Media Watch

Timetables and Benchmarks are becoming overused Washington!

2007-05-10T15:06:00.000-05:00

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?

2007-05-06T16:13:00.000-05:00

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

2007-05-04T11:41:00.000-05:00

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

2007-05-03T17:02:00.000-05:00

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?

2007-05-02T14:35:00.000-05:00

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

2007-05-01T19:17:00.000-05:00

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:

2007-05-01T16:53:00.000-05:00

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"

2007-04-29T19:52:00.000-05:00

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...

2007-04-29T16:03:00.000-05:00

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.

2007-04-28T16:29:00.000-05:00

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???

2007-04-27T09:11:00.000-05:00

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

2007-04-26T19:04:00.000-05:00

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"

2007-04-26T17:44:00.000-05:00

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"

2007-04-25T11:49:00.000-05:00

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?

2007-04-25T09:37:00.000-05:00

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

2007-04-24T21:04:00.000-05:00

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

2007-04-24T18:45:00.000-05:00

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:

2007-04-24T09:07:00.000-05:00

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

2007-04-23T22:16:00.000-05:00

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

2007-04-23T08:03:00.000-05:00

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

2007-04-19T18:58:00.000-05:00

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

2007-04-19T13:21:00.000-05:00

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

2007-04-18T20:53:00.001-05:00

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

2007-04-18T16:37:00.000-05:00

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...

2007-04-17T20:45:00.000-05:00

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

2007-04-17T18:56:00.000-05:00

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:

2007-04-17T14:54:00.000-05:00

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

2007-04-17T06:46:00.001-05:00

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

2007-04-16T17:56:00.000-05:00

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

2007-04-16T17:45:00.000-05:00

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

2007-04-16T17:02:00.000-05:00

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

2007-04-15T17:13:00.000-05:00

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

2007-04-12T20:42:00.000-05:00

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

2007-04-12T19:36:00.000-05:00

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

2007-04-12T18:38:00.000-05:00

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.

Emergings of a Cult?

2007-04-11T20:57:00.000-05:00

In an OnTheMedia clip airing last Friday, Bob Garfield interviewed Jeff Sharlet who wrote quite an interesting article in the newest issue of The Rolling Stone magazine. The article focuses on Ron Luce who is the founder of an evangelical youth group named "BattleCry". Sharlet describes Luce as, "this brilliant media strategist who recognizes that, look, if I speak about war - if I say that media makers, in fact, are like al Qaeda, which he does in his book, BattleCry - if I say these things, these things are so sensational I'm going to get a lot of attention, and I'm going to grab the attention of kids." ("Hear Their Roar", OnTheMedia, Apr. 6, 07.) Jeff Sharlet spent around a week with the teens behind "BattleCry" in Texas at Luce's own Honor Academy. He began to see that many of these teens were just confused at where they were in life.

Sharlet goes on to explain the hatred that Luce and his followers (or confused teens) have for mainstream media and secularism. In the Rolling Stone article, Sharlet describes the BattleCry rhetoric as "militaristic" and as a huge "youth crusade." Ron Luce is quoted from a rally in San Francisco last March as saying, "When you enlist in the military, there's a code of honor, same as being a follower of Christ." Luce believes that mainstream media is corrupting our society and that him and his followers need to destroy it. This evangelical leader hates the media so much that his Honor Academy is a "high-tech school for training kids how to produce media."
"They're very aware that Christian media for decades was just awful and cheese, and it's just pure kitsch. And I think now they recognize that if we can produce really quality media but that nonetheless has this fundamentalist message, then we're going to win kids over. If they can, you know, get to Hollywood and make movies that are actually pretty good, like The Chronicles of Narnia, those become the media equivalent of gateway drugs to bring you in to drink the full Kool-Aid of fundamentalism." (Sharlet, OnTheMedia, Apr. 6, 07)

So is this "Teenage Holy War" just a sly ploy by Luce to gather followers and promote the evangelical gospel? Or is this an extreme fanatic truly wishing and planning on taking down the mainstream media? The scary thing, is that Sharlet also mentions that the "real enemies" of Luce's Christ are not only the mass media but "queers and communists, feminists and Muslims." So thousands of teens are hearing this extreme message of hate and mixing it with religion pushed with a militaristic mindset. Sound familiar? This guy (Luce) is using what he hates (the media) to do exactly what he hates (the corruption of the youth). I do agree that the mass media does have a large strangle hold over the citizens of this country, over their mindsets, but he is using the same tactics he is fighting against to commit the same act as "the evil do-ers."

Teachers Feeling Hurt by YouTube

2007-04-11T14:48:00.000-05:00

For a while now, popular websites such as YouTube, My Space and various other Internet sites, have been a place for any normal person to put videos and their personal opinions out there for the world to see. Everyone knows that these videos aren't always the most polite, they seem to tend more towards being funny, shocking or just entertaining. Nevertheless, these types of sites can be considered an important media outlet. When do videos go too far though?

Yahoo! News is reporting this week that "Malicious Online Videos are Hurting Teachers". On YouTube and other websites that support student videos, there can be found videos taken by students on their cell phones and other devices showing malicious and embarrassing things being done to teachers. An example is of a video on YouTube showing a teacher stumbling around the front of the classroom after a student has run up and pulled his pants down around his ankles. Others show a teacher walking into cellophane covering a classroom door, and a student trying to fake a head injury with ketchup. British education secretary Allan Johnson is claiming that "such videos hurt teachers, and many have left or are considering leaving the profession because of the defamation and humiliation they are forced to suffer." Johnson also goes on to state that these online companies have a "social responsibility and moral obligation to act" against these types of videos. The spokeswoman for YouTube Julie Supan says that there are guidelines for which videos can be uploaded and that if complaints are made about a video, the video is revised and often removed. If you do a quick search on YouTube today though, that first video of the teacher with his underwear around his ankles is still there, as are many others.

