relief to the families and friends of the victims. Out of curiosity, however, I decided to check on Wikipedia and see if maybe something could be found there about Virginia Tech and Cho Seung-hui, the killer. I was surprised to find full articles on both, something that I really did not expect.

It might just be me, but it seems a bit odd that there can already be a Wikipedia page on both the Virginia Tech Massacre and Cho Seunh-hui. I feel like it is too soon for there to be enough concrete evidence and knowledge about what happened and why for an encyclopedia website to create pages on it. I understand that Wikipedia can be constantly updated, but the story of what happened has also been updated with great frequency, and while news stations report the latest, breaking news, even if it turns out later to be false, a website like Wikipedia should not be playing that game too. Or should it? In this case I feel like Wikipedia has stepped into the domain of "reporter" or "news source," updating what it posts when the information changes. Personally, I feel that there are enough news sources out there to satisfy any one's appetite, and for Wikipedia to jump on the bandwagon and start doing what the news stations do only adds to the overabundance of mass media frenzy.

However, I could also see how this sort of posting can be beneficial. Unlike ABC News, CNN, Fox News, or the like, Wikipedia takes information from all over and compiles it into one page on one site. In the article on the Virginia Tech massacre, at the bottom of the page, Wikipedia listed 123 references and 11 external links, providing a wealth of further information. This seems to be incredibly helpful for people who want more information but don't want it to all come from one news station. In this way I could see how having a page with a full description of the event from start to finish can be a good source for someone who wants a summary without having to piece it all together from the bits of information in each online or news article. Wikipedia has therefore provided a competent description of the shootings and numerous links to where people could find more information.

This discovery has really got me thinking about what sort of venues are appropriate to report the news and which ones are not. When a huge event such as this happens, every one decides to report on it, for better or for worse. Do you think Wikipedia is right in creating pages on the "Virginia Tech Massacre" and "Cho Seung-hui," or should it leave the reporting to the news stations and create the pages once the whole story has been unfolded and officials are sure of what happened? This touches upon much of what we have discussed in class, and in my opinion at least, it is a tough question to answer. What are your thoughts?

Pointing Fingers

The students and families, involved in the Virginia Tech shootings, do need time to grieve. However most will never fully recover from this horrific incident. It may seem too soon to start pointing fingers to who was at fault. It is a very sensitive subject, and it has to be looked at carefully before jumping to conclusions; like the media loves to do.

Gun control is a very popular and extremely easy way to explain how these types of events happened. Right after the Columbine shootings, where 12 students and 1 teacher were killed, while injuring 24 others, people attacked the right to bear arms. The media along with most people in the United States jump to the fact that guns are to blame for all fatal shootings. Yes, guns are used in many situations where people die but so are other types of weapons. What if the shooting at VT came in the form of a bombing, or that of a fire? Who is to say what the sick individual who committed these crimes was thinking. He was a complete psychopath. I know it may wrong to say, but there are many different ways to commit such a sick and twisted crime that occurred on the campus of Virginia Tech. All I am trying to say is that; if the shootings came in another form, the media would be covering this story in a totally different way. Instead of gun control, the media would be jumping on the fact that a person was able to obtain bomb making materials. I guess it is easy for me to say this in hindsight, but is the way I feel.

I am in no way trying to belittle the events that unfolded at Virginia Tech. I feel horrible for the students and family involved. Whenever a situation like this occurs however, the media attacks the most vulnerable target; in this case the sales of guns. I do not agree with this and I think the media should let nature take its course, and put all the pieces of the puzzle together before they start to point fingers.

VTech Media Scapegoat

The shooting that occurred last Monday has shocked the nation, but the media feels the need to take advantage of that and pass out blame where they believe it is due when they should simply be reporting on the conditions of the victims and honoring their memories. All they seemed to be interested in early on was finding some random students that didn’t even know the victims or the perpetrator and interviewing them. Later on they attempted to blame the school for the crisis since the media always has to have a scapegoat.

