Acts of Journalism Revisited

An interesting topic that has been brought to attention in class as well as the discussion board has been that of “acts of journalism”. As of late, there seems to be a fine line between a journalist versus anyone else who deems an event worthy of discussion and sharing. In the Frontline Series “News Wars” a number of individuals are interviewed see this issue very differently. Creator of the incredibly popular blog The Daily Kos, Markos Moulitsas, expressed that people no longer want to be passively involved with the news any longer – people are too educated and wish to be the ones contributing to the news networks, not simply sitting back and watching as mainstream media feeds the information along. On the other hand, the former editor of the Los Angeles Times Jason Carroll expressed concern that the crucial investigative methodology of journalists is being stamped out by individuals who “report” without any knowledge or training on how to go about retrieving appropriate information and facts. Yet, despite all the debate arising around these two sides of “acts of journalism”, I do not feel that there needs to be a clear black and white defined between the opinions, or that a defined line could even be drawn.

Both sides can have a lot to learn and to take from individuals who would rather be involved in news reporting, even if they do not have a degree to back up what they wish to convey. There are a number of people who may simply be passing by somewhere and an event may occur at that instant where that individual could take a picture when a professional news crew is simply not on hand. That person has an opportunity then to present that information to the world if they so desire. Even mainstream media organizations have recognized the potential for this information source. For example, on the BBC World News page is posted a “Contact Us” link with the captioning “Help us make the news, with your pictures, views, and stories”, specifically requesting people to contribute to the news. Yet, do “real” journalists take advantage of this input and extort it in a manner, without paying an individual for the information? A reporter in any agency could pick up a story via call-ins or even perusing blogs online, then go out themselves and perhaps claim the story as their own original idea without any regards to the individuals or places who tipped them off. Perhaps there is some official code in journalism against doing an act like that, such as a requirement to reference the obscure source somehow, or else not. Either way, I would not find it hard to believe that such a method is one manner that some reporters create their articles and reports. If everyday non-reporters are able to beat professionals to the punch, then hats off to them – but only if they are able to do so intelligently and thoroughly.

That thought frog leaps into the concerns of legitimate journalists. Yes, people can report on anything and everything they want online or even through alternate forums, but the lack of credentials is bothersome. There are many educated people who are willing to put in the time and effort to creating legitimate blog pieces that are encompassing and thorough, but on the other hand exist individuals who thread all of their “research” together with personal bias and headstrong opinions. For inexperienced readers browsing through online blogs, who is able to tell the difference between someone who has committed serious time to their piece with intelligence and lack of bias, versus the latter individual who can quite easily lead others astray who may relate on a personal basis to the author’s opinions. Just because common ground exists on a piece does not mean that the information is accurate and trustworthy. From that fear, I can understand why an educated professional reporter would take that information and then delve into the situation correctly and with the methodology that they have been trained to use, evolving a much more reasonable piece of news. Some bloggers maybe working subjectively, but that does not mean all of them are, and that is why real journalists are important, their work still very much relevant and needed. I feel that this shows neither side can be discredited – both the reporter and “fake” reporter have much to offer the public, let alone to one another.

You Tube: The Army Version

Just this week, the war in Iraq has entered into a new medium, namely, the internet. The US Army has just launched its own You Tube site, called Multi-National Force, Iraq. This site was created in an attempt to counter an increasingly high number of propaganda videos put out by Iraqi insurgents and terrorists, says an article on IraqSlogger.com, an Iraq war news website. On the Media also recently featured a segment on this new instrument in the war on terror, in which they interviewed US Army Major Armando Hernandez, "media outreach embed chief for the multinational forces in Iraq (OTM)." In this interview, many noteworthy points are brought up.

One thing that I found very interesting, and I was actually a little surprised that it was admitted so freely, was how filtered each of the videos are that the Army posts. To quote Hernandez directly, he said that "The things that we will reject is any video containing profanity, sexual content, extreme gore, operational security violations, mockery of host country or third-country nationals or any footage that depicts the coalition and Iraqi forces in a poor light (OTM)." I understand the reasons for putting all of these restrictions on the videos that ultimately make it onto the internet, but I didn't expect for the Army to blatantly admit that the videos are so one-sided and are meant to produce a specific reaction. It is an open admission of propaganda and even details how they create it by only posting videos that fit a certain mold. I am glad, however, that the Army is openly disclosing their process for choosing the videos, and even though they are so filtered, it is refreshing to hear someone so honestly describe it.

Another thing that struck me about the new You Tube site is how it sort of seems to be a spin-off of The War Tapes, the documentary-like film of videos compiled by US soldiers in Iraq and produced in 2003. This new Army You Tube site does a similar thing by putting cameras in the hands of the soldiers and having them film whatever they choose to. However, with The War Tapes, they were not edited according to the same criteria, and were meant simply to show what it is like to be a soldier in Iraq. I am curious to see how these two sets of Iraq war videos will compare with each other, and what the reaction will be as to their comparisons.

So far, the Army You Tube site is still in its infancy, and so it will take some time before we see its real effects and can better judge its pros and cons. It seems to be very popular, however, with over 54,000 views already (OTM). What I am interested in is how people will react to this new take on You Tube. What are your opinions?

What Is Iran Trying To Do?

The detention of 15 British Sailors and Royal Marines by the Iranian government has created a lot of media coverage due to its high profile nature. The question of the matter is what the Iranian government is trying to accomplish by doing this. The Iranian foreign minister claimed that the British had violated their borders six times and finally decided to capture them and put an end to it, the truthfulness of which British officials dispute. There is also a worldwide outcry against Iran, who seems to be on a mission to upset the countries allied with the United States in Iraq. The British even asked the UN Security Council to issue a statement that would deplore the actions of Iran, but apparently it may face some trouble from Russia and others that believe the Iranians. The Iranians appear to be attempting to show that they can do what they please and the US and Britain can’t or won’t do anything about it, but it appears that Britain may be prepared to take further action (to a “different phase”) if the Iranians will not comply with their request for the release of all of the troops.

The Iranians have been airing video of the captured British sailors and marines on their national TV station and clips of these have been played on many news networks around the United States and the world. These show some of the sailors confessing their crimes and speaking of how well they were being treated, which they were undoubtedly forced to say. The broadcast of these videos have upset people within the British government, who have called for them to be stopped immediately. It is unclear if Iran is simply acting tough or trying to provoke a war, but hopefully it is the former rather than the latter.

Beggers can't be choosers with smokers

On the global front of bans for smoking in public places, would it ever cross your mind that you could be banned from lighting up - driving your car.
The Associated Press (AP) came out with New Delhi court: Don't smoke and drive yesterday, revealing the recklessness of driving in other countries, and the concern for people’s health.
"Anything that distracts the attention of driver is dangerous. The human mind cannot do two things simultaneously," said New Delhi's traffic commissioner Qamar Ahmed, welcoming the ruling, which goes into effect April 9 and only covers New Delhi, a city of 14 million people.
Those caught smoking at the wheel would pay 1,500 rupees (US$32; euro25), a hefty fine by local standards. Offenders caught more than five times would have their license revoked, the court said. The same fines apply to using a mobile phone and the less well-defined offense of "dangerous driving." (AP)
European countries mostly do not have smoking bans while driving. However, a few countries, like Ireland, and some states are considering imposing bans. Vermont is considering a blanket ban for anything associated with distracting you while driving - smoking, eating, reading, drinking etc.
I first viewed the article as focusing more heavily on smoking bans and the issue around it, but it pertained more to dangerous driving conditions and the history of its bans.
The smoking ban in D.C. back in 2007 mirrored that of that New York City smoking ban enacted in 2003. It has been proven that a year after the ban in New York, restaurants and surrounding businesses were thriving ever more.
I feel that these bans are a great success, even though separate smoking rooms for those smokers is a more plausible solution. No matter how you cut it, smoking is social and has always been accepted in public. I don’t smoke, but you know there will be smokers in America for a very long time.
Although there are more important topics to talk about, I feel as though social issues are always up for news worth.

