the blog of julia shlita

2006-12-21T20:54:00.000-05:00

Central to the ideal democracy is the informed citizen. The informed citizen is one who engages in politics based on educated and rational knowledge of this area. However, from the beginning it has been unrealistic to think that the government and American citizens could communicate without some sort of mediation. In her book, Mass Media and Politics: A Social Science Perspective, Jan Leighley expresses the claim that media serves as that linkage institution between the government and the people. This view asserts that media is the conduit of communication for information between politicians and their constituents. Yet, how the media fulfill this role is not cut and dry.

There are six different models for the role that media plays. Five are asserted and defined in Leighley’s book, while Professor Stephen Pimpare asserts the sixth. The first model is the reporter of objective fact. In this most literal model, the media serve purely as a channel between government and the people. The media are not active in the process; they merely relay information between the two relevant parties. In this model, journalists are committed to pure fact alone. Individual biases are irrelevant and ignored in the quest to present objective truths. The news then consists of pure reflections of the world. Thus, everything that travels through the channel warrants being believed as wholly true.
The second model, the neutral adversary model differs in that the media play more of an active role as a linkage institution. In this situation, the media’s job is to keep an eye on the government and politicians. The role of journalists is to serve as watchdogs; to monitor politicians and make sure that all that the politicians do is within the journalists’ view. The journalists expose the truth and work or lack thereof of officials, and the assumption is that the people will act accordingly. Politicians are viewed as individuals with only their own interests in mind. In this model the news serves as a check on government. The truth, about what the politicians are thinking and doing, is served to the people based on journalists’ investigations. An example of this type of reporting, of historical note, is the Watergate scandal. Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward exposed the scandal and did all the investigative reporting based on a "third rate burglary."
The third model is that of public advocate. This model proscribes a highly active role for media as a linkage institution. As a public advocate, the media is much like a teacher, attempting to gain the participation of all of the students. The goal of journalists is to spark debate between an informed public and politicians. The media attempt to act on the behalf of the public and spur people into being interested and active in politics. Additionally, the media perform “behind the scenes” work, such as monitoring government, much like the neutral adversary model. Key to this model is that the journalists are beholden to no one and are thus free of any influence. In this model, the news serves to educate the people, who are the media’s main concern, about current events in the hope of sparking debate and involvement in politics.
The fourth model is the profit-seeker model. In this model, the media are viewed as businesses interested in making money for their respective shareholders. Everything the media do should thus be viewed as in the hopes of securing a profit. Journalists do not see their role as a conduit of truth, a protector of rights, or an educator, as mentioned in the above models in varying degrees. They are instead, part of a corporation that produces a product to be purchased. In this model, news is packaged in order to attract viewers and thus boost ratings. News content does not have any utilitarian or altruistic purpose; it is merchandise to be sold.
The last model mentioned by Leighley is the propagandist model. In this situation the media serve as an advocate for the powerful. The idea is that the media is used by those with power, to influence all citizens. In some cases it is the government who are using the media as a tool for securing and maintaining power. It can also be the corporate owned media owners attempting to legitimize the current standards of the business class. Citizens are unaware of this manipulation. The news content in this model is packaged with the goal of affirming the status quo. Frequently, when we think of propaganda systems, that of Hitler's Germany comes to mind. The propaganda program, run by Goebbels is, to this day, recognized as one of the most successfully destructive propaganda campaigns.
The last model, asserted by Professor Pimpare , is the de Tocqueville model. Based on Alexis de Tocqueveville’s work Democracy in America, particularly the section, "On Relation Between Public Associations and the Newspapers," Professor Pimpare asserts that media maintain society. In de Tocqueville’s article, he asserts that what will keep America together and unfractured by too many factions, is newspapers. Newspapers create binding ties that unite all its’ readers. Professor Pimpare suggests that media be substituted with newspapers. In this model media has the responsibility of relaying what is going on in the government. This knowledge is required to create effective citizens. New content is information that is useful to being an informed citizen. Crucial to this model is the element that people should be able to be informed without going out of their own way. Like a newspaper is dropped at one’s doorstep, media should supply citizens with the proper information, pre-packaged, to make the person informed on all that is needed to be knowledgeable on current politics.
It seems that the media could potentially assume any one the five other abovementioned roles. While each model has its own flaws, personally I believe the model that most fulfills the role of linkage institution is that of media as a public advocate. I find the other models to be too limited. I think that the media are supposed to be more than just reporters of objective facts. Information requires contextualization and sometimes, even interpretation. In the reporters of objective fact model the media serve purely as a conduit between government and the people, and I think that they should do more. The neutral adversary model, similarly, does not persuade me; it, too, seems too limited. I think the media should be more than a check on government; they should serve as an educating body. As mentioned above, and confirmed by Leighley, the profit-seeker model is too uninterested in its civic duty and fails in its responsibility to the people. The propagandist model is flawed for any democracy. As Nicholas Jackson O’Shaughnessy describes in his book, Politics and Propaganda: Weapons of Mass Seduction, a key feature of propaganda is manipulation, which is antithetical to democracy and the ideal of the citizen as informed and rational thinkers. The last “other” model is the de Tocqueville model. While, this one comes closest to that of the media as a public advocate, it too is just too limited. I see the journalist as more than a relayer of information. While news should be accessible, one should also be encouraged to participate in the process. Certainly media is a uniting factor, but it is more than that as well.
In my view the public advocate role of media should be the standard. The media should make us think and give us opportunity to act. I think that the public-advocate model has all the best qualities of the different models rolled into one. It is a provider of factual information, but contextualized. It checks on government, but it also spurs conversation. And, it unites people by creating opportunities for action. While some might say that it is too overreaching, I think this model is just what our country needs. Alexis de Tocqueville was correct when he worried about the growing population of this country and the inability for everyone to interact with government or each other, face-to-face. With the public advocate model, people are encouraged, by journalists with a strong sense of social and civic responsibility, to get active and make their voices heard.
In her book, Leighley asserts that it is the profit-seeker model, which is most dominant today. From the beginning, commerce has always driven media. Yet, even so, today we find ourselves in a world where all mainstream media is under corporate ownership. With just the click of a button, one can easily see all the diversified media holdings of all these corporations. In this system, where the same corporation sells refrigerators and television programs, it is easy to see how television viewers and product purchasers can be treated the same. As we mentioned in class, it is difficult to separate the NBC news product out from its owner, General Electric. Can the news on the current Iraq War be viewed as objective, when it is known that GE benefits monetarily from the war?
As a result of corporate ownership, the television product has changed. In Geneva Overholser and Kathleen Hall Jamieson’s book, Institutions of American Democracy: The Press, in James Hamilton’s article, “The Market and the Media,” he writes that the news product has changed as a result of the present state of media. He claims that there has been a decrease in hard news, with an accompanying increase in soft news, an increase in negative tone as well as horse-race coverage in politics, a decrease in watchdog stories, an increasing mix between opinion and interpretation within news itself, a decrease in international coverage, and a decrease in coverage of congressional voting. In my opinion, which finds company in the opinions of many others, with this model, in which the media is profit-driven, the media miserably fails its goal as a linkage institution between the government and the American people.
Within this model there is little or no room for public advocacy. Corporate owners have two main concerns: profit and maintenance of the status quo. Prior to the 1970’s and the remaking of the news department, news divisions were unconcerned with profit. They were not expected to compete with other programming or to be significant money earners. Yet, with the reformatting of the division, the news bureaus were now expected to be money earners like the rest of the television departments. In this environment news divisions do not have the freedom to have altruistic goals such as educating or mobilizing the people. The goal is high ratings. Corporate owners also seek to maintain the status quo. Throughout all television programming, news included, ideals are put forward to maintain business interests’ wishes for the status quo. Part of maintaining the status quo entails an involvement and support of government. It is thus difficult to trust the news reports on government action when the corporations look to the government for their continued success through further corporate success. The NAB lobby, the lobby group for the National Association of Broadcasters is the single largest lobbying group. This group, through their lobbyists, work to secure the optimum legislation for the media industry. In return the media corporations donate enormous amounts of money to politicians. In this system deregulation of the media results. This leads to a world where little concern is expressed for the television viewers while the corporate owners receive all the relevant governmental attention. Journalistic public advocacy finds no place in this environment.
In the world of New Media we find a drastically different picture. As Dan Gilmor presents in his book, We the Media: Grassroots Journalism By the People, For the People, the Internet has the power to educate people, mobilize them, and maintain their activism. The Internet brings with it the capability of communicating not only one to many, but also many to many, a truly novel concept. This promotes an environment of community and collectivity, much like a discussion. In this environment people with similar thoughts and interests can easily find one another.
Currently, every news outlet, clothing store, company, and charity, to name a few, has a website. Thus the Internet is a huge and constant supplier of information about the political world, and everything else under the sun. But, beyond being just a supplier of information, the Internet is also a place of activity and communication. Almost every website has a "Contact Us" function, usually at the bottom of the page, where any relevant query can be sent. Websites have message boards, whether it is one discussing a product on the market or reactions to ahttp://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gif recently aired television program.
With the public advocacy model as my optimal standard standard, the Internet is a lot more successful in fulfilling the role of linkage institution than mainstream media. On thhttp://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gife Internet, news can be obtained from a plethora of sources giving one the full gamut of political opinion. Local, national, and international news are accessible at the click of a mouse. Mainstream news outlets have websites, as well as run by journalist and non-journalist alike. But beyond just the access to information, the Internet also provides the tools for action as well. One of the key political examples discussed by Gilmor is how Howard Dean utilized the Internet in a way never done before, during this past Presidential election. Dean used the Internet to establish his initial campaign. Through blogs he rallied support and spread his name and his accomplishments. Bloggers used the Internet to arrange meetings for fellow Dean-supporters. Furthermore, Dean mobilized a successful fundraising effort via the Internet, which has been imitated by many candidates subsequently. Blogging, and the world of citizen journalism is the public advocate model at its finest. Citizens are keeping abreast of what is going on in the world and acting with the tools that the Internet provides.
Anyone with Internet access has the power to be informed. Another technology that Gilmor discusses in his book is that of the RSS feed. The ability for news feeds to be sent to the individual is much like a newspaper being dropped on the doorstep. But in this case with the click of the mouse on a link or elsewhere, the knowledge can lead to action. Thus the Internet provides a medium where the media successfully performs the role of the public advocate.
Yet, this is in danger. Every freedom that the Internet represents is perilously in a precarious position. Like with all the other forms of media, the corporations are beginning to rear their ugly heads as they search for more profit. As Jeff Chester writes in his article, “The End of the Internet,” the telephone and cable companies are currently in the midst of planning different strategies to turn the Internet into a profit-making machine. Under their plan Internet access will now be tiered, based on cost. The speed of one’s Internet will now depend on how much one pays, and there will be different options and plans. The more you pay, the faster your Internet. This privatization of the Internet will be a blow to the free medium it represents today. In the current system a website that is run by a lone individual about a small issue has the same power as a huge website that is run by a multi-million dollar organization. But with this new plan, the latter would be more accessible to viewers because of the companies’ ability to pay the service provider. In this new world where money talks, not all issues will have equal representation on the Internet. The more money, the more exposure and the faster the service.
Part of what makes the current state of the Internet so public advocate-friendly is the equal opportunity for any website out there. This creates an equality of issues and opinions. Yet, within the new system, the public-advocate model of media is severely stifled. No longer are small alternative news sources on an equal plane as the multi-million dollar news outlet. In a world where one candidate can pay more to have his or her image eclipse, in size, the other candidate’s, there is not equality among the diversity of opinion.
As Bill Moyers states in the film, “Net At Risk,” with the FCC declaration last year that net neutrality rules were extinct, the potential for the most democratic mass medium in existence became truly at risk. Lobbyists are currently fighting to achieve a series of measures including the abovementioned one, in order to achieve a profit from Internet usage. The continuance of the media as an institution that is the lone medium where the public advocate role of the media is being fulfilled, hangs in limbo, ready for its death knell, or if enough support can be gathered, its establishment as a place of free thought.