I remember when I was younger, students would often make fun of teachers to each other, but nobody I ever knew actually went up and did anything to them. I also agree that seeing these types of videos can be funny. There definitely is a line though that can be crossed between funny and hurtful and humiliating. If this situation is getting so bad that teachers are considering quiting their jobs because of it, then yes to me it is a problem. Just because something is funny doesn't mean its ok. There is a time and a place for everything and I think that this notion needs to be reinforced in a lot of kids. It is also the responsibility of these online organizations that are allowing for the uploading of these videos to better regulate and stop this from happening. School teachers are very important and if they continue to leave and there are also still kids who think these sorts of things are ok, we might be in for a problem.

Working On A Personnel Agenda:

2007-04-10T14:29:00.000-05:00

Nancy Pelosi spent last week traveling the Middle East against the wishes of the Bush administration. (The Middle East Trip Helped Bush administration) supposedly, Pelosi claims, "The funny thing is, I think we may have even had a more powerful impact with our message because of the attention that was called to our trip”. Regardless of her traveling with several republicans, she received the most attention, her decision to go was based on her ideology of being able to negotiate peace between that of Israel and Syria. Pelosi seemed to think that it showed the US being united against terrorism despite President Bush, expressing that Pelosi’s visit to Syria "counterproductive" after meeting with Syrian leader Assad, Cheney added, "He's been isolated and cut off because of his bad behavior. The unfortunate thing about the Speaker's visit is it sort of breaks down that barrier." (Pelosi's rocky road to the Middle East) was filled with lack of support even the National Security Council noted the trip as sending the wrong message. As it shows that there is “no consequences” for supporting terrorists.

Pelosi has managed to create quite a stir with her trip, on several fronts just one of them being that the (White House criticizes trip to Syria). In talking with people on this, it can be concluded that by being elected to office it is the job of an official to get the facts and make policy, but this trip was more than that. Not to say that Pelosi should not have gone it is her right, meeting with Mr. Assad though does seem to undermine the position that the US government is trying portray. Pelosi did go with an intention and by talking to Mr. Assad she gave him just what he wanted, Mrs. Pelosi has the right to go but she should be reminded she can’t just work on her own agenda. The media and the White House have had bad things to say about this trip and for good reason, is she working with the government or under it?

One Joke Too Many

2007-04-09T21:09:00.000-05:00

Exactly how far can one's jokes go before being funny becomes insulting? Don Imus, most commonly known as Imus in the Morning, found just that out earlier this week. On a radio broadcast that aired last week Imus was discussing the Rutger's women's basketball team and referred to them as“nappy-headed hos.” As you can imagine this was not taken lightly. MSNBC and CBS radio have suspended the popular radio host as of Monday for two weeks, with his return depending on how his apologies are accepted. CBSNews
Imus himself admits that he shouldn't have said what he did, but on his radio talk show " our agenda is to be funny and sometimes we go too far. And this time we went way too far.”
Over the weekend civil-rights leaders such as Al Sharpton and Reverend DeForest Soaries called for Imus to be fired for his racist remarks, and aren't pleased with just a suspension. ImusTalkshow Imus has since apologized profusely on the air and to the women's basketball team. Imus also stated that he will change the discourse and direction that his show has been taking if allowed back.

Protesters have been voicing their disgust for Imus and his show all week. Angela Burt-Murray, editor in chief of Essence magazine stated,“I don’t care about an apology, You’re not a child on the playground. You’re an adult who needs to take responsibility for his actions. And there need to be consequences.”
Imus appeared on the Al Sharpton show this morning to apologize after Sharpton refused Imus' invitation to come speak with him on his morning radio show.AlSharptonInterview On air Imus again apologized and talked about how he isn't a journalist or a politician with an agenda. His agenda is to entertain people while they listen, and to be funny. Imus also talked about how he knows that his joke about the Rutger's women's basketball team wasn't funny, and that there is no excuse for what he said saying,"I just wasn't thinking, I'm a good person who said a bad thing."

Meanwhile the Women's basketball team is considering their options, and a meeting is in the works so that Imus can apologize to the girls and their families. Imus hopes that the public makes an educated decision on who he is as a person and take a look at what he has done. (Opened ranch for children battling cancer, half of whom are of a different race.)
In closing, here are segments from the transcript of Imus's apology and what he had to say for himself.
"So I’m going to go talk to these women, if they will let me, and tell them what I have just told you. And what have I learned from this? Because Reverend DeForest Soaries said, I want you to tell me what you have learned. Here’s what I have learned: that you can’t make fun of everybody, because some people don’t deserve it. And because the climate on this program has been what it has been for 30 years doesn’t mean that it has to be that way for the next five years or whatever, because that has to change. So—and I understand that.Why would I think then, it’s okay to go on the radio last Wednesday and make fun of these kid, who just played for national championship? Well, I can’t answer that. I’m sorry I did that. I’m embarrassed that I did that. I did a bad thing. But I’m a good person. And that will change."Apology

Is there a bigger brother?

2007-04-07T18:58:00.000-05:00

In today's world, the trappings of the traditional media have fallen from the mainstream, and we are surrounded by an entirely new form of news media. Rather than three major networks from which to receive our news, there are dozens of sources for us to consider. With the internet as a primary news source for many people, there has grown an entire industry for supplying news to those who don't watch the television news. Following this, there has also spawned another industry: that which is responsible for providing news about the news. Examples of such industry abound on the internet today. One great example is the internet and radio broadcast group "On the Media". The main purpose of this group is to analyze the trends in all types of media, and to report them to the general public. However, who is watching those who are watching the media?

It may seem redundant to require a monitor of the monitors, but it may be necessary. In their latest update, "On the Media" had a number of posts that focused on the Easter holiday. However, Easter wasn't the only holiday to occur this week. According to "religionfacts.com", there are over 14 million people who practice Judaism. Instead of celebrating Easter this week, these 14 million people were celebrating another holiday, Passover. However, there was no mention of this holiday at all in "On the Media".