America's Health Conscience

Everyone knows someone who has suffered the awful feat of battling cancer. It affects everyday life, your health and your family and it seems now everywhere you look, someone else is being diagnosed. Just this week Tony Snow and Elizabeth Edwards announced that their previously beaten cancer was back, and in Tony Snow's case, back with a vengeance. In a emotional and at times tearful briefing made Tuesday morning, Snow explained to the American public that his colon cancer was back. At his previously scheduled 10 week checkup, doctors found a mass in his abdomen. While in surgery to remove to mass, doctors found the cancer had metastasized to his liver. Briefing. In true American style Snow promised that he will not let the cancer bring him down, "I'm going to beat it again." Bush in an address to the press March 27th, asked Americans to "Pray for him, and his family." Bush's Well Wishes. White House spokeswoman and friend to Snow, Dana Perino was visibly upset at the press conference but managed to say that Snow asked her to pass on to the reporters his wish for privacy, "Tell them not to bug me." I only hope that his wishes are respected as he gathers up strength to begin his fight.Perino.

Meanwhile also in Washington Democrat John Edwards announced that his wife Elizabeth's breast cancer had returned and spread to her bones, making her cancer treatable, but incurable. However, they both decided that his campaign for presidency should continue which has been viewed by Americans as courageous and yet also selfish. In an article by the San Fransisco Chronicle Edwards answered some hard questions about his future plans in his run for the presidency."They will have to evaluate what my ability is to focus and make decisions,'' Edwards said. "This will provide an opportunity to make that evaluation, and I'm completely confident I can do that.'' (Edwards speaking about Americans deciding whether or not he will make a good president while dealing with his wife's health issues). San Fransisco.
All over the political websites and blogs, discussion is going on about the recent interview on 60 minutes with Katie Couric. Both Edwards and his wife appeared on the show and answered what critics are calling tough and somewhat unfair questions. Couric asked the Edwards how people at home watching this might be thinking, "I would put my family first always, and my job second." And you're doing the exact opposite. You're putting your work first, and your family second." Edwards replied, "First of all, there's not a single person in America that should vote for me because Elizabeth has cancer. Not a one. If you're considering doing it, don't do it. Do not vote for us because you feel some sympathy or compassion for us. That would be an enormous mistake. The vote for the presidency is far too important for any of those things to influence it".
Edwards ended the interview with this closing statement:
And if you ask me today, whether I'm in this campaign for the duration, the answer to that question is, "Yes." 60 Minutes Interview
I'll end this by saying its going to be an interesting race!

Disturbing Images Appearing on You Tube

Where do you go when you want to waste some time and view some entertaining videos? Why You Tube of course! However, You Tube is not all fun and games anymore. Anti-American propaganda has been popping up all over the website. These videos contain chilling images of United States soldiers being killed in action. Jihad extremists are believed to be the ones who have been posting the recent videos. Most of the images are very graphic; soldiers’ bodies being burned, soldiers shown being shot in the head and even some executions of people. Watch the story here.

Anyone can put up a post on You Tube. The only thing that is stopping people from putting up these types of videos is whether or not they have internet access. You Tube is a virtual bulletin board service, and videos are just uploaded onto the site for anyone, of any age, to view. Videos that display the deaths of United States soldiers should not be allowed to be posted. However, the people who are posting these images do have certain rights. Mark Rasch, former Justice Deputy Prosecutor for computer security, states that “You Tube has terms of use and terms of service. They say (You Tube) that anything that insights violence or insights criminality; they will remove.” I guess the videos cannot just be simply removed, because that would mean You Tube was signaling out the Jihad members. I believe that the videos should be removed from the website, because they promote violence and criminal acts. How obvious do the videos have to be? Images of soldiers being shot is enough to prove that the videos promote violence. Mark Rasch goes on to say that You Tube should “remove these images, because it is the right thing to do.”

I think it pretty outrageous that You Tube has not taken immediate steps in removal of these videos. When a video is sent to a news station, like CNN or Fox, it is the stations choice whether or not they air the image. You Tube on the other hand does not edit or view the videos that are submitted on a daily basis leaving them unaccountable for the images that the site presents. You Tube will remove certain videos if complaints arise, but it must be a good reason to why they have to remove the video.

I think the media has a responsibility to the people who are viewing the content. You Tube is now considered to be a major figure in the mass media, and videos like these are totally unacceptable. These videos do not provide any real sense of information; but only that of crude images of soldiers’ deaths. I think You Tube should take responsibility for what is shown on their website. Because if these videos are found “acceptable”, then what is next? The line has to be drawn at some point, and I believe this is good place to start.

Do States Owe an Apology for Slavery?

Although slavery was abolished hundreds of years ago, it seems that it is still a topic that is continually popping up in the media today. The latest issue has been whether or not the states within the US that participated in slavery should now issue a formal apology for it. This is creating much controversy and being reported on by news sources such as The New York Times, CNN, and most recently in Time Magazine. This past Monday, Maryland became the second state to officially seek atonement for slavery. Virginia was the first. The House of Delegates officially approved a measure, already passed by the senate to express their profound regret for the role the state played in instituting and maintaing slavery and its legacy. Many people who are not black though are saying that they do not believe that they should have to apologize for something they did not do. Virginia legislator Frank Hargrove has even gone as far to say that "black citizens should get over slavery". The repercussions of slavery though have affected many black people even up until today. Once slavery was abolished there was still a great deal of discrimination in the every day lives of black people as well as in education and attaining jobs. The United States did not do a very good job of converting former slaves to adequate citizens and if you compare rates of achievement, poverty and imprisonment by race today, the black race is still far behind. The legacy of slavery is still afflicting citizens of our nation. Delegate Michael L. Long, who is black, believes that state's owe an apology to help bridge the racial divide. Missouri and Georgia are now considering issuing their own apologies as well as Tennessee. While some still do not believe that an apology is necessary, others agree that an apology is the first step to healing an issue that should of been taken care of a long time ago.

Being a white American, I have not personally experienced the repercussions of slavery. I do though know about the issue and sympathize greatly. Slavery was a horrible thing for our nation to do to its own people, and even though it was abolished, the effects of it never really went away. I understand why some states feel that they do not owe an apology for something that has not taken place in their lifetime, but the repercussions have, and are still taking place, and not a lot has ever really been done about it. No apologies have ever been made and I think that they should have been a long time ago. Late though, is better then never. Even if it is just a small measure, it could make a lot of people feel a bit better, and that is something.

Traitors In Our Midst (Scooter Libby)

If you're liberal, does that make you unpatriotic? Inversely, does being conservative make you unpatriotic? While these questions could be answered with "no", I'm going to view these as rhetorical, since both sides subconsciously perform rather unpatriotic deeds on a daily basis. The purpose in doing so is to end the "I'm a patriot and you're a traitor because of my political affiliation". You're only a traitor if you do such god awful disservice to our country. Let's continue.

I don't know who started it first, but it's usually the conservatives casting the first stone if opposing arguments does not please them. And the liberals don't help by countering with something similar. To ease the serious ambiance, watch this.
It's Bill Maher with his take on people accusing him of being a traitor. I tried to find a conservative representative's take on the matter, but I couldn't find one. In either case, Maher does a funny rant using the "Scooter" Libby trial as a counter to conservatives questioning his patriotism. The man is being charged with five felonies and Bush wants to pardon him.