2006-12-07T02:57:00.000-05:00

As I followed the news today, I found myself being attracted to a (surprise surprise) non-news story. My journey started on CNN.com as I read, “Cheney Daughter’s Pregnancy Dismays Some.” Apparently, Mary Cheney and her partner of 15 years, Heather Poe have decided to have a child, and for Mary to carry the child (Mazel Tov!). As I navigated to the U.S. Politics page on the site, I began to wonder how this story would be spun in order to appeal to the diverse American public. I thought to myself that I would probably have to check out the websites of a few different news outlets in order to see the full picture.
Silly me! As I scanned the Politics page, I saw a new headline for the same article. This time the headline read, “Vice President’s Lesbian Daughter Pregnant.” A totally different quote with a totally different message. The first headline mentioned seems to convey a neutral, but potentially negative undercurrent. Apparently some are dismayed or disappointed at the news that this woman is with child. Yet, the second headline seems nowhere near as neutral. Though it seems plainer and simpler, it packs a punch, the “L-word.” The characterization of this woman as a lesbian is the attempt to appeal to a certain type of reader. This headline is intended to shock and anger its readers into reading more.
If one thinks that this is the end of the headlines, one is sorely mistaken. There is yet one more- the headline that runs above the article itself. It reads, “Mixed Reaction to Cheney’s Daughter’s Pregnancy.” I would qualify this headline as neutral-positive. Like the first quote mentioned, it comes off as stating fact, yet, it does so in a way that also connotes and underlying feeling. Mixed reaction, in this situation, is a positive. People are not all out looking for this woman who is breaking down the moral fabric of society nor are all people out praising Cheney and Poe for taking a step in their relationship and deciding to have a child, in a way that many committed couples do.
To travel back to September, I find myself here having another set of proofs for support of the media as Profit-seeker in the potential media models. As evidenced here, news outlets are so eager to attract consumers of any belief or political persuasion. In order to do so, the same article will be dressed in different costumes (headlines) in order to draw the shoppers in.
Interestingly, the article itself contained aspects of each headline, though it ended on a note of affirmation, quoting a person commending the couple’s decision.

2006-12-04T23:55:00.000-05:00

While reading Diana C. Mutz and Byron Reeves’ article, “The New Videomalaise: Effects of Televised Incivility on Political Trust,” an article about the adverse relationship between the incivility of politicians towards one another on television and television consumers’ trust in the political system, I could not help but think of our previous class discussions about the effect of negative campaign advertisements on voters. As discussed in class, contemporary political scientists assert that negative campaigns, though they may be good sources of information about the candidates, have the ability to depress voter turnout, due to their negativity. It is interesting to connect Mutz and Reeves’ assertion that politicians on television are held to the same human decency standards as face-to-face interactions between people, to this theory of campaign ads. They suggest that as a result of the impolite treatment of one another politicians are viewed by television-viewers unfavorably and as a result, the institutions they represent (Congress, the Government in general, etc) are viewed unfavorably as well. Maybe it is for this reason that people become disillusioned by negative campaigning and are disinterested in voting. Based on this article I would like to assert that the feeling behind the disinterest in voting as a result of negative advertisements used in political campaigns is a result of television viewers’ distress over the incivility displayed by the candidates. This distress and disappointment over the lack of politeness expressed during elections, then manifests itself in the desire to want nothing to do with the election process.
When I think of negative campaigning of late, it is hard for me to forget the Midterm election battle that occurred in my home state of Pennsylvania between the incumbent Senator Rick Santorum and the newly elected future Senator Robert Casey. As the elections got closer and the polls tightened with Casey taking a bit of a lead, Santorum deployed a series of negative ads.

Along with ads bashing Casey, Senator Santorum also aired ads that lied about himself, as we discussed in class.

Though no significant research has been done to test the effect of Santorum's negative ad campaign, the people of Pennsylvania spoke, and as Americans rarely do they voted against the incumbent.
Maybe the people of Pennsylvania thought Senator Santorum was being impolite?