This may have occurred because there was more interesting news about Easter, or because there wasn't anything to analyze about the news that did exist. Whether this was the case or not is actually irrelevant. The real matter at hand is who should catch this gap in the coverage of the media? While there are no solutions at hand right now, it is the responsibility of everyone who uses these monitors of the media to think about what they are hearing, and more importantly about what they aren't hearing.

Real News Disguised as "No News"

2007-04-06T17:11:00.000-05:00

As I logged on to the internet today, an article caught my attention on my homepage, Google News. It was titled "Pelosi scarves a diplomatic accessory", and at first I thought, "Wow, US Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi wears scarves, and that becomes one of the top two news stories on Google?" But as I read the article, I realized that even though there was a lot of somewhat trivial talk about her "silky white scarf with yellow flowers" and "black abaya robe, decorated with a gold-colored band across the front, over her lime-green pantsuit," this article really did contain some real, useful information.

Intertwined with what color scarves she had around her neck and what sort of pants suit she was wearing, the article gave the readers some interesting and important information about Islamic culture and how women are expected to dress. Nancy Pelosi had to have a scarf ready in case she went into a specific place, such as a mosque. Also, I found it interesting that she had to dress differently according to which Middle Eastern country she was visiting. I think many Americans, when they think of the Middle East, tend to imagine all of the countries there as being the same, but this article showed one cultural way in which they are different. It also gave its readers a taste of the general atmosphere in some of the countries, such as Syria, which is "far more secular" than some of the other countries she visited, and where she had to wear a skirt instead of her usual pants suit. I thought this article was interesting also because it illustrated how different it is for a woman dignitary to visit the Middle East than it is for a man. As the article states, "Female dignitaries visiting Mideast countries have to keep dress in mind in a way men don't. When out in public, particularly at religious sites, women politicians take care not to offend while trying to avoid cumbersome outfits."

I felt like sharing this article here because it seemed at first to be a "no news" type of story, talking about the outfits Nancy Pelosi wore on her trip to the Middle East, rather than what she was actually doing there. And this is true, the article did focus on what she wore, but it did not leave out some really important cultural information, the sort of thing you probably wouldn't get from an article that talked strictly about what she did there. It just goes to show that sometimes, real news can be hiding in a "no news" disguise, and we shouldn't be so quick to jump on an article as simply pointless until we have read it through carefully.

As Simple as a Picture

2007-04-05T17:56:00.000-05:00

A picture can say a lot. But when it comes to being in the spotlight from the media, a picture can make or break you. The paparazzi and Associated Press (AP) are not only after the rich and famous from Hollywood, but they are also interested in the political elites. The paparazzi and AP show up to political events no matter how insignificant for the off chance that they might snap a juicy photo. While I was “info-snacking” on the web, I came across a hilarious photo of Hilary Clinton. The look on her face is priceless, as it appears she is “about to bite the head off of a small child.”

I think these kinds of photographs are great, because it shows that everyone is human and can be caught at an inopportune time. I, myself, have been in many pictures where it looks like I just rolled out of bed, my eyes where completely shut, or my facial expression looked very displeasing. It happens, but it is a lot funnier, or to some shocking, when it happens to a person in the mainstream media. Many photos, just like the one with Hilary, have been posted on the internet to mock their campaigns. I can remember a picture back in 2004 when George Bush and John Kerry where in the race for the White House. This particular picture showed Kerry fumbling a football that was tossed to him, and on the other side, it showed Bush gripping the football tightly as he pointed to make a pass. This picture really does not mean anything besides the fact that Kerry happened to drop a football that was thrown to him. On the bottom of the picture there was a quote that stated “Do you really want someone who catches like a girl running the USA?” Don’t get me wrong I think the picture was hilarious and extremely clever, but it the long run I don’t think it has any lasting effect on Bush or Kerry.

These pictures are a result of the “new news” syndrome. Photographers’ years ago would not take pictures of elites and put them in the news for the sole purpose of making fun of them. This practice was not considered to be professional and somewhere during the past couple of decades that professionalism dwindled. The AP started a frenzy of photos that showed stars and politicians at their worst possible moment. The public must have loved these pictures because, that is the standard that we have today. I am used to seeing photos of unwilling elites pasted all over the news; it’s just how it is these days. These pictures are meant to entertain, not inform the public about the particular person in the photo. However, some photos may be worse than others if caught at an extremely bad time. Most of these incidents occur in Hollywood, when an actor is drunk and makes a fool out of themselves. I guess it’s really infrequent to see a politician drunk in public, so there are not a lot of cases of that.

The picture of Hilary was funny and obviously created by a Republican supporter. These photos can even be considered as attack ads because they show up everywhere. Both sides of the political spectrum are capable of creating such photos. I think that this is a good way for both parties to bash each other at minimal cost and high hilarity.

The Claws of old news

2007-04-04T20:23:00.000-05:00

In a story from the Economist ("War is Declared", March 17th-23rd, p. 70, 2007.) and an MSNBC article, one can see that old news still has some fight left in it. Back in March, Viacom (which owns stations such as MTV, Nickelodeon and Comedy Central) sued YouTube for copyright infringement for $1 billion. This was mainly because shows such as "The Colbert Report" and "The Daily Show" were available on YouTube. The Economist explains that under America's Digital Millenium Copyright Act, there is a "safe-harbour" which protects any copyrighter if they remove the content as soon as the "owner" requests. The problem with this is that as soon as YouTube pulls copyright material, it is put right back up by users. Viacom claims that, "160,000 of its clips have been illegally viewed 1.5 billion times on the site." ("War is Declared, March 17th-23rd, p. 70, 2007.)

Another interesting fact in the case is that in 2005, google purchased YouTube for $1.65b in shares. So moving higher up the food chain, we really see the battle between the old media giant, Viacom, and the quickly growing new media giant, google with the ever so popular YouTube under its wing. Viacom may win some battles over regulation or copyright laws but is it resilient and ingenuitive enough to move into the new news sphere? Or find some way to capture the new, technologically obsessed generations.