It's a bit biased of me to choose a liberal comedian to back up my points, but conservatives are just too easy to pick on because of their stubborn stance on matters. However, Maher's remarks on the Bush Administration, especially the "Scooter" Libby trial involving Valerie Plame are all pulled from the news media; which isn't a partisan attack. There has to come a point where Republicans and Democrats see a piece of news like this and agree: "This is wrong, it shouldn't have happened and someone needs to be punished; not pardoned".

Links of interest:
http://www.scooterlibby.com - A site for proving his innocence.

Two Months and Going Strong:

Anna Nicole Smith died nearly two months ago, on February 8, 2007. The late breaking news on her death is that it was due to an accidental overdose. Every major news station has continued the frenzy by reporting this new information from the medical examiner’s report. Also, that her two personal diaries were sold at action for 500,000. The question that one can raise is why is she still making headlines, why did she before her death? What was it that she did? There have been several stars that have passed away that are far more honorable people who did not made the headlines that this woman has, and if they did it was not to this extent.

On the ABC affiliate Boston’s news channel five, just this morning had a report on her that at the end told people to check out there website for Anna Nicole’s autopsy report, a survey on her baby, and what was in her will. If one was to go to this website (TheBostonChannel.com) then one would be able to see that not only are these stories there with surveys and all, you would also notice that it is not under entertainment news, but rather the main story is under “national news”. When did this happen? When was it that US “national news” involved a dead starlet, rather than the main story on news websites being that of Gonzales aid pleading the fifth to the firing of US attorneys?

In a Fox News opinion poll, 8 in 10 Americans they found feel that the media is overdoing the story. ( FOX News Poll: Anna Nicole Smith). Between Anna’s dead son, her baby, her will, her custody battle, her trouble with drugs, the media continues on and on. Apparently the media is not listening to public. Though it is sad when any young person dies, this has gone far enough. There was another story out there this morning about the largest toad ever found weighing two pounds and as big as a football, and it is far more “entertaining” than that of Anna Nicole’s autopsy report, if that is your sentiments too, than it is recommended that you should check out the toad.

Even within Darfur journalism prevails

Some of the Washington Posts international correspondents really put some zest and feature feel into their stories. "In Darfur, a Journalist Branches Out" really reminds you of the persistence one takes to spread information in times ot war and conflict.

In El Fasher, a town in northern Darfur, a lucky few have the privilege of owning a satellite dish to watch BBC or CNN to know what is going on within the country. The rest who need their fill of information refer to a tree where Awatif Ahmed Isshag, a 24-year-old with an undergraduate degree in economics, posts her own news stories.

She describes journalism as a profession of risk, calling her paper casually “the world paper” but officially it is called Al Raheel. It means “moving”, which since 2003 describes the situation of the 2.5 million displaced within Darfur in refugee camps.

In response, the government armed nomadic tribesmen and launched a campaign of systematic violence. Experts estimate that as many as 450,000 people have died as a result of the fighting, though the government disputes the figure.

The people in her village that pass by the tree where she posts her stories have told her that the find her stories to be trustworthy than the stories issued from their government. She claims to be showing exactly what is happening in Darfur, and after being helped out by foreign officials, she has obtained a printer and fax machine.

"A message to people who are attacking," she said. "Don't send fire, send words. Words connect people."

Post Foreign Service Writer Stephanie McCrummen did a fanatical job of connecting the reader with Isshag’s life and her pursuit to never back down to reveal the truth through words. Despite the negative and depression stories coming out of this country, this one highlights the grassroots struggle within the boundaries.

The Post has an equally interesting special report on the current status in Darfur, with a new story about the crisis and refugees spilling over into Chad by staff writer Travis Fox, and provides some video footage and pictures of the area. These some 15,000 Chadians are barely surviving unsupported from aid by international humanitarian efforts. The written story can be found here.

Acts of journalism and journalism appear to be one in the same when all you have to do is survive the next night to get the word out, and you don’t have an establishment or staff to adhere to.

Onthemedia.org has an interesting interview with editor Brendan O’Neill of the British online journal Spiked about the racism behind the term calling the situation in Darfur a genocide.

What are we really feeding Fluffy?

Over the past week you hear about it everywhere; on the 6 o'clock news, on the radio, and all over the internet. What are we Americans feeding our beloved pets? The everyday cat food most people don't think twice about giving their loving kitties is creating a huge health problem to our fuzzy little friends; organ failure and death.

Although all of the affected food has since been recalled, what can be said for all the people who stock up on their pets favorite flavor? Menu Foods, the company responsible for producing and shipping out millions of cans and pouches of wet cat and dog food has since recalled over 60 million containers of food after 11 animals so far have become sick and died. Channel 7 website provides a complete list of recalled pet foods, codes and descriptions so that people at home who might have stocked up will be able to reassure themselves that the food is OK. This website also shares many sad stories that are becoming more and more familiar as the days pass. Officials in charge of the massive recall stress the importance of having your animal checked out immediately if you suspect any differences in behavior after eating food that may have been affected by the rat poison. (For more information, Recalls).

This story has been heard around the United States and has become so popular that stories are popping up everywhere. Newsweek was among many of popular magazines, television shows, and even local papers who had turned their headlines and attention to this tragic and scary story. (Newsweek)
Our local paper, Fosters Daily Democrat has been running headlines all week about families and their pets who are affected by this horrible problem. It catches the attention of anyone listening, glancing over headlines, or scanning the channels for something interesting to keep their attention.
For some reason, after I just finished the last part of the Frontline series I have really opened my eyes to how the media catches the public eye with human interest stories, or stories that somehow touch us in a way that makes us as humans want to listen and find out more. The way that the media and headlines can influence us floors me, for I never really paid much attention to the media's techniques and strategies before this class. A headline involving animals will most likely catch almost everyone's attention, therefore leading that person to want to pick up that paper and read more, or continue watching that specific channel or listening to that station. Its crazy how it all works. At least with this much publicity I hope many animals are saved due to their "humans" new knowledge about their food.

Tones in Light of Cancer

After our discussion in class about campaign coverage by “free media”, I was intrigued to see how a number of mainstream media players in the Boston area approached the issue of Elizabeth Edward’s announcement of terminal cancer. Through online searches, I found articles addressing the Edwards’ statement by Channel 5 News, Channel 7 News, and WBZ 4 News, all based in Boston. Each news network wrote separate articles, in which a difference in tone can be felt through their method of approach and portrayal in their writing styles.

The Channel 5 News article was entitled “Elizabeth Edwards in Cambridge”, addressing her trip to Boston to visit their daughter who is presently in Harvard Law School. While the visit to Cambridge was the headline, the majority of the article discussed her remission of breast cancer, its terminal diagnosis, and how it would affect John Edward’s opportunity as a presidential hopeful. Yet, the overall tone of the article was positive, bringing up that other candidates have struggled with cancer as an issue in a campaign atmosphere before and not been sidelined, as well as a supportive feeling directed towards Mrs. Edwards’ position.

On the other hand, the Channel 7 News article had a much more foreboding tone for the Edwards campaign. In the article entitled “Campaign pressed forward in the face of cancer, its impact a question”, the writer includes statements such as “Mrs. Edwards' illness injects a new element of uncertainty into the campaign, and political calculations could quickly change should her condition worsen significantly” in addition to “…questioned whether a presidential campaign is the right place for a man with two small children and a wife with cancer.” This shows a tone expression of tension, a feeling that can easily captivate an audience. There was also a degree of hope added when the author suggested that her illness could actually promote positive effects on Edwards’ campaign mission.

In the final article from Channel 4 News entitled “Edwards Faces Political, Personal Battles”, the author decided to take the issue and turn it more into an opportunity to address the trials that accompany fighting the illness, instead of a major discussion on how the sickness would reflect on her husband’s campaign. The issue of the illness’ affect on the campaign was unobtrusively addressed in the articles, with the focus on Mrs. Edwards’ wellbeing taking the lead, creating a feeling of caring and concern, which in the end I believe did a much more effective job of winning over an audiences’ feelings for Mrs. Edwards than any of the other articles managed to accomplish.