Couldn’t it just be that nobody was to blame for this incident since it has no real precedent in US History (in that he had a documented history of mental illness)? This young man was obviously mentally ill but there have been several mentally ill people all over the US that have never shot anyone and actually ended up turning out okay with the help of some counseling. I think the state of Virginia probably should have had a law that prevented people who have been diagnosed as mentally ill in a court of law from obtaining a firearm (it could be added to their background file since every firearm sale through a dealer requires the dealer to call the FBI to give the okay for the transaction to take place), but if they had done that then he probably would have just found another way to kill a bunch of people. Some people in this country are just mentally unstable, and all we can really do is try to detect the problem and assist them as early as possible. This could just as easily happen here at UNH or any college campus around the US, and there are mentally ill people all over the country. Maybe if everyone would just be kind to everyone around them there would be less outcasts in society that end up becoming mentally ill or violent towards their peers.

Overall I just think that the media needs to give the people that were involved in the tragedy at Virginia Tech and their loved ones some time to grieve and recover to a degree, since they will probably never fully recover from an atrocity like this. Maybe they could’ve just given it a week or two before they started playing the blame game, but that’s what the media is all about: finding the scapegoat.

Give them time to grieve...

It has been just about 36 hours since tragedy struck the Virginia Tech campus and it has taken less time than that for the media to want to place blame for the tragic events. Innocent students lost their lives, families have been torn apart and a campus has been shattered. The first priority of the media should be to cover what happened and to seem sympathetic. But in reality the media is criticizing the decisions the university made, and not paying attention to what really matters.

When I first heard about the events I was shocked. I didn't know what to think and was a little unnerved. If it could happen there, what's stopping it from happening at UNH. As the news of the shooting first broke details were scattered. There were conflicting reports of the number of dead and injured. As time passed the numbers were cleared up and in the end a total of 33 people were dead and at least another 29 were injured. As I watched the news in awe I began to question the motive behind the interviews. During a press conference with the Chief of Police reporters were asking if the bodies were still inside the buildings, and and other unnecessary questions. Questions like those were not mattered at that point in time. People were mourning and did not need to know that their loved one could still be inside.

Over the course of the day, the manner in which the media covered the tragedy seemed to change. The attention switched from the number of casualties to why the university didn't do certain things. They questioned the manner in which the lock down was administered and how the off campus students were alerted. While flipping through the channels, I landed on WMUR News 9 and noticed that they were doing a story on the nor'easter, and no mention on the massacre that had occurred. I found this odd and continued to watch it. Fifteen minutes went by and still no word of the tragic events that were unfolding. This surprised me because WMUR is normally really good about covering breaking news.

What happened on the campus of Virginia Tech is awful. Words can not describe how I feel about this. It deeply saddens me, and makes me wonder what could make someone knowingly murder 32 people and injure another 29. My thoughts and prayers go out to all those affected by this tragedy.

People Want to Know Why

It has been barely a day since the deadliest massacre to ever hit the United States shattered the rural campus of Virginia Tech yesterday morning. 32 lives are lost, and the survivors want to know why. Last night reporters were already trying to place the blame on the school for not shutting down the campus earlier, which I personally think is way to early to do. Today though, it seems that the media is changing a bit. Now that people are aware who the single person that created so much devastation is, they want to know what kind of individual is capable of such a thing, and could it of been prevented. "The Psychology of Mass Murder" from MSNBC suggests that the only answer science has found to this question is shadows and darkness, misfiring neurons and psychic pain. Those who knew the gunman Cho Seung-Hui, a 23 year English Major, described him as depressed, erratic and a violent individual. Yahoo News!'s article "VA Tech Gunman Writings Raised Concerns" states that he was a loner who rarely talked to anyone. In Cho's creative writing classes, some alarms were raised. Professor Carolyn Rude, the Chairman of the English department said that "Cho's writing was so disturbing that he was referred to the counseling center" Still though, authorities are not really sure what could of set him off, and how do u know who is going to become a school shooter and who is just a troubled individual. The school tried to get Cho counseling, but you can't force someone to be helped if they don't want to be.

What happened at Virginia Tech was absolutely horrible and it makes me sick to think about. For the most part I think the media has been doing a good job of covering this event. I'm glad that at least it seems that as more of the facts start to come out, the media is taking a more rational approach to try and look at the person who committed this act and to reflect more on the victims and heroes of that day. It has only been a one day, the shock is barely fading and reality is just starting to set in for these people. There will be plenty of time for the media to make accusations, for now the media should do its best to let people heal, and the answers will come with time.