"For one day, at least, the roadrunner was safe"

2007-04-04T15:19:00.000-05:00

One of the top stories at CNN’s website today (an Associated Press article) was a story about a coyote going into a cooler at Chicago Quizno’s. Apparently this coyote walked through an open front door on the busy streets of Chicago and decided to sit down in the drink cooler in a very passive way. Coyotes are not very aggressive animals with regard to humans, and are usually much more scared of people than people are of coyotes (this coyote looked terrified hiding in the drink cooler). This isn’t an uncommon occurrence since it supposedly happens “10-15 times a year” and mostly in the spring when they are more active.

Now for the question: why is this considered worthy of being a part of a national newscast? So a coyote was hiding in a drink cooler, it happens and maybe some people would get a kick out of it but besides that it is completely useless. Apparently most of the people who went to cnn.com that day wouldn’t agree with me, since it was the eighth most popular story out of all of the stories CNN had released online that day. I guess people would rather hear a story that gives them a quick laugh than a story that would keep them up to date on the important things happening all around the globe.

Does this happen only in America?

2007-04-04T07:23:00.000-05:00

There is a recent CNN article that was listed under "top stories" about five fifth-graders having sex in a classroom. You read that right. Five. Children. Having sex. In a classroom.

How do five kids get away with having a prepubescent orgy in school; during class time? Granted, the teacher was away, but I wouldn't blame what happened on teacher's negligence. From here on, I will deduce what happened in an empirical manner because if I can't find a reason (or any) for what happened, my brain will melt and seep out my ears.

This is not the first time something like this has happened, but just the setting and how the fifth graders were so calculating in their decisions kind of irks me. They had one of them stand guard looking out for teachers; so this wasn't an "Oops, it just happened" accident. Since we know it was deliberate, we can say that something influenced them to act like this in the teacher's absence.

What was the influence? Media. If you watch or have visited the website of MTV, VH1, or any other entertainment television broadcast; there are sexual images border lining on soft core pornography. I have no problem with this at all, this is just the observation I'm making. The blame should mainly rest on parents. Most children live with guardians or parents, who have a responsibility to control their children's influence. There has been research on what parents expose their children to affects their development and their mindset/thoughts.

So, I have made quite a transition from the original story. The whole point of this rambling is that parents need to take charge of their children. Set boundaries so they don't end up on the Top Stories of CNN for fornicating. Beat your children and keep them in line.

Giuliani's Wife Married Three Times

2007-04-03T19:35:00.000-05:00

“A Double Standard for the Triply Wed” is an article that the New York Times published on April 1, 2007. The article starts out reporting on Judith Giuliani being married three times, the third marriage being to her current husband Rudolph Giuliani who is a Republican candidate for President. Although the article starts out with Judith coming “out of the closet” so to speak, the majority of the article is about statistics of divorce and successful thrice married women. Judith says in the article that although Mr. Giuliani knew about her other two marriages, they decided to make it public because of their concerns of how it would affect his campaign for president. The concern the Giuliani’s have is about the media coverage and how it will affect voter’s decisions at the pole’s come Election Day. This was a wise decision because it can counter attack ads and negative press against the Giuliani’s. Attack ads are always a threat to anyone running for public office. I feel like if you go ahead and get all of your skeletons out of the closet in the beginning, the public won’t feel like you are trying to hide something.

The fact that the writer opens with Mrs. Giuliani and ends the story by concluding that it really doesn’t matter any more whether women have been divorced more than twice, makes me think that this is a biased story, trying to send the message that this shouldn’t effect voters decisions. It is too early to tell how this will affect Republican voters who are normally classified as conservative, notes the reporter. Whatever the affect may be, this is a good way to put a speed bump on negative press coverage.

Is Google Trying to Rewrite History?

2007-04-03T18:53:00.000-05:00

Hurricane Katrina was a horrible desastor for everyone who was affected by it. It happened over a year ago, but now there is still increasing controversy in reactions to the devastation left behind by the storm. Everyone knows the popular search engine Google, but there is also Google Earth, which provides maps and satellite imagery from any location around the world. CNN is reporting though that Google Inc., which runs Google Earth, is now currently under fire because a US House Subcommittee is accusing Google of "airbrushing history". The satellite images Google puts up are supposed to be up to date images of that region of the earth, but Google replaced the images of devastation in New Orleans with satellite imagery that was pre -Hurricane Katrina. Democratic rep. Brad Miller says that "Google's use of old imagery appears to be doing victims of Hurricane Katrina a great injustice by airbrushing history." In response to all of the scrutiny, Google has changed some of the satellite imagery of New Orleans back to post Katrina, but it is still somewhat outdated.

Google is a very popular medium that many people use as a means of attaining reliable information. Can something as little as a satellite image lessen how they are percieved? I personally think that if what they are advertising is that you can see up to date images of places around the Earth, then thats what the public should be able to see, destruction or not. The people of New Orleans have a right to be upset that the fact that they are still in a current state of ruins, was being ignored by a major media outlet.