The different feelings created in these separate articles elicit various responses from readers. Such stark differences in tones from each of the news networks shows that they are very aware of the manipulative effects of how an issue is described and written has on their audience. In turn they use his knowledge to grab readers in a way the agencies wish their readers to feel. This shows that tone is an incredibly powerful tool used by news networks to create and maintain their overall agenda, whether it is a global view or the agenda of one particular issue.

Sources:

Channel 5 Article
Channel 7 Article
Channel 4 Article

The line between personal business and public knowledge?

I was looking for an event to write about this morning and what I found hit home with me. There have been a number of stories written about the Edwards family within the past few days. The North Carolina democrat, John Edwards, announced Thursday that "his wife's cancer had returned in an incurable form." In a story written by John M. Broder, and Adam Nagourney from the New York Times Edwards stated that "the campaign goes on strongly." While further reading this story I began to think to myself. At what point does this story become an intrusion of privacy?

Edwards is taking part in the Presidential Candidacy for 2008 yes, but in my opinion I feel that there are some things the public should know little about, or know nothing at all about. Of course I realize that people want to know who their candidates are, but to what end? When cancer struck my family I did not want everyone to know about it, and I only told those whom mattered. I know that I wouldn't want the entire world to know. For the Edwards, that is the case. This is something that is going to change Edwards, but I don't see how it will change his campaign. Yes, it might result in the cancellations of events but I really don't see why this has become such a large story.

The media may be thinking that cancer affects a lot of people, and this is why they can cover this in such depth . According to the American Cancer Society an "estimated 211,240 cases of invasive breast cancer" were diagnosed in 2005. This is shocking number and may also contribute to the amount of coverage this unfortunate event has received. I still don't think it needs to be covered so extensively. Even though the Edwards are in the public eye, they still deserve privacy.

The line between public knowledge and private business is a gray one for politicians indeed. People want to know their candidates, but they also deserve the same when it comes to personal issues. We certainly wouldn't want them to know our problems, so why are we so intent on knowing theirs?

"The New You Tube"

During this past year America, along with the rest of the world, has become obsessed with the online sensation known as You Tube. Anyone from around the entire world can post a video about virtually anything they please, from serious news articles, television shows to people singing their hearts out to web-cams. The “You Tube” website is pretty much a hub for people to show and express new ideas via video.

More and more people are getting their news from the internet these days, and “You Tube” is beginning an extremely popular way for people to obtain information concerning the world around them. “You Tube” may not be the most reliable source for news stories, but it keeps people entertained and most importantly it makes money. Last year “You Tube” racked in a staggering 1.65 billion dollars in profit. Not too shabby. However, others want a slice of this money making pie. NBC and News Corporation have announced that they will too make a website that provides “professionally produced video delivered on the sites where they live.”

Unlike “You Tube”, the website in works will provide streaming news feeds and television programs that air on their networks free of charge. NBC and News Corp. will be able to do this by supporting the website via advertisements. Vast amounts of people will be exposed to this new website, which should be available this summer, and some the first things they will see is advertisements. It is basically the internet’s way of showing a commercial. The ads don’t always get in your way of surfing the net, besides some pop-ups, but some ads definitely catch the wandering eyes of many internet goers.

When it comes down to it, people are not going to stray totally away from “You Tube”, because there are too many entertaining videos and hilarious spoofs to be passed up. People want to be entertained as well as absorbing the facts, the new website provided by NBC and News Corps might just be the answer. People can watch whatever news story they want at anytime of the day by simply clicking a mouse. If websites like these continue to emerge, television news may have to take the back seat. The viewers can watch what they want and not have to listen to news stories they have no interest in. Television networks might have to rally up some support and launch their own version of “You Tube”, if they want to be able to compete on the internet. The internet is virtually becoming the “New News” of our lifetime and we may soon see that television network news is no longer viewed and in some instances may be referred to as “Old News”

Blog ID's Clinton Ad Creator

As we were discussing in class, there is quite the debate going on in the media world over whether "acts of journalism" and what we typically think of as "journalism" can be considered equal. Blogs currently seem to be the biggest challengers to the idea that only trained reporters can be considered journalists. In the clip of Frontline (to view the clip, click on part III and watch number nineteen, "The New Universe of Online Media") that we watched in class, we all saw how strongly people on both sides of the issue feel when it comes to the idea that bloggers could be journalists on par with news reporters. Many people believe that unless bloggers do their own original investigating and unearth something previously unknown or talked about, then their writing is not considered journalism.

I therefore thought it was interesting when I read an article on MSNBC about the anti-Hillary Clinton ad that just recently was posted on You Tube, and the article said that the political blog Huffington Post was the first to identify the creator, Phillip de Vellis. In this case, a blog was the first to learn about, and break, an important piece of information. This makes me curious about what those who oppose "acts of journalism" and bloggers as journalists would say about this case. Personally, I feel that this was an act of journalism and that it is certainly on the same level as any other act of journalism performed by a reporter for a paper or news station. It is still best that things posted on blogs be checked for accuracy, since it is less regulated and more opinionated, but I feel that this is an example of the ways in which bloggers can be just as much of a journalist as a professional. For those people who do not believe that bloggers can be considered journalists, what are you opinions on this case?

Sirius and XM merger.

The Washington Post came out with an article on Monday, March 19th that explains the merger between Sirius radio and XM radio. They describe how, by merging, the price for the consumer will be cheaper, and there will be more channels for the consumer to listen to. That is, unless you like C-SPAN. Apparently, C-SPAN (which is now only available on XM radio) will be booted out of the lineup on Sirius radio. C-SPAN's website describes, "We were unable to reach agreement with them for a new contract because they demanded rights for extensive preemption of our channel in order to carry sports programming." I understand C-SPAN is not that interesting to listen to or to watch but I believe it is an integral part of our democracy and media. It may not be considered traditional media but it is the direct, unskewed processes of our legislative branch presented to the people. There are no reporters whether left, right, up or down putting their own spin or their companies spin on what is going on; it just is. The merger is still pending in the Justic Department and the Federal Communications Commission. If it does go through, will C-SPAN be dropped from XM also? In response to C-SPAN being dropped, David Frear, Sirius' company's VP had this to say, [C-SPAN] "was not a highly listened-to channel...We have others that speak to public affairs, including BBC, CNN and Fox News."


Freepress.net puts a comedic spin on the situation, "Clearly, C-SPAN is rarely as titillating as the steady diet of celebrity crap, car chases and Anna Nicole Smith coverage that fills up much of the air time on CNN and Fox. but we would argue that neither CNN nor Fox comes close to the zealously unbiased political and policy coverage offered by C-SPAN, day-in and day-out. The BBC is a little closer, but still light years away."

"As an aside, we don't think it is a very smart tactical move for Sirius to drop the only channel that provides air time to government officials and politicans all day, every day...We suggest that Sirius find some other channel to drop in order to broadcast its sports programming. Otherwise, it should change its name from Sirius to Frivolous."
-Bob Williams, http://www.freepress.net/news/21843

Al Gore's Committee Hearing

Why is it that after all of the testimony of scientists about the reality of global warming some Republican Congressmen and Fox News still seem to think it doesn’t exist and that Al Gore thinks he is above the rules of House committee hearings? That seems to be what they were focusing on in a Fox News article that came out today, titled “Al Gore Urges Congressional Action on Climate Issues”. They started off by bashing Al Gore for showing up late to the hearing, and claimed that he was simply attempting to avoid the opening comments of the Republican Congressmen.