A Tragedy For The History Books:

Yesterdays’ events struck the American people and media with utter shock. ('You Caused Me to Do This') were some of the words left in a note from the killer Cho Seung-Hui. A legal immigrant to the US was said to have displayed warning signs for being unstable. The gunman had been recommended for counseling services by one of his English professors for the fact that some of his (writings raised concerns). This man was a loner and clearly noteworthy after his creative writings made it all the way to the chairman of the English department, despite never having had him as a student for his alarmingly vivid and disturbing writing pieces. He was in fact described by one of his professors’ as “troubled”.

He bought the (massacre gun) one of his weapons a 9mm glock for $571 just 3 short days before opening fire and killing 32 people. "He was as cordial as could be, and there was nothing unusual in his manner that suggested any thing wrong," Markell said that the pawn shop owner that sold Cho the gun. Prior to this event the deadliest campus shooting in U.S. history was a “rampage that took place in 1966 at the University of Texas at Austin, where Charles Whitman climbed the clock tower and opened fire with a rifle from the 28th-floor observation deck. He killed 16 people before he was shot to death by police.”

Coincidently Tuesday is a current event day in the eighth grade classes that I intern with, today much like the media the only topic that we could talk about was the shooting. The students in my classes, are well spoken children and seem very aware of what is going on around them; all of them seemed to come to the same point as I have which is, why? What is the motive? (Could Many of the Deaths Have Been Averted?) This is what remains, are those questions. The idea has been thrown out there on several news programs that the President of VT is to blame for his unwillingness to cancel classes after the first incident. I imagine that UNH in the same situation would have the same fate and this is not a matter for details of the Presidents action, but rather one for the educational system itself and for the future how much freedom is too much freedom when we think in terms of college campus's.

Furthermore, this morning on ‘Good Morning America’ they had some of the family members of the dead students. My sentiments are it is too soon for such interviews, but nevertheless it was nice to hear about the victims and their lives, such as a professor that was killed and him being a holocaust survivor. Ryan Stack one of the victims had his sister and brother talking about him this morning, it was truly amazing they were able to keep there composure and talk about this seemingly amazing young man that was a triple major at VT. (Lives Lost -- Portraits of Grief). This is a disturbing tragedy that hits close to all of us at UNH and across the states that are in college; this is supposed to be the “time of your life” as some say. President Bush said it best, "Our nation grieves with those who have lost loved ones at Virginia Tech…We lift them up in our prayers and we ask a loving God to comfort those who are suffering."

Virginia Tech Tragedy

It’s 24 hours after the Virginia Tech shooting and we don’t know much more than we did yesterday. Although police have made a preliminary id of the shooter, this has not been released by officials yet. Americans are on the edge, wondering who he is, if he was a student and why he would shoot all of those innocent students.

One of the focuses of media coverage in this story is the fact that Virginia Tech, didn’t take enough action to protect its students, while the other issue being brought up is gun control. One New York Times article said that “the university did not evacuate the campus or notify students of that attack until several hours later.” This has been a problem for many students. It is important that they feel safe and that everything that can be done to protect them,is done. Reports like this are often followed with the university’s president Charles Steger, saying “Today, the university was struck with a tragedy that we consider of monumental proportions” and the campus police chief Wendell Flinchum’s quote “we acted on the best information we had at the time.” Both of these statements may be true, but I don’t think it is going to stop all of the controversy that is will arise, since the only notification, after the 7:15 a.m. shooting, came two hours later and it apparently didn’t seem serious enough to readers. One student said that he read it and it seemed like the university had the situation under control.

This is a tragic, but interesting story for the media. Hopefully, the real story of these students will not be lost because of issues like gun control and finding fault in Virginia Tech officials for not letting students know what was going on. While these issues should be raised and are important in preventing a future incident like this, right now I think the focus should be on the people who have suffered from this disaster.

To the students of Virginia Tech, our hearts, thoughts, and prayers are with you.

Mass Shooting In VA

Today as New Hampshire residents woke up to their own small nightmare; vast flooding and power outages, students at Virginia Tech were fighting for their lives. This morning, around 7:15 an unidentified gunman opened fire at West Ambler Johnston Hall. At 9:15, the gunman resurfaced at Norris Hall, an engineering building nearby. At 9:50 an email was sent to students by university police informing them that there was a shooting; police are investigating and to stay inside and away from windows. VTTimeline

Virginia Tech, a school of 25,000 issued this announcement on its home page. "Two shooting incidents on campus today have left 33 dead. Thirty-one, including the gunman, died at Norris Hall; two died at West Ambler Johnston Hall. Fifteen other victims from Norris are being treated at area hospitals." VTHomepage