2006-11-30T01:23:00.000-05:00

In the early chapters of Gilmor’s We the Media, he lays the groundwork for asserting that news organizations, and companies in general, should encourage feedback on their respective industries from customers and the like. One of his suggested examples is in the airport industry. Travelers, who usually know airports the best, and notice changes, should be encouraged to engage in discussion with the airline officials to make airports safer. People should be encouraged, Gilmor claims, to suggest changes and to point out failures and potential loopholes in order to protect the flying public.
I found it bizarrely coincidental that as I was browsing the CNN United States homepage I found an article relating specifically to this point. The article “FBI Investigates Student Over Website,” tells of a college student who did just what Gilmor suggested. For his dissertation, Christopher Soghoian, a student at Indiana University created a Web site exposing airport loopholes.
But, what was the reaction?
He became a suspect to the FBI. Government officials were concerned that Soghoian was conspiring with others, with the bad intentions of doing harm by making the airport security loopholes known.
Today, on his blog, Chris announced that the FBI has dropped its case and found him innocent. He explained the purpose of this website as purely to help improve the security situation at airports. Apparently, he was trying to follow Gilmor’s advice, to the t!
However, it seems that at this point in time, it’s the government who are unwilling to consider Gilmor’s and promote civic participation in matters of national security.

2006-11-28T00:21:00.000-05:00

In the heat of the Senator Foley scandal I noticed a seemingly odd occurrence. On the cover of Time Magazine, smack in the middle, was the rear view of an elephant. The headline was something to the extent of “The End of the Republican Party.” While the picture was powerful in its starkness of a single elephant on a white background, it was the cover of the New York Times Magazine, a few days later that struck me. On the cover, there was yet another elephant. But this time the image represented an article dealing with the phenomena of endangered elephants. I found it interesting that even though the content was wholly unrelated, the images used were identical.
Upon showing this to my parents, my mother replied, “its zeitgeist.”
Zeitgeist is defined as “a phenomenon based on fate where something simultaneously happens everywhere at a certain time.” My mother informed me, that this is also a concept in media. Frequently, when one issue or image is used, it is used everywhere. When I logged onto CNN this evening, I found myself in another zeitgeist moment.
For the past day and a half, one of the news stories that was inescapable was the story of Sean Bell, a black man who was shot and killed outside a strip bar on the day his honeymoon was supposed to begin. The issue is meriting so much attention because as of yet, it is unclear why he and the other men he was with were shot, resulting in the one fatality. Every news circuit has been carrying this story all day. The grieving mother of his children visited the scene. A vigil was held where the participants counted to the number 50- the supposed number of how many shots the police fired at the men. Reverend Al Sharpton has gotten involved to express his anger. And, even Mayor Bloomberg has expressed the fact that he has found this matter to be “unacceptable.”
My moment of zeitgeist arrived at 9:30 p.m., after my last class, as the CNN homepage appeared on my computer screen. “Stories Differ in Police Killing, Chief Says,” read the headline. At quick glance I assumed this article was about the abovementioned shooting. But no! Unlike the first shooting, which occurred in Queens, New York, this shooting took place in Atlanta, Georgia. Last week, yes, last week, Kathryn Johnston, an 88-year old black woman, was shot and killed by police in a drug raid on her home. On Tuesday the police came to her home. They claim that she opened fire on them and they returned fire, mortally wounding her. Her family claims that this “little old woman” had nothing to do with drugs, nor did she allow other to use her home to sell drugs. Thus an investigation is underway.
I find myself wondering, what brought about the uncovering of this case that occurred earlier last week? Why did the Atlanta police chief announce that an investigation would commence today? In the Sean Bell case, the shooting occurred at 4 a.m. and within a few hours of publicity an investigation was underway!
Is there a relationship between the publicity of the Queens shooting and the surfacing of the Atlanta shooting, which is almost a week old?
Is it zeitgeist?
With this current example in mind, it is interesting to consider what causes zeitgeist. What we know is that the Sean Bell story was a popular story today. People were mobilized to hold a vigil, all the developments on this case were noted on websites, and this story was a top new story on news outlets. As depressing and horrible as it is to imagine, I see no other explanation than going back to our good old profit-seeker model.
Here we had a human-interest story that had all the elements of good news. We had police brutality, death, and a grieving widow. With all the interest it seems that the news wanted to capitalize on this attention, and what better way to do it that by digging up a similar story.
Sad, how two deaths, of which we know little to nothing about, become attempts of news outlets to attract viewers.

2006-11-23T02:52:00.000-05:00

While I cannot deny that some of Gilmor’s technological jargon evaded my understanding, I must admit that I found myself seeing my own computer life in the journey to new media that Gilmor described in chapters one and two. In these chapters Gilmor details the development of the computer and the Internet and its interplay with media. As Gilmor went through each of the different stages I saw my family and myself in each stage and our growing familiarity with the Internet.
I was born into a family that already had a computer. My mother, when pregnant with my older brother decided that she should take a class to learn DOS. Then she bought our first Apple, the first of many Macs! From a young age Prodigy was a regular term in my home, though only my mother was the expert. I remember playing all the Broderbund Games (I think that is what they were called); we must have had every Learning Center game they produced! For several years the computer was purely a game pod for me. Eventually, it became a word processor also, as I started needing to type my papers. Yet, I was still scared of this so-called “Internet,” of which only my mother “knew the code.”
When America Online came out, we quickly switched, and interestingly, at the same time, the computer was moved from the basement office onto the second floor, near all the bedrooms. Coincidence, I think not! Finally, I decided to take the jump. All of my friends talked to each other on Instant Messenger, after school, so I too, needed to join. I remember the drama that accompanied choosing a screen name and email as well as a password.
My first experiences with Internet were email, IM, and chat rooms, though to this day I do not understand what my friends and I found entertaining about going into chat rooms and talking to each other, pretending to be total strangers.
As my family experienced different events, we became savvy in the different aspects of this new world of Internet. When my brother had his Bar Mitzvah my parents started a mail list with many relatives. This continued after the bar mitzvah, as family members shared their personal news with one another.
I distinctly remember the first time I used a search engine. My sister had been diagnosed with a brain tumor. I remember sneaking into the computer lab in my elementary school during lunch and typing in “ganglioglioma.”
High school brought a whole new wave of familiarity with the Internet. The idea that the Internet contained research information had been totally unknown by me. I remember thinking how many of my middle school papers would have been easier if only I would have made that realization.
Similar to what Gilmor said, my use of the Internet as a news provider did not really exist until September 11th. Only then did I become an avid browser of the various news outlet websites.
My most advanced Internet experiences have really been my more recent experience in the world of blogging. I recall, about a year or so ago, my cousin sent me a link to his blog, and I honestly had no clue what I was looking at. Yet now, just like with all my other Internet learning, I am once again unfazed.
Though still, every so often there are the new Internet experiences to be had. For instance, I watched my first full-length television show online, just last week!
What Gilmor’s first two chapters have left me with is a similar idea to what I learned from reading the book The World is Flat, that key to being successful in this day and age and understanding and properly using all the technology out there is the ability to be flexible. Everything can change in the drop of a hat and we must be open to new technologies and new technological experiences to live in this world and make sense of it. A prime example of this being my father, who, just a few years ago, at the age of 64 finally realized that he too, must embrace this world, and was the last member of my family to “sign on.”

2006-11-21T00:39:00.000-05:00

Fascinatingly enough, after devoting a half hour to the quest for negative criticism, I am empty handed in my search for an unfavorable critique of Eric Boehlert’s Lapdogs. However, it seems quite appropriate that once published, this book would merit little attention from the media, or anyone else. If purposely ignored, this seems all too similar to Boehlert’s discussion of Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq, whose protests were totally ignored by the press, in an attempt to make it seem that they did not exist. It only seems right that Boehlert would get the same treatment- no publicity for something never mentioned!
My reading of selections of Boehlert’s book was much like preaching to the choir. Once again my preconceived views of the post 9/11 press, particularly the White House Press Corps, as puppets to the Bush administration, has been confirmed.
Boehlert’s central claim in the book is that the press were more antagonistic towards former President Clinton than they currently are towards President Bush. In an article from the American Journalism Review, Rachel Smolkin writes that this is true mostly due to the appeal of scandal. She writes that the personal scandal that enveloped President Clinton’s presidency was far more entertaining to critique and expose than President Bush’s wartime maneuvers.
Eric Alterman’s article in the Nation, “Lies About Blowjobs. Bad Wars? Not so Much,” highlights this idea. Alterman notes that when President Clinton attempted to hide some sexual indiscretions, which had NOTHING to do with the running of a country, many of the press claimed that he merited impeachment. However, the fact that President Bush may have lied to the American people about A WAR seems to be okay.
Similarly, in a blog, under the heading “Press as biased against Clinton as it is pro Bush,” the author details how the press hounded President Clinton from the beginning of the election campaign, straight on till today. The Whitewater scandal, as well as the several harassment and sex scandals were never brushed under the rug. Yet, we never have heard the extensive juicy details of President Bush’s cocaine use or his bout with alcoholism.
It thus seems that Eric Boehlert’s claim is correct. For a plethora of reasons, the press have been much more antagonistic to President Clinton than they have been to President Bush.