They also were trying to paint a picture of Democratic favoritism by commenting on the waiving of a requirement for the witness to provide the committee with written testimony 48 hours in advance to be sure they know what they are talking about, which seems to be unnecessary due to his obvious wealth of knowledge on the subject. The author also comments that some people still do not believe that humans are affecting climate change, which must be people that have something to lose if it exists or have simply ignored the evidence. They finish the story by writing that “upon arrival at the hearing room in the Rayburn House Office Building, Gore went up to dais and shook hands with Democratic committee leaders, some of whom he served with while a congressman in the 1970s and 1980s.” I’m not sure whether they included this fact simply for the sake of taking up space or in a further attempt to depict Democratic favoritism with regard to Al Gore, but the author of this article definitely wasn’t a big fan of him.

The Media and the War in Iraq

The fourth anniversary of the War in Iraq has just passed, and support for the war has been becoming less and less by the day. As the popular consensus becomes more negative, the news media has a way of exploiting it. How are we supposed to win or be supportive of a war when all we are constantly confronted with are government disappointments and images of death. As the war has changed, the way it has been presented through television has also changed. Four years ago news programs remained optimistic and patriotic in regards to the war. Now they are more skeptical, and it seems that you can't even turn on your TV without seeing images of violence. Even television programs such as "Grey's Anatomy" and "24" are making references to the war. This article from The New York Times even brings up the notion that the concept of people being tortured has been turned into a joke on shows such as "Saturday Night Live".

The media is echoing the public's disappointment with the military and our government. My question to you though is that, if the media has such an influence on public opinion, and the public's opinion is negative which the media mirrors, then isn't it just one big vicious circle? I think that as long as the media keeps on with its non optimistic approach, and the population keeps taking everything the media says word for word, then there will never be any type of peaceful way to get out of this war. I personally don't agree with the war either, but I feel like a little less time should be spent by the media focusing on the mistakes and devastation that have occur ed, and more time should be used to broadcast about how things can be made better for the future. Maybe then the public opinion will start looking up as well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/arts/television/20watc.html

Making A Point: But At What Cost?

Presidential candidate John Edwards has made a decision that will without a doubt cast a cloud on his campaign. "Unfortunate that Sen. Edwards has decided to abandon an opportunity to reach the largest mainstream cable news audience in America."(Fox news vice president)Edwards is going to be missing out on a large block of voters that are going to come to certain assumptions(as they should) by this decision, one does not see any “scheduling conflicts” with the CNN network the “mouthpiece” of the Democratic Party. At any rate, this is a clear example that would make one think that he lacks the ability to be able to defend himself and his campaign vision. Can John not answer the hard questions? This shows a lack of maturity in terms of any presidential candidate that is going to turn down the network that is most watched and primarily composed supposedly of the opposing party, how far will his reach get and how will he gain voters from a strategic move such as this. "There were a number of factors and Fox was one of those. We're already planning to participate in a jam-packed schedule of debates across this country ... we can't attend every single debate and forum,"(Edwards). What I have to say is that had the conservatives had the control over every news network for the past quarter of a century, they too would have forgotten how to debate. I do not want someone as our president that can stand up to a news network such as Fox. If one reporter that is “republican” at Fox, can swing an effect that can topple the combined propaganda of ABC, NBC, CNN, CBS, MSNBC to then effect presidential candidate elections, well than that democrat should give up now. Finally, Fox News currently leads the cable news market in the United States, earning higher points ratings than its chief competitors CNN and MSNBC combined by average viewership. Now unless it was personal, why would a canidate miss out on this oppuritunity to reach voters, shedualing conflict my eye. If Mr.Edwards cannot stand up to Fox then how is he going to fair if made president and faced with actual confrentation as in the case of Iraq?


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/09/politics/main2552920.shtml

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070308/ap_on_el_pr/on_the2008_trail_28&printer=1;_ylt=AurP_NrJE_tdjEm7AFj0mT9h24cAEdwards to skip deba

MySpace for Presidential Candidates

In the New York Times Fashion and Style section on March 18 there was an article entitled “The Future President, on Your Friends List.” This article talks about the implementation of politics on MySpace this week, which will have a focus on the 2008 election. The article says “it will be an online version of a town square, a collection of links to political MySpace pages that will make it easier for the site’s 60 million American users per month…to peruse the personal MySpace pages of, so far, 10 presidential candidates.” I found it interesting that this article was featured in the NYT Fashion and Style section. I think that it was put here because it is, in a sense stylish to be a MySpace user (after all most everyone under 30 is). This story shows how popular MySpace has become and what an extraordinary marketing tool it is. In my opinion this is a very newsworthy story, because the reporter is telling about how political candidates are hoping that this will get the younger generation who don’t normally read or watch the news a new way of accessing important information and hopefully informing them enough about the candidates so that they will want to vote. The fact that younger people aren’t voting has been a problem in the past and this article calls attention to this issue and what is being done about it. The move to MySpace is called “the most notable bid so far to establish a presence in the 2008 race.” The use of this popular internet site to make known presidential candidates, reminds me of the “Merchants of Cool” show we saw in class. The candidates are setting the medium in which young people can access news about politics and in a way they are setting the agenda, but it is ultimately the public on MySpace who will be the agenda setters because they will have the option to add these candidates of deny them. This tool for making candidates known to the younger Americans also reminds me of what Bill Clinton did on MTV when he was running for President. I think it is a great idea and a fabulous way to bring news to those who might not become involved otherwise. Kudos candidates for realizing that its not just the older, upper and middle-class voters who count in elections.

YouTube Strikes Again!

Watch this.

What you see there is an edited Mac commercial with Hilary Clinton as the "Big Brother" image/voice. This commercial is in support of Barack Obama for the 2008 primaries. The Obama campaign denied having the unauthorized commercial to be played.

A lot to think about after Monday's lecture on internet bloggers and YouTube viewers beginning their hostile takeover on media.

I don't have much to add onto this since the link is pretty self-explanatory. I'd just like to say that this was hilarious and sharing it was the best way for me to indulge in anti-Hilary.

“If You Eat Meat, You Hate The Planet”

I guess it’s the classic case of “The Inconvenient Truth” or should I say; “The Inconvenient Meal”. The United Nations (UN) has been on the hot seat for the last few years over the case of global warming, and they have come up with some effective ideas. Hybrid cars, reducing air-pollution and the use of public transportation are all good methods to help reduce global warming. However, the UN has just released a statement “that eating meat causes more global warming than all human transportation combined”.

Pretty bold statement, if you ask me. But there is proof, because the production of meat is done in factories that pump out carbon dioxide (Co2) into the air. The more people eat meat, the higher meat is in demand; which in turn pumps more and more Co2 into the air so people may enjoy the delicious taste of animal flesh. Buying and driving around a hybrid vehicle is not practical for most of the world’s population, due to the fact that they are expensive and require high maintenance. But, giving up meat and becoming a total vegan is more feasible than that of walking everywhere.

I first heard about this story on FOX News, but I didn’t really follow up on it until I saw it again on the internet. “The Glenn Beck Program”, presented this story in quite a humors way. They had the news story above, which gave an over-view of the UN’s statement, but what was pictured below really made the whole story come together. There were eight big pictures of liberal politicians and celebrities alike, all cramming their faces with meat. Wow, I wonder how they are really going to feel about giving up meat for the greater good of the world. I mean, former vice-president, Al Gore is the front man when it comes to the prevention of global warming. Yet he is pictured shoving a double-cheese burger, probably after a screening of his new movie, down his throat. What can Al Gore possible say, now that the UN has released this statement, that eating meat is justifiable to the prevention of global warming?

Americans along with the rest of the world will find that it is not easy to stop eating meat, and most wont stop. Just think, Mr. Gore, the next time you bite into a juicy steak, imagine an enormous chuck of ice breaking off from Antarctica. I will never stop eating meat, because I love it. So when we are all thirty years old and its 78 degrees in January, stop by my neighborhood because I will be on my back porch grilling up some very delicious meats.