Many are now wondering what went wrong? Why was there such a lapse in time between the first and second shooting. Virginia Tech President Charles Steger when asked why he didn't lock down the school replied,""Where do you lock them down?"
"You can only make a decision based on the information you know at that moment in time. You don't have hours to reflect on it." PressRelease

Many students are rightfully upset over the obvious lack of emergency plan the University had in place. However a massacre this catastrophic has never occurred before so the school was unprepared. The massacre at Virginia Tech has now been identified as the deadliest shooting in the United States. DeadliestInHistory

I hope that this becomes an eye opener for all universities across the country. Every school including UNH should have a plan in place to respond to a shooting. The trend over the last 15 years is horrifying; a disaster plan needs to be in place to try and save as many lives as possible.

To close here are some statements made by VT students. What they say is more important than anything I have posted above.

“He didn’t say a single word the whole time,” said Trey Perkins. “He didn’t say get down, he didn’t say anything. He just came in and started shooting.”

“There was blood pretty much everywhere. It’s just completely unreal … so hard to describe,”

“It seemed so strange,” Erin Sheehan reportedly said. “Because he peeked in twice, earlier in the lesson, like he was looking for someone, somebody, before he started shooting. But then we all heard something like drilling in the walls, and someone thought they sounded like bullets. That's when we blockaded the door to stop anyone from coming in.”
MSNBCStatements

Our thoughts and prayers are with you.

Reporting the Virginia Tech shootings; history, grief and under the microscope of viewers

So when I woke up to the wind-ridden stretching of my window screen this morning and found out classes were cancelled, I turned on the television at 10 a.m. to MSNBC to receive the tragic news of the Virginia Tech school shootings. I felt compelled to watch the coverage all day on the tube and Internet, and blog right after the print got to their deadlines.

This is monumental news, marking this event the deadliest school shooting (college, high school or elementary) in U.S. history. This is also the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history, according to MSNBC.

At this point by 6 18 p.m. today the death toll is 33 on MSNBC. They report the shootings took place at two different locations on campus set about 2 hours apart from each other starting during the early morning commute.

By 1:30 p.m. the report came in about the death toll reaching 21, and 21 wounded. Before 3:00 p.m. the death toll came up to 31.

MSNBC also reported by 6:18 p.m. that the shooter had shot himself, in the head, closing that question.

According to the Washington Post article by 6 p.m., law enforcement authorities, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the shooter used two 9mm pistols.

The shootings, which included both students and staff members, took place at West Ambler Johnston, a dormitory, and Norris Hall, which houses the College of Engineering, at opposite ends of the sprawling campus. Authorities said the first shooting was reported shortly after 7 a.m. at the dorm and the second about two hours later at Norris Hall. (Post)

The television programs (Headline News, CNN, MSNBC) were round the clock at keeping information relative. Although, the reporting you watched went right back to crisis mode competition to get the facts straight. The Internet reports by staff writers were more aesthetic and accurate after hitting refresh constantly.

It is interesting to see how each online article, which is constantly being updated and followed up on hour-by-hour, is presented in writing.

The television reports give you more of the bare bones and visual appeal of the coverage. However, it is more evident among the words, the style at which each writer writes.

The Post’s writer started the lead with the death toll number, followed with paragraphs on the shooter’s brief information, and then a couple paragraphs in detail about the locations of the shootings and a witness’ account. More information followed, such as the history of school shootings in America, such as this being eight days before the April 20, 1999 Columbine massacre. Also, facts that the governor of Virginia decided to leave his business trip in Japan today to come back to the Commonwealth.

The MSNBC report began with a similar lead about the death toll and the “5 Ws”. However, their following paragraphs went into depth about the victims, Columbine and fact that students in the dorms did not receive first warning emails until the gunman had struck a second time.

This makes me so scared about how this could happen at any college, leaving us so vulnerable to being taken out by some psychotic, depressed lunatic.

According to the New York Times article by 6:40 p.m. tonight, they reported in their lead about the death toll as being 32, not 33.

I want to write more, but I feel this topic is going to be talked about very soon. I need this to be posted.

Our reliability on the news, such as 9/11, Hurricane Katrina and this event (probably the biggest of 2007 thus far), continues to be marginalized and more wide spread. Picking your outlet, and who you believe, is the only strategy on this one.