2006-11-15T20:48:00.000-05:00

We have a rich history of case law dealing with the limiting of free speech. In truth, from the inception of the United States of America, those in power have sought to suppress dissident views. In particular, much case law exists concerning free speech during war times. In the claimed interest of national security and patriotism, free speech is frequently “put on hold” during war times.
As early as 1798, speech has been limited in times of war or post war. Claiming to be necessary for the new United States to survive its days of infancy, Congress passed the Sedition Act, which prohibited any printing, uttering, or publishing of information that would be contrary to the view held by the administration. This law stood, unopposed and unchallenged until its expiration. Following this, with each major war, cases have arisen as the dissenters express their opposition.
But, even beyond legal restriction on free speech, frequently during wartime, social pressure, antagonistic to dissenting opinions, is just as strong. In the post- September 11th world, where every car, home, and, business proudly waved the American flag, oppositional sentiments were not tolerated.
Like W.E.B Dubois, I believe that “…any system of spreading information, in any country which denies the intelligent citizen and voter certain facts or groups of facts, is fundamentally and dangerously wrong.” The restriction of free speech is undemocratic. Of course exceptions like state secrets that cannot get out exist, but the gross over-rationalization that is seen in case precedent is unacceptable. Much like W.E.B. Dubois, I think the power to prevent and stem this wrongdoing exists primarily among the American people. We should demand alternative viewpoints from our media and be reluctant to believe anything and everything we read.
Critical to maintaining an environment of free speech is not giving into the propaganda that encourages demonization of oppositional or dissenting opinions. If achieved, free speech will be a given and restriction- unthinkable. People would less eagerly fall pray to propaganda and require factual and ration proof to support going to war.
In this realistic world restriction on free speech would never stand.

2006-11-13T22:01:00.000-05:00

A funny thing happened to me when I went to AlJazeera.Net.

After reading the article from The Nation, about the bad rap that Al Jazeera gets for being an independent news source, I attempted several times to access the website. As I sat in the Stern Computer Lab, switching computers each time I was logged off, I started to think, maybe this was not just a technical error. After all, no one else in the room seemed to be having problems using the Internet.
From a young age, as a member of the Jewish community, I was raised to think of Al Jazeera as the lowest of the low, the worst type of propaganda that could easily be equated to that of the Nazis. Yet, for the brief few minutes, on each computer, that I was able to browse the website, I found myself shocked at the fact that most of the headlines present were similar to those I had seen on CNN.com earlier that day. As I browsed the site, in my limited time, I was very impressed and shocked to find a Code of Ethics. In this Code of Ethics, I found rules that any Western paper would have. Ideals of factual observation, objectivity, and desire to print the truth were all espoused.
In Jeremy Schahill’s article, the author discusses the secret memo concerning President Bush’s plan to bomb Al Jazeera headquarters. America’s war on Al Jazeera, Schahill concludes, is for no other reason than for the fact that it does not espouse Western views. Bombing Al Jazeera would be as undemocratic as, hypothetically of course, a university restricting use of its computers to access a particular website.
In discussing this issue with the computer room and other friends, the resounding opinion was that, if in fact Yeshiva University does restrict website use in its computer labs, it is in the interest of security. The last thing anyone wants, one friend said, is for some website user to be linked to Al Jazeera and the Stern Computer Lab. Yet, I disagree. If in fact, Yeshiva University restricts computer usage (which as a disclaimer I would like to say that this totally could have been a fluke, and just a series of bad coincidences) they are being just as un-Western as the accused, Al Jazeera.
It seems that we are victims of propaganda concerning Al Jazeera ourselves. We are told of how bad they are on a double front. As Jews, we are told to see them as anti-Semitic and attacking our people. As Americans, we are told to see them as aiding and abetting terrorism.

Funny how when we finally decide to find the truth, we cannot access the website.

2006-11-08T19:34:00.000-05:00

One of the most powerful strengths of propaganda is the ability to take a weakness or a failure, and through manipulation and deceit turn it into a glorified triumph of mythic proportions. There are few better examples of this than the Munich Beer Hall Putsch.
The true story is that Hitler and others, upset with their recent defeat in World War I as a result of weakness and betrayal from German leaders, sought to overthrow the government, beginning their stronghold in Munich. On November 8, 1923 and leading into November 9, Hitler and his followers held hostage all those in the beer hall, present for a speech from Gustav von Kahr, the newly appointed Bavarian Commissar. The goal was to persuade the officials present to aid Hitler and to march on Berlin. While the officials present agreed at the time, at gunpoint, within a few days Hitler was arrested for treason. Though sentenced to five years, he served a mere eight months.
Though the extent to which this putsch was a failure is clear to the reasonable viewer, the Hitler propaganda machine did not see it this way. This document, an outline for how to celebrate the holiest day on the Nazi calendar, highlights the ability to completely change the nature of an event. November 9 was not an embarrassing day, but a day of pride. Among Nazis this day did not symbolize the failed beginnings of a movement, but rather, the initial ascent to glory.
Key to this conversion into a holy and proud day is the element of martyrdom. In O’Shaugnessey the significance of martyrdom to propaganda is discussed. The idea that people would die for a movement or a cause is the most impassioned rallying cry possible. To say that one would die for a cause shows the highest level of dedication. By turning this day into a memorial for martyrs is a rally cry on its own.
Thus this truly embarrassing event was transformed into a ritualized memorial day, filled with song and emotion. And as we know, ritual is yet another essential in the web of propaganda.

2006-11-07T00:38:00.000-05:00

In Chapter 2 O’ Shaughnessey presents the idea that one of the main functions of myths is to maintain the status quo. Whether through glorification or demonization, the present state of society is sustained through acceptance and perpetuation of the myth and its relevant ideas.
In my mind, it is hard to find a better example of this than the myths surrounding women in the 1800’s. The Victorian Era was a period of great change for everyone in industrializing nations. The Industrial Revolution brought with it new jobs and new opportunities for all. But, this brought with it a problem, how would the men maintain the status quo, keeping the women home and out of the workforce? MYTHS!
The myths surrounding women of this time period fall under both categories, negative and positive, or as stated above, glorification and demonization. Women were raised with the notion that they were fragile and delicate with the life purpose of marriage and childbirth. Her goal was to achieve the glorified role of the “Republican Mother.” This myth, that women exerted the most influence and power in the world through the raising of her sons was accepted and perpetuated by women. Particularly in Britain, these women were told that through the proper raising of her sons she would ensure the success of the empire. In this role they were also encouraged to engaged in “Social Housekeeping,” charitable acts that were extensions of their home activities, like caring for the sick and cooking for the homeless. This myth ensured that women would remain in their sphere, in the home to fulfill this job that was bigger than them.
But, if it was not enough to maintain the status quo through the giving of purpose to women, the women were held back from the workforce and education because of misconceptions about their biology. Myths were established that claimed that beyond woman’s physical inferiority, her woman-ness made her weak. At the onset of menstruation she was no longer capable of higher learning, for any mental exertion was believed to sap power from her reproductive organs- a terrible fate for a woman whose goal was to produce children! This myth, perpetuated by men, woman, and doctors alike, ensured that women did not seek higher education or taxing mental activities.
I think today we can still find remnants of this idea of maintaining the status quo and keeping women in the home. The “Soccer Mom” is glorified to the extent that she is basically a cornerstone of our society. Daytime television is geared towards her, cars are made for her, and she even is defined on Wikipedia! Similarly, ideas of women’s physical inferiority are still alive today as well as misconceptions and fear from males concerning menstruation.
All hail the power of myths?