Bloggers at the Libby Trial

Blogging, as we all know, is becoming a fast-growing new form of media, and while it is a personal and opinionated form of media, it is making waves and could possibly soon rival the mainstream media as a primary news source. This has recently been evidenced by the inclusion of bloggers as part of the press allowed to sit in on the "Scooter" Libby trial. CNN ran a story (shown here on You Tube) about these bloggers, and what they had to say about them was interesting. First, it seems that the admission of these private bloggers into the Libby courtroom is a somewhat monumental first, causing many people to speculate that blogging could become part of the "mainstream media." In the media world, there is an ongoing debate over whether bloggers and journalists should or could possibly be considered on the same level as far as trustworthiness and reliability in their reporting, and this CNN story addressed that issue.

It seems clear from the CNN story that they (CNN) believe there to be a difference between blogging and traditional reporting, and the tone of the story conveyed a slight sense of distrust on the part of CNN towards the unaffiliated, nonprofessional bloggers. One person interviewed, from the US District Court, seemed to hold a positive view of blogs as a new and popular way to inform the public, seeing it as a new form of news media that people will pay attention to. A conservative blogger who was also interviewed felt that allowing bloggers into courtrooms, hearings, and news conferences allowed "ordinary citizens" to see and report on what was happening. Yet when the story went back to the newsroom at CNN and the anchors were discussing the phenomenon, the tone seems to have shifted. The two anchors don't quite seem to agree that blogs are a reliable source, and one of them says that journalistic integrity must be taken into account, and that blogs must be viewed simply as opinion. Blogs, as we know, are not tied to a mainstream media organization and their posts are not edited like the news reportings are at places like CNN.

Personally, I agree with this view, that what we read on blogs should not be assumed to be true, and that the personal bias should always be on our minds when we read them. However, wouldn't that also be true for what we see and listen to on the news? Just because the stories that CNN runs are edited and checked, it does not mean that they are free of bias and, to some extent, personal opinion. And what about columnists? They are tied to a mainstream media organization, but yet their posts are purely opinion and certainly contain personal bias. I therefore think that the CNN story painted a slightly grey picture of the validity of blogs, and rightly so, but without offering any comparisons of similar forms of media that should be viewed with the same caution. Was this a glimpse of elitist, mainstream media arrogance? What do you think?

ROFL @ Conservapedia.com

Before reading, visit: www.conservapedia.com

Okay, if you've glanced through and clicked on a few links to see what this is, you'll find that it is the "conservative" version of Wikipedia. For those that do not know what Wikipedia.org is, it is an online encylopedia in which people of any background can edit the information on the website. Now, for conservatives to deem Wikipedia as "liberal" is just hilarious because it just shows that the majority of the users are of that certain attribute.

The people at Conservapedia.com cry over the fact that "Wikipedia uses 'C.E.' (Common Era) rather than 'A.D.'" (Anno Domini/Year of our Lord). Ironically, their search engine is based on Wikipedia.org (who is gracious enough to allow everyone to create a similar wiki-site based on their template and information).

It would seem to me that there are more important aspects that can be identified in society that should be tackled before we start worrying about the diction of a free online encyclopedia. Before I continue, I just want to mention that I am more of a libertarian. As such, I don't believe in imposing my beliefs and views on anyone else unless they seek the utter omniscient wisdom I behold (kidding, I'm dumb). What this also means is I share both, liberal and conservative, views on politics and society. I want to focus on the conservative part because the definition of "conservative" itself implies "stubbornness, tradition, and tunnel vision".

People are forgetting what it means to be conservative. The meaning is nearly lost to Christian rights who have taken it over and skewed the definition. People need to step back and look at history for some good conservative role-models (because the existing ones, namely, Bill Reilly, suck). Teddy Roosevelt was a great conservative and represented his people well during that era. He was the easiest example I could come up with because he encompassed all the traits that make a true conservative. For more information on Teddy, visit http://www.wikipedia.org and search for him.

Links:
http://www.conservative.org/about/principles.html
- Allegedly, "America's oldest and largest grassroots conservative lobbying organization." The principles this organization stands for are pretty much what I consider, 'good conservative values'. Some of the points are a little ambiguous, but they have a blog setup with more specifics on what they actually do.

When is it ok to report?

Many news stations have recently been talking about the deplorable conditions found at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center (the black mold growing rampant, the rat feces) "where soldiers with serious injuries must fend for themselves in a nightmarish bureaucracy with substandard facilities" explains Bob Garfield of OnTheMedia.org. It seems that the so-called mass media has been on a kick about wounded soldiers when, at the beginning of the war, reporting on the subject was herecy. Mark Benjamin, a national correspondent for the online magazine, salon.com explained that in 2003, he had written a story on Fort Stewart in Georgia and the "squalor" that wounded soldiers were experiencing there. Benjamin goes on to explain, "At that time, I received hundreds of really vicious e-mails, you know, where I was called a communist and a traitor and I was a liar and so on and so forth." After his report, Congress had held hearings about the subject and the military even admitted that they had problems but that they were going to fix them. So why all of a sudden? Why is it now ok to criticize those in charge of the military without fear of immense backlash? It seems that public sentiment has shifted from being fervant advocates of this war to second guessing. Now the public is ready to see truths that have been their all along.
Benjamin also goes on to explain that the reason for the lack of care by the military is due to financial troubles. He explains that, "On the one hand, the Army is trying to give these people outpatient therapy...At the same time, the Army is trying to decide how much the military is going to pay those soldiers in benefits for the rest of their lives...They can either pay these guys benefits for the next 50 years, and if they do that, their going to take money away from more bullets and bombs." Hopefully, the masses are finally seeing what this war is doing to our country, to those people who sacrifice their lives for something they believe in, after they were lied to about the exact reasons for war.

Is Scooter Libby A Scapegoat?

As most people probably now know, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby has been found guilty on 4 of the 5 charges brought against him including perjury, lying to the FBI, and obstruction of justice. This all came about after he was implicated in a plot to leak a CIA agent’s name to get back at her husband who is a vocal critic of the Bush administration. Now there is talk of the President pardoning him, which would probably anger a great deal of people. It has been equated to Gerald Ford pardoning Richard Nixon after the Watergate Scandal, which caused outrage among the people. Senate majority leader Harry Reid has stated that “Now President Bush must pledge not to pardon Libby for his criminal conduct." Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean later applauded the American legal system for doing “something the Bush administration hasn't, by holding Scooter Libby accountable for his illegal actions.” There appears to be a great deal of outrage among Democrats over this issue, which could cause a full blown investigation. President Bush can’t afford any more of a drop in popularity, so pardoning Libby will most likely not happen unless he simply doesn’t care about what the public thinks of him.

Since Libby was the Vice President’s chief of staff, the new question is this: Should those even higher up in the administration be prosecuted (or at least investigated) for similar charges, since it is quite obvious that Libby was simply a scapegoat? Harry Reid also commented on this question, stating that “Lewis Libby has been convicted of perjury, but his trial revealed deeper truths about Vice President Cheney's role in this sordid affair.” If this is the case, would Vice President Cheney be investigated and possibly brought to trial? Could President Bush somehow be implicated in this scandal? The repercussions of this verdict could bring down the entire administration with possible charges of violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act for leaking the name of an undercover CIA agent. Now only time will tell whether this controversy will end with Scooter Libby or if it will go on up the ladder of power, but it has definitely been another sharp blow to the administration’s credibility, which seems to be a common happening nowadays.