Tracking and observing front pages

2007-04-03T16:00:00.000-05:00

After reading How do readers really look at newspapers? by Brian Veseling of Newspapers and Technology on poynter.org, the time certainly seems to be ripe for a renewed look at print newspapers. After all, there have been some significant changes in both printing technology and how news and information are distributed in the past 15 years and these have undoubtedly influenced newspaper design and how people process information.
If you ever take a minute to catch the direction your eyes surfs across a printed front page of news, compared to how your eyes surf across web page’s front page of news, there are many difference and similarities.
Personally, I prefer print for one reason, that is the flashy advertisements distract me more than anything else. They are my pet peeve of Internet news gathering, although it is also probably one of the greatest source of revenue for these businesses.
New businesses’ staff executives and layout designers are trying every day to figure out how and where to place what on their front pages. Last spring my Issues in Journalism class spent a month blogging and “wiki”-ing with members of the Nashua Telegraph, critiquing to them how young readers surf their page. Check out their improvements to our comments on the Nashua Telegraph.
Jonathan Dube, Cyberjournalist.net publisher, posted a comment on poynter.org regarding Today's News and where to look for front pages on the Internet. He said that One of the great advantages the Internet gives journalists and newshounds is the ability to read thousands of newspapers (or dozens, depending on how much free time you have). In addition to reading the online versions of newspapers, here are a few free ways to scan newspapers from around the world.
Dube suggests checking out slate.com and newseum.org to get a concise look at every national, and some international front pages on a daily basis. This is a great tool.
After taking a look at some of the front pages of the east coast, I compare and contrast the importance of story placement. A look at today’s Boston Globe, you notice that their upper left front page stories usually deal with a local issue, such as the clean up of 14 state beaches ranging from Lynn to Hull. Their upper right story takes a national issue of emissions from new cars and trucks and brings it back to a local angle saying that Massachusetts led the case against the EPA. Their front page has two truly local stories and three nationally reaching stories.
A look at Tuesday’s Christian Science Monitor reveals that its top story is the EPA story, followed with a story about whether detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba are entitled to court hearings on challenging their open-ended detention by the Bush administration’s war on terror. The story beneath that is on South American politics about whether a politician can speak her indigenous language on the floor. The photo caption on the Amish school students returning to school in Nickel Mines, Pa. after last October’s shootings also made the front page instead of the Globe’s A2 page. The paper provides a public opinion list along the front left of the page on other national and international issues. So, this paper provides the readers with a more national, international look.
While New Hampshire’s Union Leader sticks to mostly state news as their front page unfolds, the national and international news an be noticed listed along the left hand side.
Rhode Island’s Providence Journal has an easy to follow front page for today, with the entire left side devoted to the huge Red Sox loss to Kansas City, showing a picture of a frustrated Curt Schilling. The entire right hand side is devoted to the EPA story, followed by two state-wide stories of interest. Below the Schilling photo going from left to right is a story on sleep and depression taken from the Washington Post, then a story about an RI mobster, followed by lists of inside stories.
I could go onto to the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and the St. Petersburg Times or the Chicago Tribune (which was bought out by a real estate tycoon today) but I feel it’s quite clear - some newspapers have a more appealing layout than others, especially when it comes to front pages.
On a side note, the new editor-in-chief of The New Hampshire student newspaper certainly has done a nice makeover of the front page, making it the only U.S. paper I have found today with the AP wire about the tsunami striking the Solomon Islands on the front page!

Money Talks Along The Campaign Walk:

2007-04-03T14:52:00.000-05:00

At this point it has been months already since the start of commentary about the 2008 presidential election. This election like others the fundamental part in the process is campaign finance. Hillary Clinton, “raised a record $26 million for her presidential campaign in the first three months of the year and added $10 million more leftover from her Senate account”(Clinton Record). Along with her impressive figure was Mitt Romney with $23 million dollars and Barack Obama with $21 million. All three have outstanding contributions for the race and all are top contenders. Figures have shown that money is now the equivalent to votes in American democracy, campaign finance is crucial to getting messages out. In the 2000 election Republicans raised $239 million, Democrats $218 million, Bush won, Gore did not.(Campaign Finance) The next election in 2004 Bush spent $306.3 million verses Sen. John Kerry, spent $241.7 million. In 2004 also, 96 percent of House races and 91 percent of Senate, the candidate who spent the most money won (Money wins). Though there are times when money does not equal votes, it sure is easier to run a campaign when you have the media at your finger tips. It is surprising that third in the polls Mitt Romney has actually raised the most money especially verse that of John McCain.
The media must make a fortune off election campaigns, the more money that a candidate can put out there the more their views are discussed and potential increase in the polls. For this same reason, people that are not on the nightly news do not make it past the presidential primaries. It is questionable as to where this money all goes, besides the commercials and TV appearances, it is amusing that the media takes the time to report on these staggering amounts of money, but how relevant is it. It comes down to the candidates running for government offices are trying effect policy, if they spent more time focusing on accomplishing things rather than money maybe the system would change. It would be great if media reported equally and presented the views of each potential candidate. The money spent is being giving by large organizations/corporations and PAC’s, all of which have the money to spend, by this the average voter is may be getting pushed aside for these special interest seeking groups. When the common phrase is used that “elections have become candidate centered” do people really mean money centered these days. The (Fox News: Campaign Spending) article gives you a clear picture of how this is just the beginning as you can see candidate and presidential hopeful John McCain lags behind everyone with just $12.5 million, and he is one of the republican front runners, so that being said, one may be shocked later on when GOP primary verses totals for the general election start rolling in.

I'm in the MONEY!

2007-04-03T11:51:00.000-05:00

Watch out United States, Hillary Clinton is coming, and she's making money wherever she goes. 26 million dollars worth of money that is, and just for the first three months of her political campaign, which blows all of the other candidates fundraising amounts right out of the water.
MSNBC reports that her total included 4.2 million dollars raised on the Internet alone. If anyone had doubts about the power of the Internet and political campaigning you have now seen the incredible power and impact it can make. Meanwhile other presidential candidates work hard to catch up to Clinton. Republican Mitt Romney has raised 23 million dollars in the first three months,(he donated 2.35 million of his own money for the cause) with Giuliani following behind with 15 million. John McCain is last with only 11 million dollars.

One might wonder, how much have the Democrats made? The numbers aren't nearly as impressive. John Edwards has made 14 million with Richardson and Dodd raising 11 and 9 million respectively. Rumors are starting to spread regarding how much Barack Obama has, and when he will announce his amount. Some speculate that he might meet or even break Clinton's record although he has yet to say. Obama report.

It will be interesting to see how this next presidential election will go. No doubt it will be much different than the elections before, but what will change? How much money is really necessary to run for president, and what do they use it all for?