2006-11-06T09:30:00.000-05:00

With Part I of O’Shaughnessy under my belt I must admit that I am no closer to determining the nature of propaganda than I was before. However, I do understand the theory behind it all much better. The problem with defining propaganda is that it can never be defined ultimately. The definition is a changing one, one that must incorporate historical experiences as well as present circumstances. Propaganda has many components but to varying degrees, depending on the political scientist. These different elements include: manipulation, intent, and breadth to name a few. Interpretation is the key to propaganda. Even if the intent of the source of the propaganda is to manipulate, the goal is dependent on the negotiated meaning of the active audience. Basically, propaganda can be anything, everything, or nothing.

2006-11-02T01:58:00.000-05:00

Being that we are quickly approaching the 2006 Midterm Elections, I chose an article on the elections from WatchingAmerica.com. The article I chose was from the Economist, a British paper, and is titled “Watching from Afar: How the Rest of the World Sees America’s Mid-Term Elections.” Before I get to the issue that I would like to discuss at length, I would like to note that I have never seen an article in the United States written like this. Frequently we hear about how connected Europe is and how close in terms of distance and relationship-wise the countries are. The article truly projected this. When reading this I felt like I was reading a European paper; it was not like reading an article here, where only America’s views are discussed. When reading this article I was presented with the views of several countries and I felt like I was getting more of a global picture, which I found refreshing.
What I would like to look at is whether this article, the foreign coverage of a domestic American political event is propaganda or merely a difference in perspective. With the first part of O’Shaughnessy in the back of my mind, I am in the mode of thinking that anything has the potential to be propaganda. O’Shaughnessy asserts that media, in its selection of what is or is not news has the ability to impose a certain mindset on the public, and thus is a form of propaganda. I find this idea to be persuasive. Interpretation plays a significant role in journalism and because of this, ideologies are sure to be inserted into articles, reports, and such.
I think that a difference in perspective signifies a difference in ideology and opinion, and the expression of this through the media is in fact propaganda. I would like to just add here, that like O’Shaughnessy asserts, propaganda is not inherently bad, but to go even farther I think that propaganda in the media may just be unavoidable. After all, few journalists or media conglomerates lack an agenda.
An article like this would never be written in the U.S. It teems with distaste for the current American war in Iraq and detestation for President Bush. It almost seems to be shouting, “I told you so,” to America. While dissatisfaction is certainly written about here, it is not done in such a harsh tone.
The article is claiming that the world should be interested in these midterm elections because there are currently several issues of significance that the new Congress would be dealing with. This idea of being interested in the politics of other countries seems almost un-American. Our xenophobic and ethnocentric elites encourage us to lead and assume that the rest of the world will follow with few concerns.
This frank and global-minded article certainly emits a worldview and approach unlike that in America. It further encourages anti-Iraq and anti-Bush Europeans and certainly can be considered propaganda.

2006-10-31T18:40:00.000-05:00

The trend is all too clear in recent Presidential approval rating polls. Whichever series of polls you look at, the downward decline of President Bush’s approval rating, from its skyrocketing 90% is more than obvious.
I would like to think that this decline can be likened to a person gradually coming out of a cave. He or she may have forgotten what the real world looks like because of the lengthy time in the darkness, but, as he or she incrementally embraces the light he or she is reminded of the real world. I think that the American people are slowly realizing the nature of the wild goose chase that we have been on, all in the name of ending terrorism, since September 11th and are changing their feelings toward their fearless leader because of it.
The 9/11 piece we read adds to understanding why President Bush’s approval rating reached such heights; post 9/11 fears gave Bush a carte-blanche to pursue his goals with full public support.
However, I would like to look at the approval rating of Bush as it is now and how it is being viewed and used by the media.
President Bush’s approval rating seems to be popping up everywhere in the news and on blogs alike. We are currently in the throes of the 2006 Midterm elections. Historically, presidents have played significant roles in helping those in his party attain reelection. What is interesting in our current situation is the concern over President Bush’s ability to assist fellow Republicans when his approval rating is so low. It is almost like President Bush, himself, is running for reelection, as he travels across America trying to mobilize support for his party.
I similarly find it interesting that due to the President's low popularity with the people (in my opinion)the elections have turned into whether or not the candidates blindly supported Bush in the past few years or not. How one voted on the Iraq war, or on the Patriot Act seem to be a common thread throughout political ads. Republicans are deeply concerned about their own positions because of the negative view toward President Bush. As they should be.

2006-10-25T23:00:00.000-04:00

This week in my Constitutional Law class we have been covering the First Amendment, particularly the Religious Freedom clauses, so as I scrolled down the list of survey reports of the Pew Research Center for People and the Press, one jumped out at me. “Many Americans Uneasy with Mix of Religion and Politics,” the title read. This survey was released August 24, 2006. With the Constitution in mind and the importance of religious freedoms and the separation between Church and State ranking high on my list of priorities I was very surprised by the findings of this survey. The leading statistic for the survey was, “69% Say Liberals Too Secular, 49% Say Conservatives Too Assertive.” I read through the entire report to find that the United States of America is even more religious than I previously believed, with many thinking that religion and Bible should play a more prominent role.
The survey was done by telephone, which with my list of 20 questions to ask in order to evaluate a poll, I know can sometimes lead to errors. It was conducted between July 6th and 19th and interviewed 2,003 individuals 18 and older. When reading through the questions, one thing that particularly impressed me was the attempt for unbiased and neutral language. I was even more impressed when I read that for some questions that had options, the questioners were instructed to change the order of the options, another attempt to assure a valid poll. I appreciate the simplicity of the questions. It is clear that no one is trying to manipulate or trick the participants into saying something that they don’t believe. Additionally impressive is the amount of questions. The questions were divided into four groups: religion and public life, religion and politics, religion and science, and religious beliefs. In all, 81 questions were asked. The depth and breadth of the questions provides a complete picture of the findings.
The methodology of the poll seemed fairly standard procedure. They have systems for how they choose the phone number to dial and they commit to trying to reach a number at least ten times. It is clear that they strive for representativeness. The one problem I see in the methodology, with the help from my 20 tips, was that there was weighting involved. While I do not wholly understand the weighting concept, I see the ability it has to produce errors.
Though there was no conclusions section in this study, it is clear that the findings of this study suggest that religion plays a dominant role in the lives of most American citizens. The findings that the survey report itself highlights are, that “Fewer now say GOP friendly to religion,” “Dems still face big ‘God Problem,” “Poverty, Iraq top pulpit topics,” “Religious views shape Mideast sympathies.” While on a personal level I have difficulty with the findings of this survey, on a practical level it seems that this poll was carried out properly and would pass the 20 questions, easily.

2006-10-24T13:53:00.000-04:00

When I was in seventh grade my teacher used to always tell us, “don’t say in three what you could easily say in one.” The importance of speaking and writing clearly and succinctly is impressed upon children only to be abandoned in adulthood, when one thinks that complex and wordy sentences are better.
In his essay “Politics and the English Language,” George Orwell decries the state of the English language at the time. People write with such an air of pretentiousness, with no interest in actual meanings. He discusses how destructive this is to society and how corrupting it is to thought.
While reading his essay, I could not help but relate his ideas to my own life. The idea that words and labels are overused, with no fear of the consequences is quite pronounced in my world.
Today, the Jewish people are a divisive group. Just like Orwell claims that different words are improperly used and lead to meaningless and corrupt thought, this rings true among the Jewish people. We throw around terms like religious, frum, shomer Shabbat, ultra Orthodox, right wing, left wing, fanatical, to name a few. We do not even think about what these words mean anymore. The worst part of it all is that these words turn into labels and perpetuate the division and crystallize it.
But beyond relating to Orwell in the abovementioned way, I also agree that language does not develop naturally (hmm, just like McChesney claims about media) and can be changed and set on a different path.
So it seems that we can save the English language, political thought, Jewish divisiveness and the sorry state of the media.