Political Stance or Family Issues? What's more important

In an article in the New York Times on March 3, 2007 entitled Noticeably Absent From the Giuliani Campaign: His Children, the press once again takes a path that is irrelevant to political issues. The press’ interest in this is all over the headlines today as well with stories about how Rudolph Giuliani wants his privacy. I found the above mentioned article from Saturday particularly interesting because it talks about how Giuliani’s son Andrew is not participating in the campaign because he and his father are in reconciliation mode, but more importantly Andrew is devoting his time to golf. The article also focuses on differences between Andrew and Judith Nathan, Giuliani’s wife since 2003. This is a pure case of no news; in my opinion this article has no relevance to the campaign or any issues that the public needs to be informed about. The reason this article shows up in a paper like the New York Times is because readers perceived to be interested in news like this instead of real issues that might really mean something to voters. What relevance does this have to Giuliani’s campaign, unless you are an opponent and you are hoping that because his son and daughter are not active in his campaign that some voters will choose not to vote for him? I really hope that this is not a ploy to down grade Giuliani’s popularity, because if it is there is a real problem with voters today.

Laughing out loud about the truth:

One may start to feel like a loner at UNH being a conservative. This week seems to have started no different than the rest, with a joke, no, really a joke. Anne Coulter, is a outspoken conservative columnist, her comments on presidentail hopeful John Edwards, have seemed to stop the media and politicians in their tracks. Every news station from here to timbuckto has decided to jump on the bandwagon of what seems to be a monopoly of this story, to try to make all conservatives turn away from the one person who will actually stand up to the lies that the liberals have spread over the years. I may be biased, as I am an avid reader of Anne, not only of her books but her blogs, before you get your stakes out... hear me out, have you ever taken the time to listen to what she is saying? At times she can go over the top, but her facts that back up her arguements that are never less than right on the money. One could spend hours listening to the reasons why what she said was more than just "a school yard taunt", but honestly I have lost patience for that kind of agreeing to disagree. Everyone in the media should take a step back and look at this for what it is, which is first of all the reason why its funny: becuase NO one should go to rehab for using any word! I would hope to think that everyone outside of Hollywood, would think its ridiculous that anyone would go to a mental institution for such a thing, this kind of thing this is semantic totalinarianism that is going on, by automatically for using the "f" word ,it is asumed that one would go so far as to use the "n" word. All and all, I must remind you that despite what you believe, she spoke at a CONSERVATIVE CONVENTION, do not sit there a liberal and think your the innocent ones either as far as jokes go. Case in point, what about liberal John Kerry, telling a group of college students that if they didn't get an education, they would end up "stuck in Iraq." The media is giving her a hard time now, saying this is "career ending"... well this is the same thing that has happend for the past 10 years that her statements every so often attract this kind of publicity. Really, what is the big deal, even if she did say it, it was a joke...just like John Kerry's, shocking, but everyside has there miscommunications. There is no reason to say this is going to persuade a following of people agaisnt her, like the media has portrayed time and time again, cant they just realize "a zebra never changes it's spots" and sometimes the truth hurts.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/index.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070304/pl_nm/people_coulter_dc

Hillary and Barack Alabama visit: Report the significance accurately!

Although, I have been under the weather since Thursday, I hope I am not stealing anybody’s media watch critique. The Washington Post and the Boston Globe both wrote pretty decent stories on the presidential candidates marching in Selma, Alabama for the 42nd anniversary of the March 7, 1965 “Bloody Sunday”.

In a peaceful voting-rights march back in the civil rights hay day, the activists were beaten in Selma by police with night sticks, revealing the racist voting practices that kept blacks from the polls.

The Post chooses a pretty neutral headline with “Clinton, Obama Link Selma March to Present: Civil Rights Cited as Enabling Their Campaigns”, while the Globe chooses a more fierce headline with “Two rivals mark civil rights struggle: Hillary Clinton, Obama attend Alabama rally”.

However, the Post’s lead only contains Obama, placing him before the mentioning of Clinton’s involvement in the second paragraph. This can indicate to the readers that Obama, due to being black and being the “fruits of labor” of the residents of the Alabama town, gets more priority.

The Globe’s lead has Clinton and Obama side by side, with a more solid lead explaining simply and plainly, the gist behind their involvement with Sunday’s march.

The Globe takes a biased move and in the fourth paragraph in, the writer gives the reader the impression that Hillary brought her husband to Alabama as a “special lure” to attract voters. The writer also has the nerve to include that Bill Clinton, in the fifth paragraph, “is” popular among the black voters. Come on Hillary, or Nedra Pickler at the AP, we aren’t reading this article to see how Bill Clinton will fan out.

The Post’s writer did not go out of his way like the AP writer in the Globe article to mention Obama’s “call to action” in his speech that the younger generation of black Americans do not always honor the civil rights movement and that urban neighborhoods are littered with 40 oz. bottles and trash, as well as “voting instead of complaining that the government is not helping them.”

Was this a smart move to print this? I am not too sure. Then again, the Post’s two bylined staff writers may have had more time to compile their info, while the AP writer’s deadline to get the story syndicated was more prompt.

I felt as though the Post article stuck more with the issue at hand: why the two presidential candidates were in Selma, Alabama and the significance of it. As a reader, I want to know more about the history behind the event, then secondarily wonder about the first black presidential candidate and the first female presidential candidate’s motives and reasoning in their speeches. The Globe’s article failed to capture my attention to the real reason why the story is newsworthy. It is concluded mentioning that the former president stole the show in his speech for his induction into Selma's Voting Rights Hall of Fame. Why should I care to know this?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/04/AR2007030400475_2.html

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/03/05/two_rivals_mark_civil_rights_struggle/

What happened to Al Qaeda?

It's been about 6 years now since September 11, 2001. To many, it still seems like yesterday even though its dominance over the media has long been replaced. I came across an article today about Al Qaeda and what their current status is. The article went on to describe how Washington thinks that most of Al Qaeda is regrouping in Pakistan along the Afghan border. Their senior leaders are rebuilding their terrorist networks and connections to other nations. Admiral McConnel says that "Al Qaeda would still like to inflict mass casualties among the US, and it continues to seek weapons of mass destruction."

It is known that Pakistan's wild frontier is so remote that it is often way beyond the control of authorities, but nevertheless it still puzzles me why we are not doing something more to stop this from happening. We are all wound up in Iraq, but wasn't the war on terror started by these individuals after their devastating attacks on the US? This article was not front page news, I found it while looking through the smaller headlines. Why is it that this issue has somewhat taken the back burner with the media? It has been over six years and Osama Bin Laden is still at large. It troubles me that the United States still remains a major potential target, and while we have taken on Iraq, the original problem still has not been resolved, and even the media is paying less and less attention to it.