Acts of Journalism Revisited

2007-03-31T18:20:00.000-05:00

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

2007-03-29T17:18:00.000-05:00

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?

2007-03-29T12:45:00.000-05:00

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

2007-03-28T21:26:00.000-05:00

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

2007-03-28T15:49:00.000-05:00

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

2007-03-28T12:31:00.000-05:00

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?

2007-03-27T19:09:00.000-05:00

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)

2007-03-27T09:19:00.000-05:00

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:

2007-03-27T07:11:00.000-05:00

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

2007-03-26T21:39:00.000-05:00

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?

2007-03-26T00:02:00.000-05:00

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

2007-03-23T18:06:00.000-05:00

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?

2007-03-23T08:39:00.000-05:00

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"

2007-03-22T19:34:00.000-05:00

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

2007-03-22T16:28:00.000-05:00

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.

2007-03-21T20:44:00.000-05:00

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

2007-03-21T14:44:00.000-05:00

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

2007-03-20T19:32:00.000-05:00

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?

2007-03-20T15:50:00.000-05:00

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

2007-03-20T06:19:00.000-05:00

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!

2007-03-19T20:56:00.000-05:00

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”

2007-03-09T01:54:00.000-05:00

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

2007-03-08T20:02:00.000-05:00

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

2007-03-08T12:51:00.000-05:00

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?

2007-03-07T12:40:00.000-05:00

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?

2007-03-07T12:25:00.000-05:00

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

2007-03-06T11:41:00.000-05:00

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:

2007-03-06T07:56:00.000-05:00

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!

2007-03-05T12:44:00.000-05:00

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?

2007-03-05T12:26:00.000-05:00

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

2007-03-04T21:27:00.000-05:00

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

2007-03-04T19:41:00.000-05:00

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

2007-03-04T09:28:00.000-05:00

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??

2007-03-03T20:11:00.000-05:00

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...

2007-03-03T16:53:00.000-05:00

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"

2007-03-01T21:41:00.000-05:00

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

2007-03-01T12:57:00.000-05:00

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.

Is New News a Problem?

2007-02-28T16:51:00.000-05:00

Why is it that more people care more about what happens to celebrities and TV shows than what is happening to peoplr across the globe? I was looking at the CNN “Most Popular” news story listings and what I saw were things like “Can this fading TV show be saved?” and “Hilton drives w/suspended license”, which in my opinion aren’t really important news stories. Apparently most of the people that went to CNN’s website today thought they were important though, passing over any news stories regarding politics or world news.

This New News idea that has shown that people would rather read an "interesting"
story than something that is considered to be news is clearly changing the way in which the media reports the news. Many of the events that the media reports on nowadays are what many older people would consider to not be news. Is the everyday person beginning to grow tired of hearing about what is going on in the world and becoming obsessed with seemingly insignificant stories designed simply for entertainment? Hopefully people in America will soon come to their senses and at least pay some attention to the important events that are happening in this country and around the world.

Something Different

2007-02-28T15:37:00.000-05:00

A lot of us (including me) have had some solid posts, but almost all of the stories have been sardonic and cynical. Nothing wrong with that, I love being mean. However, reading this CNN news article kind of made my heart melt a little and made me take a step back and say, "word.. word".

Click here

The article shows the simple joys of childhood between a pair of baby orangutans and a pair of tigers. They play with each other and hang out; and when they're done that, they cuddle up and chill. Unbeknownst to these little critters is that as they grow older, they will become hostile towards one another and will no longer have mad chill sessions. In fact, the tigers will be wanting to eviscerate the orangutans and eat them, whilst the orangutans will have the urge to fling projectile feces at the tigers.

I see this as a metaphor for the world. In our younger years, we have nothing but innocent demeanor and simply wish to play with each other. As we grow older, we want nothing more than to eviscerate and fling poo at one another. Instead of seeing the world as it is and taking pleasure in its fruits, we want to alter and change it to how we want to see it. And since nearly everyone has a dogmatic view of what they believe, we will not stop the constant bickering. This truth has always bothered me and I have only went along with it to conform. I feel sad now. I think I need a hug.

The Occassional Ignorance of the U.S.

2007-02-24T15:15:00.000-05:00

I haven't been too aware of what's going on in the world of news this week due to the chaos that is college. So I went online today to see if I could find a story to write about. What I found was a story that due to it's placement on the website made it seem as though it were not important. This story is called, "Hundreds hurt in crossfire of fierce battles in Mogadishu." This got me thinking, people tend to concentrate on the war in Iraq and often times miss things that are just as important, or even on occassion, more so.

The media plays a role in this because I can honestly say that this is one of the first stories I have seen that deal with the ongoing crisis in Africa. The media updates Americans daily on how many soldiers have died that day, and how many bombings there were in Iraq, but in my experience they haven't said anything about the "more than 430 people, the vast majority of them civilians" whom were injured in this attack. It seems that the media has a tendency to cover things that involve Americans. Africa is being torn apart by civil war and disease, and that is not as important as "car bomb kills worshippers." The media needs to take charge and cover the terror that is Africa to help make people more aware that there is still trouble in Mogadishu and in Uganda. We rely on the media to tell us what is important in world news, and if they don't do their job, who will?

Satellite merger...are you Sirius?

2007-02-24T00:32:00.000-05:00

For the past month or so, rumors have been circulating about a possible merger between the two giants of satellite radio: XM and Sirius. If these two companies were to become one entity, it would for all intents and purposes provide them with a monopoly on the satellite radio broadcast market. However, would such a monopoly be such a big deal? Fox News states that "...as mobile technology in the United States advances, XM and Sirius are hoping the FCC will consider satellite radio as part of the broader industry of delivering music and other content through mobile devices, such as cell phones...".

In an effort to persuade the FCC and the Department of Justice to approve the merge, the main tactic used by these companies will be to minimize the role of satellite radio in the grand scheme of things. In their summary of "what's in the major US newspapers", Slate Magazine portrays this tactic in greater detail. "Although there are obviously concerns that letting the two unite would create a monopoly, the companies will argue they face plenty of competition for the public's ears with MP3 players, Internet radio, and mobile phones."