2006-10-18T19:34:00.000-04:00

Is There a Difference Between the Mainstream Media and New Media?

Though many assume that Al Gore invented the Internet, in truth several individuals collaborated over many years to create the Internet that we have today. Since its inception, the Internet has played a unique and truly indefinable role in American life. In her book, Leighley asserts that like MSM the effects of the Internet on people, particularly concerning political thought are incalculable. It cannot be determined.
Along with the inability to see its political effects, the Internet shares some qualities with MSM. Most significantly, the hyper-commercialism that ravages MSM also rears its ugly head on the Internet. Rarely can one find a webpage, news outlet and search engine alike that does not have an ad embedded somewhere on the page. Additionally, the big conglomerates that dominate MSM maintain quite a presence on the Internet, as well. Every newspaper, television show, news outlet, and radio station has a webpage.
But, there are distinct differences which make the Internet drastically different than MSM. McChesney writes in Chapter 6, “For those outside the mainstream of political debate, the Internet has proven to be a remedy to their isolation, offering access to alternative and dissident media worldwide.” The Internet opens a whole new world of political debate to those excluded from the debate held in MSM. Additionally, the Internet contains a plethora of news. As McChesney and Leighley both note, the product of the corporate conglomerates of MSM is anything but diverse. The media reflect the opinions of the owners. While these media have websites as well and are a dominant presence on the web, the presence of independent news outlets, blogs and other news related websites mitigate this.
Another significant difference, though I would assert that it can be very negative sometimes, is the lack of restriction on the Internet. Anyone with Internet service can find as much evil on the web as good. Could you ever imagine turning on your television and seeing child pornography? Could you see turning on the radio and hearing step by step guidelines on how to be anorexic and hide it? Could you imagine opening the newspaper and learning how to make a bomb?
A last difference lies in the power of the Internet to connect people. Though de Tocqueville asserts that newspapers create a fraternity among people, the relationships created through the Internet are much more tangible.
Thus, though there are some similarities between the Internet and MSM, I believe that the Internet is a totally different species of animal. This difference lies in its lack of regulation and structure as well as its ability to bring people together in a more realistic way.
But, as stated in Chapter 6 of McChesney, what the future holds for the Internet is anyone’s guess. Will the standards and practices of MSM seep into the world of the Internet? Will the Internet take the path of all other media before and begin in a world of competitive enterprise and end with concentrated oligopolies? Or will for once, as McChesney only dreams will we, meaning the public included, sit down and figure out what to do with this thing called the Internet?
Hopefully, the good team will win this time.

2006-10-16T14:40:00.000-04:00

With the idea of the press and the government as co-conspirators sitting in the back of my mind (as reinforced by Leighley and McChesney) it is tough to look at the news sources as the information providers they claim to be.
As I have been following the current “North Korea: Nuclear Tension” as CNN calls it, I have seen something lacking. With all the discussion of UN sanctions and outspoken disapproval from different heads of State concerning North Korean actions, it mistakenly seems like we, the United States or the United Nations have any control over the situation.
I recently was watching the Daily Show with John Stewart when he ran a hilarious series of clips of different UN and US diplomats and officials expressing their disapproval with the North Korean nuclear test. The humor of the clips lay in that all these officials could do was express their disapproval in a limited number of words. Whether the officials were “disappointed,” “angered,” or “distressed,” and “demanded,” “encouraged,” or “desired” for North Korea to desist, at the end of it all, all they had were their words. John Stewart, after the clip commented that the tone of all these individuals was no different than a parent to a child, like there is nothing more they can do except express their parental disappointment.
The mainstream news sources, for whatever reason, appear to be presenting this “tension” as just another news story, not as the terrifyingly dangerous crisis that it really may be. I find the lack of a tone of crisis to be almost dishonest. While I understand the desire to not want to terrify the American public, I see the value in being truthful about American power. President Bush’s mounting forces, surrounding Afghanistan, Iraq, and even Iran, have no power in this situation. It seems like once again, the media are covering the situation from the perspective of the current administration as opposed to asking the probing questions and getting the real story.
Information providers? I think not!

2006-10-11T15:00:00.000-04:00

It is so easy to hear about the negative aspects of the media. The media does not keep us informed citizens. The media misleads us. The media is a profit-seeking industry with nothing but their bottom line in mind. The media represents only the elite point of view. Leighley and McChesney illustrate well, all of these attacks on the media.
But every once in a while the media seizes the moment and saves the day. Occasionally, the little people are given a voice, too.
For the past several months Federal officials in Pennsylvania have been searching Harrisburg for the right place to build the new Federal Courthouse. The are looking for at least two and a half acres on which to build and eight to fourteen story building with room for the required fifty to one hundred foot security setbacks.
Architecture firms and business interests submitted proposals and one was chosen. The winning proposal was to demolish apartments called Cumberland Court, which sit a few blocks away from downtown Harrisburg.
All was then fine and dandy. Plans were drawn and dates were set.
But then, the Patriot News, Harrisburg, PA’s local paper, decided to run a series on people that live in the Cumberland Court apartment complex. The sadness and fear of these low-income residents was clearly depicted in the pages. Soon, new facts were public. Most of those living in these apartments are single mothers. Those living in these apartments had developed a sense of family-like closeness.
Soon public opinion was mobilized. How could anyone want to uproot all of these people? There must be another area available for the Courthouse!
And on October 7, the front page headline declared “Courthouse site search back on.”
What the observers of this sequence of events are left to ask is why. Why were these stories told? Based on our readings I might suggest that this was a great human-interest story. Poor people being ripped out of their homes, single mothers with young children, aged retirees… you cannot get much more dramatic than that image. Yet, maybe the journalists did it because they saw an injustice and they saw how they could help.
I do not know what happened or what was the motivation, but I see the result and a newfound respect for my hometown paper.

2006-10-09T01:58:00.000-04:00

The shooting in Nickel Mines, Pennsylvania of ten children, fatally wounding five has shocked Pennsylvania and the nation. One aspect of the effect of this tragedy that is slowly beginning to be discussed is how equally shocked the Amish community has been in terms of the media. For anyone who has visited the “Amish Country” in Pennsylvania it is easy to imagine how caught aback they must be at the presence of helicopters in the sky or news cameras in their faces.
I think that this terrible tragedy and its aftermath also raise an interesting question. How far is too far, when it comes to media coverage? While the media agreed to give the community a certain amount of privacy when it came to the funerals, their effect is still felt so strongly by a community who try to detach themselves from the world of modern technology. While this event definitely merits news coverage, where does the line blur between appropriate news coverage and exploitation of the human-interest story of the minute?
As morbid as it is to say, this tragic story is a perfect human-interest story. Almost every day since this tragedy occurred, my local newspaper has carried relevant stories on every relevant issue, from reporting on the tragedy, to background pieces on the Amish and their traditions, to how to profile a potential killer.
I just do not know how far is too far. But what I do know is that the media have gone to far.
For religious reasons, that many do not understand (and don’t have to) the Amish avoid technology and photography, in particular.
It is hard to think that the 30 second spot on the evening news or the small picture in the newspaper is worth the compromise of their beliefs and the intrusion into their private world.

2006-10-05T01:13:00.000-04:00

A Brief Post... As I did some work in my house today, I decided to have FOX News on in the background (something I never do) in order to see how they were covering the Foley scandal. Boy, did I luck out!
I barely had to watch an hour before I caught a glimpse of something that previously was unknown to me.... Who knew that Foley was really a Democrat from the state of Florida? Not I.
But, nevertheless, those were the words digitally imposed on an image of Representative Foley as the story was briefly discussed.
Good old Fox News- getting the story right once again!