The Magazine Struggle and a New Attempt

Today in the business section of the New York Times, an article entitled “In a Troubled Time, a New Business Magazine” managed to capture my attention. Even though the subject matter relates more so to what we talked about at the beginning of the semester, I still felt that it was interesting to see the problems that magazines are facing from the business world perspective. The piece addressed a daring move to introduce a new business magazine called Portfolio by the company Conde Nast that will take an innovative approach to presenting business focused stories.

One manner in which they choose to change the media medium was by adding a huge amount of advertisements. According to the article, out of the 335 pages that make up Portfolio, 185 of those pages are filled by advertisements. I know advertisements are vital to the survival of magazines, but I become incredibly discouraged when I find that a magazines mostly consists of ploys for selling material instead of actual stories, therefore I tend to not buy those types of magazines. Yet, this mass amount of advertisement is what has the editors of the paper so incredibly excited. Compared to other business magazines, Portfolio has managed to grab a large number of interested investors, many of whom would not typically buy placement in a business magazine. It seems that they hope this surge of investors will breathe new life into the magazine industry, especially in the business sector.

This new interest has the editors changing the formatting of not only the magazine itself, but the website as well. The site has interactive features, streaming videos, blog spaces – many attractive features that will enrapture a widespread online reader community. Since the magazine is focused on groups of individuals with large amounts of money and possible investment opportunities, they are bound to be technology savvy and apt to use the online version of Portfolio. Through the use of their internet site, I agree that these editors have found the key to magazine success. Through this new media, the magazine staff expands itself past the simple paper world, touching with a base in the business sphere who may feel they do not have the time to flip through paper magazine version, but are more than willing to infosnack on the website which contains the same exact material as the paper version – for free. In the long run, mastering online as a media medium will help save struggling newspapers, giving them a second chance.

Imus is nothing compared to Nancy Grace

For those who haven't heard about the three, Duke lacrosse, team members accused of raping a black woman, they were recently found innocent of the rape charges. This is not the aspect I am going to focus on, however. With every injustice, there seems to be the King/Queen Justice there to condemn all those, who think otherwise, to hell. In this case, the Queen Justice was Nancy Grace.

Explanations will follow after you watch this: (trust me, it's worth it and very applicable to the recent events related to Imus)

For those that didn't want to watch it because you hate/don't trust me, it is a video clip of someone who actually SHOULD make an apology, get fired, impaled, and left rotting over a big bridge as an example.

It is a clip of Nancy Grace accusing the three lacrosse team members of rape, on unfounded evidence and just good old-fashioned Campbell's stupidity, literally making those poor college students' lives a living hell. All she did, on her show, was rant incessantly and boldly because "the victim is always right". What ended up happening the day after when they were found innocent was that she had someone SUBSTITUE HOST for her. That meant she had too much pride to at least apologize for her inane behavior.

So how does this relate to Imus? If you haven't found the parallel yet, allow me to connect the proverbial dots for you. Imus was in a different situation where he didn't have to apologize, but he did. And he got fired for it. If Nancy Grace doesn't get fired for causing distress (being accused of rape is some serious fandango), then I will call sexism into play. The door swings both ways.

The difference between US and International News

While trying to find a news story that caught my attention to write about here, I stumbled across what seemed to me to be a trend. I had a feeling that the Imus issue would be discussed already so I checked out the world news section. What caught my attention was the themes of all the top stories in both the World and US sections. The U.S. section seems to always have stories varying in subject matter, but the World news appeared to have one common thread, death.

Practically every story in the world news section had a byline with the words killed, death or slain in them. At first I didn't think anything of it due to the ongoing war and violence plaguing the region, but then I thought about it some more. There must be other things going on in the world outside of the United States other than death. Is this the influence of the media? Do Americans really only want to know about how many people were killed during a suicide bomb? Or are we just not told of other things for various reasons?

I think the answers to these questions is yes to an extent. I believe that the media as an entity picks up on what people want to hear about and covers said stories. The media alone does not have the power to say what it will and will not cover. They cover anything from war, weather and women. I feel that if the American public showed an interest in what the newest scientific findings were in China, the media would cover them. However, I think that maybe the government plays a role in what is shown. The current president wants us all to be for the war in Iraq, and therefore I feel that he may be indirectly supporting the stories of murders and bombings in an attempt to gain support for his cause.