The next question that must be asked is whether the FCC is going to go for it. On the one hand, there is "On The Media". One of their stories this week would seem to suggest that despite some of the obvious obstacles in their path, Sirius and XM will be able to pull it off. On the other hand, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin has been heard to suggest the satellite radio will be treated in the same manner as satellite television and that approval of the merger is not likely.

What does this mean to us? There are two possible outcomes in this scenario. If the merger passes, it could mean a changing of the face of satellite radio and satellite media in general, as well as a change in media legislation across the board. Another possibility is that the FCC will reject the merger. If the FCC rejects the merger outright, then these two companies will continue to lose money competing with iPod and free radio at such a rate that they will become bankrupt. Regardless of whether you like "old news", "new news" or "no news", this merger could have a giant impact on how you get your music.
For further reading on this topic, check out Business Week.

Where is the line drawn?

2007-02-23T19:16:00.000-05:00

I was channel surfing today as a stumbled upon the channel 5 news report. I stopped to watch about a mother and father who had lost a child to the neighbors dog. The dog had not been tied and had been roaming around freely. Just as this family's child was walking home, the child was attacked and killed by the dog. This event caught television attention and quickly swarmed by the media, and as the reporters began to ask the family questions I couldn't help but put myself in the situation of the mother and father who had just lost a child. The reporters asked questions such as, How do u feel? Do you resent your neighbors? How are dealing with the lost of your child? Is their anything that you wish you did differently? I couldn't help but think that they were possibly crossing a line by asking such questions so immediately. Which draws me to my point that maybe there are questions that you just shouldn't ask. That the media could possible take in a more moral account of the news they are processing. Drawing a distinct line between what is actually news and what is really just being vindictive to ask.

Cute Kittens Outdo 800 Contractor Casualties

2007-02-23T17:26:00.000-05:00

I was browsing through the Boston Channel 5 News website today to find something to write on for my blog piece. Scrolling down the page, I noticed that they had an entire section on the website devoted to “Irresistible News”. Curious, I opened the link to find headlines such as “Social Dancing Banned in New York” and “Costumes for Cats A Felony?” Then, on the right hand side of the page was a section labeled “The Most Viewed Stories” and two of the four stories listed were “Clothes Drying in Oven May Have Sparked Fire” and “Cutest Kitten Winner and Finalists”. On top of that, all of the top headline stories were, in my opinion, fluff topics such as the jackpot in MassMillions lottery, the upcoming Oscars, and the Anna Nicole Smith trial. The only decent news report was about the 800 contractors who have been killed in Iraq thus far and their generally unaccounted casualties.

It maddens me to think that a cute kitten would outdo the importance of civilian casualties in Iraq. This returns back to the idea of new news and no news, but I simply find it upsetting what the American population sees as something worth their time looking up and the fact that the media is quick to feed the public that entertainment. Yet, is this emergence of new news found only in the United States? How do other countries view the role of media and news reporting? I find that the BBC International News website consistently reflects stories of importance. The only entertainment orientated article I found when I looked online today was about the creation of a cricket shaped "Batmobile" made in India – but since out of all the stories on the page the fact that that article is the only fluff story, does that indicate something about American’s concern for international affairs, let alone national problems? Yet, looking at a main newspaper in Russia called Arguementi i Facti, there seems to be just as much an even amount of “real” news pieces versus fluff entertainment topics. To be noted though, after the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia formulated many of its capitalist enterprises after American models, the newspaper industry one among the formulas. In the end, is American journalism a model approach that the rest of the world looks up to, or are we leading only ourselves into an age of apathy for “real” news? Yes, I know this blog has many questions, but I know that right now, I simply can not offer any answers.

The Boston Channel 5 News
BBC International News
Аргюменты и Факты

Possible Repeal of 2002 War Authorization?

2007-02-23T15:16:00.000-05:00

According to today's Washington Post, Senate Democratic leaders are drawing up a proposal to unveil next week repealing the Iraq war authorization of 2002, due to it being outdated. However, they are torn within the party about how to proceed with this binding legislation. Some don’t want to have to waste money funding the debate, fearing it will receive fire from Republicans saying that the Democrats aren’t supporting the troops. Others take a more aggressive view, believing the most effective way to confront President Bush's war policy is through a $100 billion war-spending bill that the president ultimately must sign to keep the war effort on track.
Putting a more restrictive authorization on the war would give more time for troops to train and be fully equipped for battle, halting the time of sending the 21,500 more gradually. This proposal would call for troops to withdraw from Iraq as soon as March 31, 2008.
Senior Democratic aides said the proposed resolution would be sent directly to the Senate floor for action, without committee review, possibly as an amendment to a homeland security bill scheduled for debate next week. Once the combat phase ends, troops would be restricted to assisting Iraqis with training, border security and counterterrorism.
Although we see articles in today’s papers about discussion within Congress to slow down the Bush administrations’ plans, this one has some teeth to it since this resolution is the first to be binding instead of non-binding.
I think this story is important enough for readers to stay in tune to. “No news” people will probably not read this, but as dry as it is, it is necessary if one is trying to figure out the media’s agenda to present this wordy information in an accurate manner. I will be following this resolution to see how it holds up next week. Keeping strong public policy with the Democrats is necessary right now for any changes to happen in regards to solving this dilemma with the war.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/22/AR2007022201743.html

Anna Nicole's...Death Fridge??

2007-02-22T17:51:00.000-05:00

Just when we all thought the worst had passed in the over-the-top media coverage of Anna Nicole Smith's death, along came the reports that her fridge could have been her ultimate downfall. Reporters from the tabloids to the major news stations like CNN have been going through the contents found in Anna Nicole's small fridge in her bedroom in the Bahamas and trying to "analyze" just how these things could have played a role in her death. There were pictures shown of and considerable air time given to the "slim fast" and "methadone" found there, on both Fox News and CNN (this story available as part of a Comedy Central clip*).