2006-10-03T23:34:00.000-04:00

I think that sometimes we, of the technology age, take for granted how much the world has changed in such a short time. I had one of those realizations today.
One of the benefits of being at home is the ability to share in the “no talk-just read time” in the morning with my parents. This sacred time is for reading the selection of newspapers that arrive at our doorstep. One person gets the New York Times, one gets The Wall Street Journal, and one gets our local paper, The Patriot News. Part of the ritual is to share pieces of information from one’s respective paper, or to share one’s thoughts on a particular issue. A lot of today’s discussion revolved around Representative Mark Foley and his recent downfall. Foley’s recent admission of his homosexually combined with his admission of inappropriate communications with a male page even made it to the AOL Homepage!
My realization, as mentioned above, came as a result of discussing the Foley scandal with my parents. “Instant messages, emails, cybersex,” my father said, “I do not think I even knew what those things were ten years ago.” It was weird to consider that that statement was probably true. The Internet and the World Wide Web have opened up a whole new world to us. But besides for availing us with new opportunities to fulfill our civic duty of being informed citizens, which Leighley states, we do not even really do, our eyes have also been opened to the world of Internet scandal, filled with child pornography, inappropriate IM conversations, and the like.
It is fascinating, every once in a while, to take a step back and look at the effect of the Internet on politics. Ten years ago could Rep. Foley even have imagined that his downfall would come from conversations that he had on his computer.
I once read on a friend’s Facebook profile, another sign of the times, the humorous and telling quote, that social scientists speculate that in twenty years a candidate for President will lose because of something he or she posted on Facebook, twenty years earlier.
Just a media related thought…

2006-09-28T23:33:00.000-04:00

The PIPA report released recently informed the American public that we have been sadly misled by the news media in terms of information concerning the Iraq war and post September 11th decisions. As I was watching “The Colbert Report” earlier today an issue was discussed bearing a striking resemblance. Stephen Colbert was interviewing Lowell Bergman who came to talk about the upcoming Frontline special on PBS titled, “The Enemy Within,” about sleeper cells in America. Colbert told Bergman to just give it to him straight, to tell him the hard truth about the presence of these dangerous people on our home soil. Bergman replied that the police have had little success finding these cells, because, guess what, it seems like they might not be as prevalent as the government suggests they are. “What!” Colbert replied sarcastically. He then proceeded to say something to the extent of “they must be here, they keep on telling me they are here.” To be quite honest, I was genuinely shocked and would have probably said the same thing.
We are constantly told of the dangers of these so called ”sleeper cells.” We hear stories on the news of their discovery, their foiled plans, and their capture. But, it seems that once again we have been misled by another joint White House-news media production.
The combination of reading chapter nine of Leighley and watching this spot makes me heartily agree with one of Leighley’s suggestions at the end of the chapter. She states that we must sever the dependence of journalists and reporters on government officials. The dependence on governmental stories has led journalists to accept the stories as true with little investigation. Even more so with a story like the discovery and destruction of a terrorist sleeper cell, which is bound to be big news.
However, the dark cloud does have a silver lining. After all, PBS will be airing this show and will set the story straight. So now the hope is that people will watch it.

2006-09-25T11:31:00.000-04:00

Where to start when it comes to Pennsylvania elections? Firstly, I would just like to say that I am happy that this assignment excludes gubernatorial races. It is a relief not to have to discuss the ridiculousness of the fact that my current governor, Ed Rendell is being challenged by former Steelers receiver, Lynn Swann.
My Senatorial race, though much more dramatic, does make me a bit more at ease, assuming that election day goes my way. Senator Rick Santorum, my Senator since 1995 is being challenged by Robert Casey, former Auditor General and current State Treasurer. Santorum is a Republican Junior Senator, who wears his Christianity based, conservative leanings on his sleeve. He has taken controversial positions on homosexuality and sexual privacy rights, and has taken criticized positions on Social Security, intelligent design, and the Terri Schiavo case. Bob Casey Jr., to the dislike of many fellow Democrats, is very conservative. As a religious Catholic he is against reproductive rights for women and he also opposes most legislation on gun control. Though seemingly aligned on certain issues, with Santorum in the mix, I personally find this decision rather simple.
It has been interesting to see how the media has portrayed this election. Just like any other horserace, as the election-day approaches the polls have gotten closer. Today, the Franklin and Marshall Keystone Poll, as quoted in blog and newspaper alike, reported that Casey, who originally had a much more commanding lead, now only leads Santorum by six points. Whether this is true or as Leighley asserts, more of a strategy to get more people interested in the ”game” aspect of the election, tension is in the air.
Here in Pennsylvania, this election has turned into a bit of a mud-slinging festival, with Santorum taking the lead in slinging the mud. Santorum’s ads have been accused of spreading untruths. Santorum is now getting the slack for it. But even beyond the media taking a dislike to Santorum’s advertisement ethics, they have also jumped on him, for the revelation that the Penn Hills school district, where his children live are paying for their cyber-charter schools. This has brought media attention concerning whether in fact the Santorums are actual residents of Penn Hills.
It is interesting to note that part of the appeal of this particular election in the media is purely because of the persona of Rick Santorum. The New York Times has even run four article series about this election. This election is also appealing because of the state of Pennsylvania in general. My home state is confusing, to say the least. Pennsylvania, a long time swing state is a bundle of contradictions. We went for the Democrat candidate, Kerry in the past Presidential election. We have voted in two Republicans to the Senate, one of them being Santorum, one of the most conservative Senators, number three in the Republican party, and Arlen Spector, one of the most liberal Republicans in the Senate. Pennsylvania is a traditionally conservative and religious state, prime ground for the Republican Party. As a Pennsylvanian native, it is tough to foresee the outcome of any election, and this one is no different.
Even with the media having a field day with Santorum or the Republicans calling Casey unintelligent, I have no idea what will happen. To add more confusion into the mix is Lynn Swann. People are known to vote “down the line,” i.e. to choose their gubernatorial candidate of choice and follow through with that party. Swann, who brings little to the table and to date is trailing Rendell somewhere in the double digits is only hurting Santorum. A potential roadblock for Casey, as noted in this morning’s Patriot News is that of Green Party candidate Carl Romanelli. He is having trouble getting enough signatures to be put on the ballot. Casey supporters are concerned that his presence on the ballot will draw voters from the Democrat candidate and are trying to disqualify some of his signatures. What a horserace this has become?
The media attention is now turning to their spending and funds. The main headline of the front page of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania’s Patriot News for today was,” Spending Time: Santorum, Casey save up for stretch run.” The article analyzed their campaign’s financial standing, who their money is from and where it is going. The conclusion of the article highlighted one Philadelphia based law and lobbying firm. Though usually a supporter of Republican candidates, this election they have decided to support both candidates financially. I think that this fact sums it all up. Nobody knows who will win. Many are disillusioned with Santorum but Republicans are known to have better voter turnout. Casey is a fresh face who has done a lot for the Commonwealth, but Santorum is a high-ranking Senator who has a lot of political clout. As evidenced from the end of the above-mentioned article, even the media is unsure of the election results. But, unlike me, they are loving it! Those darn profit-seeking media!

2006-09-19T12:47:00.000-04:00

Though I was unable to attend the program last night, thanks to Alana I was able to listen to a recording of the speech. While I wrote about Secrecy News and Aftergood in my previous post, I just wanted to share some brief thoughts about the speech, or as much as I could hear of it.
There were some things that Aftergood said that I found absolutely fascinating. On a random day, like today, there could be somewhere between 30,000 and 40,000 government secrets classified! I was floored by this. Even after reading back issues of Secrecy News, I had no idea that the number was this gigantic.
But, to tie this in to what I had previously posted, it seemed that his remarks. like his website were a plea for democracy. He mentioned two examples of breaches in our democratic practices that I found particularly persuasive. The phone book of the Defense Department used to be available to the public, for a fee. However, as of late, this book has been taken off the market. The Defense Department are no longer acessible to the people; they are not responsive. This is not democratic! Additionally, and even more shocking, he noted that Congress, the direct representatives of the people, are also not allowed to see certain classified documents. This directly hurts representative democracy!
It was difficult to get the whole feel of the presentation via tape recorder, but I found Aftergood to be informative interesting. Though I did not get to see the Powerpoint presentation, I think that combined with reviewing his website, I got a good understanding of his presentation and an appreciation for his mission.