Bush..... It's way to late to change

Clicking through media news sites tonight looking for an interesting topic, my attention was drawn to random headlines scrolling across the page. "U.S Troops Enter the Shiite Stronghold of Sadr City," was placed right next to "Husband Arrested in Dismemberment Slaying." One has to wonder, who decides where to place these titles? Do the editors put a topic of serious interest right next to some weird freaky story to keep our interests going? Who knows, thats another topic all together. What I want to bring up is the next headline I saw way down on the bottom of the page that caught my attention. "Bush Shows New Willingness to Reverse Course"!!!! "Realities in Iraq, Middle East 'becoming more apparent' to president". WHAT??? Whats with the sudden change of heart Mr. President? This sentence halfway through the article definately summed it up. "The realities of the situation are becoming more apparent to them. . . . Presidents begin to focus very much on their legacy, and he recognizes that insufficient progress has been made on some of these international issues." What they really mean in plain English is that no one likes Bush, no one ever did like Bush, and it has taken him 7 years to figure out that we Americans dont really like what is going on in our political system. It also shows that all Bush really cares out is his "legacy"..... so if he thinks that by maybe changing his tune in the year or so he has left in office will backshadow what he has done over the course of the presidency, Bush better start performing miracles.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17445847/

Appearance vs. Politics

The New York Times published an article this Sunday which tackled the issue of the Democratic candidates’ hunt for black voters. I found it interesting how the author approached the topic. For once, a reporter recognized that senator Obama and Hillary Clinton were not the only two democratic candidates in the race for the primary. They also mentioned North Carolina senator John Edwards and Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico. Despite this referral to these other potential candidates, the debate of winning black votes still focused around Obama and Hillary. In the end I felt that the article leaned more in favor of Hillary. The author placed emphasis on the history of the candidates due to their date of birth and involvement in the civil rights movement, indicating that Hillary would have more pull with black voters since she grew up in the civil rights era while Obama was too young and lived away from the issues in Hawaii and Indonesia. I find this interesting because it shows that the media is forcing the public to place emphasis on involvement in an event that in past elections had absolutely no importance whatsoever. Obviously the focus is due to the fact that a black candidate is at the forefront of the Democratic Primary, but it is the media that forces voters to look at the issue racially instead of what policies the candidates are working towards. Ever since televisions began gracing the public’s homes, presidencies have been won by appearance, not because of their politics. This upcoming election is too important to have this trend be the deciding factor for winning the presidency but sadly, the media molds coverage to attention on looks, not politics.

"Recalling Struggle For Civil Rights, Democrats Battle for Black Votes"

Tornado Victims Get Visit From Bush

March 3, 2007
Today on Fox News' Weekend Live the focus was on the tornado victims in Americus, GA and President Bush’s visit there. The camera shots were views of demolished houses, stores and more prominently President Bush. Fox chose to cover the story by focusing on the President's quick appearance on the disaster sight. There were comments and comparison’s made to his appearance in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. Everyone acknowledges that this is not as bad as the Katrina situation, but the coverage seems to focus on putting Bush in a positive light because he has responded much quicker this time. The reporter spoke with one of the victims’, a black man, and his main question was something along the lines of “how does it make you feel that the President has arrived so quickly?” The man, of course, was thankful and said that it provided hope that he and his family would get help. Coverage like this, in my mind, shows some truth in the accusations of Fox being biased toward President Bush. I feel like the media in this situation should have been focused on what people outside of the area could do to help the storm victims, instead of how the President's visit made them feel and how there has been reform in emergency situations since Hurricane Katrina.

Alabama Twisters....Global Warming??

Global warming is yet again making its' way to the forefront of issues in Congress.Recently a statement regarding the current status of the "global warming situation" was released by Bush's administration. In this report it stated that "human activities are behind climate change that is having significant effects on the environment." Even though the report was put out by his administration, President Bush disregarded the report and denies that the climate is changing due to human interaction. Proof of this change has become evident over the past week or so.

The same storm that brought the Northeast a mix of snow, sleet and rain, brought devastating weather to the Southeast. Tornadoes ripped through the southern states this past week killing 8 students taking cover in an Alabama school. 20 people have been reported dead from tornadoes so far, and it is possible that more storms could strike the area. Years ago this type of weather event would have been unheard of. This past system spawned several tornadoes, all of which were deadly. In the past, storms of this magnitude just simply did not happen. With such evidence as this, is hard to turn the other cheek and say that something isn't changing.

We as humans, are the main species on the planet and to say that it is not possible for our ways to be damaging the planet is ridiculous. Most Americans are unaware of the daily damage being done by the simple things in our lives. Combustion engines and factories produce a lot of greenhouse gases which aid in global warming. I feel that our ignorance in this matter stems from the whole idea that people hear what they want to. The media seems to know that to the average American, the environment is not on their top list of concerns. Therefore it is not common to hear about things that may be affecting it. The media definitely influences the ideas people have in the world around them.

No Stock in the Market...

In the news this week, we have seen the greatest coverage of the stock market since the Great Depression. However, is this preoccupation with the stock market necessary or even interesting for us today? No doubt, we all know someone who has money in the market, but I believe that it is not the job of the media to cover this type of information when there are many other things that could be shown.

In "On The Media" This week, there was a segment run on the coverage of the stock market that presented a number of significant points. First of all, the anchors demonstrated that there is no reason why an increase in the stock market doesn't affect everybody. Most people own little or no stock, and it brings up the issue of whether a rising stock market is good for everyone. On one hand, a rising stock market could indicate an overall increase in wealth across the US. This would be good for everyone. On the other hand, a rising stock market, as pointed out by "On The Media", could show higher profits based on a decrease in wages. This would be good for the shareholders but bad for all the people who have little stock in a market that celebrates their low pay.

All of this leads to the major question on our minds: what does a drop in the market mean? Should the media be covering the market because it demonstrates a trend across the board that affects both workers and shareholders, or would the media be better off covering job losses in the automotive industry or the current minimum wage?

In conclusion, when watching the news, be sure to take everything you hear with a grain of salt and ask yourself "who is this really affecting, and what is this trend portraying?"

"Stop, Think About It"

Why is America so obsessed with the lifestyles of the rich and the famous? Was it that witty rock song by Good Charlotte that made the citizens of the United States go completely crazy over every piece of dirt about a celebrity? I don’t think so. The major news stations along with the Associated Press (AP) have made an agreement not to cover any “news” stories relating or associated with Paris Hilton for the next week. It was reported to be an experiment.

I don’t get this, what type of experiment is this exactly? The experiment makes no sense. Is the media going to see if Paris can stay out of rehab, not make a new sex video, or kill another dog in a week? Pretty high stakes folks, I mean we are talking about Paris Hilton, and we all know that she is notorious for making headlines as she parties constantly. If they didn’t want to cover anymore news stories relating to Paris, why won’t the media just straight up stop covering her. They make such a fuss promoting the fact they are not going to promote her anymore. I cannot get over this, because I guarantee within the next week, even though the media isn’t “covering her”, they will still cover the fact that they are not covering her.

I think America can do better off without these “week long survival: celebrity style experiments”; as I would call it. I cannot wait to look at the news this upcoming week only to see a top headline “Paris no longer in the News”.

Personal Media: Facebook, MySpace, and Blogs

This post, like Jeff's, is a little different from what we have been writing about so far in this blog.

I got the idea while cruising Facebook the other day, where I realized that even though this medium is not focused on news or what we know about the world, sites like Facebook, MySpace, and blogs are still media, and they still have an impact on how people view other people. What a lot of people don't realize, especially those of our younger generation, is what sort of impact the things we post on the internet can have on us and our friends. We've all heard the stories about former students applying for jobs and having scandalous photos of their wild college days brought up in the interview, but most of us don't really think that could be someday be us. However, the reality is that what we post on sites like Facebook and MySpace can definitely come back to haunt us later in life. An article by abc news discusses this phenomenon, citing examples of young people who have been refused jobs or had their reputations damaged due to photos and comments posted on the internet.

I thought this was very interesting, because I'm sure we all know people who have posted drunken or indecent photos of themselves or their friends either on Facebook or MySpace, and yet many of them don't seem to realize just how damaging these photos could be to their future careers. We have to realize that these personal online "diaries," including blogs, can be seen by more than just our friends, and that what we post on them can later be used as a judgement of our character, work ethic, and integrity. In this way, the internet is being used as a form of personal media, and just because we are not on television reporting the news to the nation, we are still broadcasting our own personal message to anybody who has access to the web, and this can often make-or-break a potential employment opportunity, or worse, our reputations.

I just thought this would be a good topic to discuss now, as many college students our age are preparing for spring break within the next few weeks. And as we all know, spring break has become a classic example of wild partying, and now more than ever, students bring along their cameras to document all the fun. Just watch out where you post those photos, because you don't want to have the specter of your crazy college days haunting your future career goals.