There is death and murder in the United States every day as well, but it is not the only thing we hear about. The every day occurrences abroad are just as important as those on the home front. If we want to be aware of what is going on in the world, the media should do a better job at covering occurrences other than death and murder.

Watch Out -- The Media Can Get You

As I'm sure most everybody has heard, CBS radio has just fired its long-time radio personality, Don Imus, for making a racial, sexist comment about the Rutgers women's basketball team. Since the comment was made Imus has been all over the media, with various people, including Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson, calling on CBS to take him off the air. Apparently, the media pressure has worked, and Imus is now out of a job. This begs the question: if the media had not jumped on this issue and discussed it to such great (and often obnoxious) length, would Imus still have gotten the boot?

It is probably an impossible question to answer, because the media was going to have a field day with this issue no matter what. However, it is interesting to see how many other celebrity-type figures have been hurt by excessive media coverage of something they have said or done. It is obvious that we live in a time where if you say something wrong or offensive, the media is going to pick up on it very quickly and likely ruin your reputation/career in no time. I am certainly not saying that I disagree with any of this, because personally I feel that what Don Imus said was in very poor taste and he deserved to lose his job, especially knowing that this was not the first time he has said something of this nature. What is interesting is how much of a role the media has played in his downfall, and the fall from grace that many other prominent people have received as well.

Michael Richards, for example ("Kramer" on Seinfeld), was also publicly reprimanded not long ago for his racist remarks during one of his comedy acts. This got a massive amount of media coverage and sparked much discussion and debate on racism in America and our rights to free speech, just as the Imus case has. In both of these cases, the media played a crucial role in broadcasting these remarks and stirring up debate over them. Even for beloved TV characters like Kramer, the media that one day loves them can just as easily turn on them. This just goes to show that the media can be a fickle friend, and that nothing gets by it unnoticed.

Ultimate Big Brother

Closed circuit video cameras are placed all over the city of London. These cameras pan across anything from streets, subways and shops to parks or right outside of an apartment on a busy London street. The cameras are monitored by staff members and “it allows the person behind the lens, to now verbally correct someone if they step out of line.”

The story on Foxnews.com showed many examples of people being corrected on the streets of London. In one instance, a woman flicked a cigarette butt on the ground, and then a staff member controlling the camera happened to see it. He went over the loud-speaker and described what the women was wearing and what she had done. The voice then nicely asked for her to pick up the cigarette butt and dispose of it accordingly. This particular incident is one of hundreds that happens everyday in London that the eye in the sky will catch.

London has over four million of these “security cameras” which are all on twenty-four hours of the day, seven days a week. Britain has become “security camera mad” says Nicolas Thompson, head editor for Wired Magazine. It is not too much of a shock to me that London has taken security to such a high level, with the implications of these new camera systems. London, along with the United States, has been under a state of emergency, ever since the 911 Attacks. However, London has experienced more attacks of terrorism within the past year.

I can stand with having security cameras keeping an eye on things throughout the city, but I would now what a camera telling me what to do. These cameras even tell people to step off the grass and step onto the side-walk. This is the ultimate version of Big Brother. Security cameras are great for catching people doing something illegal such as robbing a bank, mugging someone on the street or even to the extend of traffic violations. But telling people to throw away cigarette butts; I think it is a little drastic. I know you are all thinking; it’s a great idea because it keeps people safe and helps keep the environment reasonably clean. But imagine this verbal system coming to the United States. I think people would have a totally different view of this system. Imagine walking to class you take out a piece of gum and casually toss the wrapper to the side, because you know you do it. Then out of the blue comes a voice singling you out, asking you to go back to retrieve your litter, and throw it into the garbage can. Not only is it annoying and embarrassing, it’s a waste of money. The average security camera costs anywhere from 500 to 1000 dollars, now add that onto full time employees that have to monitor these said cameras. That is a lot of money. So basically London has hired a new high-tech system of police. What the point of having police if everything can be handled through a camera and micro-phone? And the reason is, is that it can’t. Video cameras may be able to tell people to throw trash away, and catch the occasional robber, but it can never take over the job of a trained law enforcement officer.

This story does not quite tie into how the media portrayed this particular story. However, the media would have a field day with the “talking cameras” if they ever came to the United States. The only thing good to come from this would be a new Fox comedy series showing how stupid people really are when they think no one is watching. But hey, that’s my opinion.