It would be one thing for the lower level tabloid magazines and internet sites to report on this, but CNN? Thankfully, they did not spend much time actually talking about Anna Nicole Smith. Unfortunately, they instead featured the headline "The Fridge Factor: What It Says About You," (CNN) and proceeded to launch into a discussion of what the contents of your fridge can say about your lifestyle and what kind of person you are. And as if that wasn't enough, they decided to take a look in the CNN break room fridge, where they discovered "lots of milk" for all the coffee they drink...wow. Is anyone else annoyed by this ludicrous attempt at "news"? First Anna Nicole's "Death Fridge," then the break room fridge at CNN? What ever happened to real news?

* Unfortunately, the clip of this CNN story, featured on Jon Stewart's The Daily Show, is no longer available on the Comedy Central website. This was where I originally got the information for this post. I have found a blog, the Huffington Post, which has the clip on it as part of a post on the story. I did not use the information in the Huffington Post article in writing this post, I only use it as a place to view the Comedy Central clip.

"We've Got Big Balls"

2007-02-22T17:41:00.000-05:00

“We’ve Got Big Balls” is a clever title that caught my eye as I was looking over “Foxnews.com”. However the story it contains is that of a very serious matter. In Surabaya, Indonesia a gusher of mud has erupted and it devastating anything that is within close proximity. Tons of hot noxious mud has poured out from this hole in the ground covering anything that lies in its path. Some twenty-five factories have been abandoned because they are covered with over thirty feet of mud. 11,000 people have been forced to leave their villages to find a place where they may seek refuge.

This so called “mud volcano” is somewhat common to the area due to the fact that this certain land falls between fault lines. Now where could this title of “We’ve got Big Balls” come into play? Well, the National Task force that is dealing with this crisis has come up with a solution. They are to drop hundreds of concrete balls, some weighing in excess of half a ton, into the “mud volcano”. If projected correctly the mud flow will be halted by a staggering 70%.

To be honest, the only reason I looked at this news story was because of the title. It just stuck out to me because it was on the front page of “Foxnews.com”. Maybe the news has to do this to make people aware that disasters happen in other parts of the world and not only the United States. Most US citizens, I wouldn’t call them ignorant, but naive to the fact that there are a lot worse situations occurring around the world than that of, god forbid, high gas prices. I think it is kind of sad that I, myself, had to find this news out by being tricked by a catchy title. But if this is what news stations and online-news have to do to make people aware, it will work, or it did for me anyway.

Another Example of Media Bias

2007-02-21T21:32:00.001-05:00

Yesterday Tony Blair, the Prime Minister of Britain, announced that he would be withdrawing 1,600 troops from southern Iraq by having them return home from their rotation and not replacing them. There are currently 7,100 British troops in Iraq, which is down from the over 40,000 troops that Britain had there at the beginning of the war. Denmark is also planning to remove its 460 troops from Iraq that are currently under the command of the British by August of this year. The Bush administration has said that this is merely an example of a success in Iraq, as the Iraqi security forces are going to take over control of the region.

A CNN article that came out yesterday showed the administration’s opinion of the situation, but it also showed the reaction of some members of the US Congress. CNN reported that Rep. Nancy Pelosi said that Blair's decision "confirms the doubts in the minds of the American people" about Bush's decision to increase U.S. forces in Iraq by more than 21,000. It also reported the reaction of House Minority Leader John Boehner, who said that this is “is one more sign that the new strategy to stabilize Baghdad deserves a chance to succeed.” The article also touched on Ted Kennedy’s reaction to the news, who called Prime Minister Blair’s decision “a stunning rejection of President Bush's high risk Iraq policy.”

On the other hand, a Fox News article that came out yesterday that was covering the same subject had an entirely different take on the subject. This article simply stated over and over again how this was a good sign and a model for what the coalition wants to do with the rest of the country. They used several quotes from Tony Blair to justify this point and said that the Iraqi Prime Minister had agreed to the pullout. There was only one line that touched on the possibility of this not being a positive event, which stated “Yet as more countries draw down or pull out, it could create a security vacuum if radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr stirs up trouble.” CNN may have a liberal bias, but at least it acknowledged all sides of the story and briefly explained each side. All Fox News did was give us a one sentence mention of the possible negative effect without even addressing the reaction of the US Congress, and it completely left out the possibility that Blair could simply be withdrawing the British troops because of the antiwar sentiment that is widespread in Britain (something that some Democrats in the US have proposed).

CNN article

Fox News article

The Government who cried wolf?

2007-02-21T13:49:00.000-05:00

An "On the Media" segment discusses a new form of IED that is supposedly being supplied by Iran. They are named, "explosively formed penetrators" or EFP's. Many critics are saying that they seem to be having flashbacks to 2002 when Michael Gordon, a chief military correspondent for the New York Times, wrote an article about the supposed aluminum tubes being acquired by Saddam Hussein for weapons of mass destruction; hence the reason for war with Iraq. Vice President Dick Cheney actually quoted from Gordon's article when answering questions about the need of a preemptive strike on Iraq. Now we are being told by the same guy (Gordon) that "unnamed sources" are telling him that these EFP's have a strong connection with Iranian groups such as Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard, the Quds force.
One critic, Michael Massing, has this to say, "And lo and behold, February 10th, in the same column of the newspaper, the same slot as the earlier Gordon/Miller story, we have another story smelling very similarly as having been planted by the U.S. government and very much promoting its bellicose intentions toward a nation in the Middle East. As well, it had very few qualifiers like the earlier story. It talked about civilian and military officials from a broad range of government agencies providing specific details to support their case."
Is this Gordon character being used as a pawn by the white house to further a cause to go to war with Iran to promote more war profiteering by political elites? Or is Iran trying to push America into war and possibly pull the U.S. too far into the middle east, resulting in an overstretched American military?

http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2007/02/16/01