2006-09-18T16:19:00.000-04:00

In an interview with U.S. News Steven Aftergood discussed the importance of his website and of governmental openness. Without proper openness between the government and citizens “we are on our way to having our national policies determined by unnamed and unknown bureaucrats who sit behind closed doors and are inaccessible,” he claims.
Aftergood’s website and his personal views are based on the ideals of democracy. In an ideal democracy the people have access to the decision-makers whose job it is to represent them. But, even more important, the people know who to hold accountable for decisions that affect them. It is this ideal that Aftergood is fighting for. He agrees that there are some things that the people do not need to know, however there is important information that the government withholds, secrets which the government does not want to let out. Aftergood’s fear is that it cannot be long till these secrets lead to more secrets and a more secretive government in general.
It is not just the Federal government that is guilty of this; local governments are rife with secrets as well. These secrets can be even more dangerous and relevant to the daily life of citizens. Aftergood states in the interview, “many will find themselves in a situation where they need to know the location and quantity of toxic materials buried in a dump near their children's playground. Or the quality of the water that's coming out of their kitchen tap.” And what will happen? They may not be allowed to possess this information! This is a scary thought to ponder.
I find Aftergood’s work to be quite laudable. He is fighting to stem the tide of secrecy. Imagine a government where we know nothing about how our laws are passed or who passes them, where we are subject to rules for reasons that we are not told of! He is a man on a mission, a mission to save our democracy, as crazy as that sounds.
Aftergood’s website is an accessible account of government information that we should know, what he thinks should be news. He publishes information that is inaccessible to the public, or hidden from our eyes. He highlights what information we are missing and the path to get that information.
Unfortunately I will be unable to attend his speech on Monday night uptown because of a class that meets once a week at that same time. However, if present I would want to ask him the following questions:
In his interview with U.S News he discussed how journalists were being subpoenaed to reveal their sources by the current administration, in the ideal situation how should the journalist respond and more generally, what role should the journalist play in combating the forces of secrecy?
Does he think that there are things that the public justifiably does not have a right to know?
What can people do to stem this tide of governmental secrecy?

2006-09-12T03:56:00.000-04:00

I spent a lot of time this evening browsing what felt like dozens of blogs in search of the perfect entry with the perfect comments. I wanted to find a post that I found to be interesting, maybe a little funny and thoughtful too. I wanted the comments to be intelligent, maybe a little catty or at least confrontational. What I found were many blogs with posts from serious and unserious alike about a plethora of topics.
I was actually amazed to see the "Google" results of "political blogs." After finishing the Chapter 6 reading in Leighley and seeing how uninformed and uninvolved the American public are, this was rather reassuring and uplifting.
I finally decided on a blog called Civic Rule. I found an interesting post titled "NSA Surveillance Struck Down." The title is rather self explanatory of what the post was about. What I found interesting, the more I thought about it and after reading the "About" page, was that here was a normal everyday American citizen with the desire to encourage frank and honest discourse about politics.
The comments as well as the post itself were intelligent and articulately written. One would think this would only be more uplifting. Imagine, the intelligent back and forth between informed citizens!
Yet, the more I thought about it, the more I realized that the world of political blogging and commenting is not representative of the masses. The blogging world is a self selective bunch. It is only those who are already interested in politics, to the point of checking on political blogs, that post comments. If a person is uninformed politically, no blog will help. Additionally, no individual without a certain breadth of political knowledge and interest will have a blog to freely post his or her politically related queries or thoughts.
So, while it may seem that everyone and and his or her cousin have a political blog, the sad truth that they do not, and the even sadder fact is that if they did, they probably would not know what to write.
This problem is compounded by the fact that on second glance, not all blogs appear to be as intelligent as the one I found. Or, even if the posts themselves are inteligent, the comments seem to resort to unintelligent ranting and name-calling. I was looking at a post on a blog named Media Girl, particularly at a post concerning global warming, and this sad fact was clear. While the post itself was thoughtful and and thought provoking, the comments quickly turned catty and soon turned into a liberal vs. conservative name calling game.
So, maybe I was wrong about my previous excitement about the abundance of political blogs. Maybe most of them are just the ranting and raving of a unintelligent and uninformed individuals who just want to read their own thoughts.
But nevertheless, in my constant desire to find good in the American people, I would rather have these uninformed pontificators spewing their opinions than not have them involved at all.

2006-09-07T03:03:00.000-04:00

In chapter 5 of Jan E. Leighley’s Mass Media and Politics, she enumerates the different types of news events. The one most coveted by politicians is the “fully controlled news events.” This refers to a news event governmentally planned and carried out for the purpose of attracting media. Even though Leighley asserts that a press briefing with a forum for questions does not fit under the fully controlled category, I disagree. The morning Press Gaggle, from the White House Conference Briefing Room is an example of a briefing with questions that still should be considered a fully controlled news event.

I recently viewed and read the transcript from the Press Gaggle from the morning of September 5, 2003, featuring Press Secretary Tony Snow and Frances Townsend, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. I was truly in awe of how much of a fully controlled event this was. The level of power and authority that the speakers wielded, just because of the forum, was astounding. They possessed such a power to frame issues and to assert White House characterization as fact. Two examples stood out to me.

“…There are some people who say that we shouldn't fight the war, we should not detain -- we shouldn't apprehend al Qaeda, we shouldn't detain al Qaeda, we shouldn't question al Qaeda, and we shouldn't listen to al Qaeda. In other words, they're all for winning the war on terror, but they're all against -- they're against providing the tools for winning that war.”

The way that this is phrased by Tony Snow makes the “some people” look like terrible, American hating, individuals. Key to this, I think, is the use of the description- al Qaeda. The assertions that all detainees are al Qaeda terrorists is stated with such certainty that one feels like anyone who opposes what is going on at Guantanamo Bay is guilty of treason. This is the power of asserting a White House characterization as fact.

Another part of the gaggle that stood out to me was,

“So this, again, is something that the President would love to see members of both Houses of Congress returning to that sense of cooperation we had after September 11th, where the real goal was not to try to hand out pink slips at the Pentagon, but instead to win the war on terror in a way that is going to make not only America safer, but also the rest of the world safer so that democracy can take firm root throughout the globe.”

This was just one of the examples of the Press Secretary having the ability to make the opposition seem petty. It almost seems from this that the Democrats are more considered with getting rid of Rumsfeld that preventing terror. The Press Secretary has the podium and he or she has the final word and is always on the right team.

What was even more interesting than the press briefing itself was the question and answer forum that followed. The dynamic between the press and the Press Secretary was fascinating. At times discourse was civil and even friendly. Yet, at other times it seemed tense and heated. I was aghast when reading this interchange,

“MR. SNOW: I think you've admirably expressed the Democratic point of view, but I don't think --
Q Actually, Tony, I don't think that's fair, if you look at the facts. If you look at the facts.
MR. SNOW: Well, I do, because -- no, because, for instance --
Q No, no, no. No, I don't think you should be able to just wipe that, kind of dismiss the question --
MR. SNOW: Well, let me --
Q It's not a Democratic argument, Tony.
MR. SNOW: Let me answer the question, David.
Q But hold on, let's not let you get away with saying that's a Democratic argument.
MR. SNOW: Okay, let me -- let's not let you get away with being rude. Let me just answer the question, and you can come back at me.
Q Excuse me. Don't point your finger at me. I'm not being rude.
MR. SNOW: Yes, you are.
Q Don't try to dismiss me as making a Democratic argument, Tony, when I'm speaking fact.
MR. SNOW: Well, okay -- well, no --
Q You can do that to the Democrats; don't do it to me.
MR. SNOW: No, I'm doing it to you because the second part was factually tendentious, okay?”

While on the one hand the members of the press were thankful to have their questions answered, they were ready to assume their “watchdog” position when they were unsatisfied with Snow’s response. I found this rather reassuring and imagined this to be the realization of the neutral adversary. However, this dream was short-lived when I realized that even after all the back and forth between Snow and David, as shown above, the question was still not adequately answered. All of the questions are inadequately answered. They receive standard responses, rewording the questions and offering standard White House lines.

But this makes sense. Honestly, how far can a press member push it? The journalists are on White House turf and can only get away with so much. The Press Secretary has the power of the podium and the home-court advantage. How dare the lowly invited guests misbehave?

2006-09-01T15:27:00.000-04:00

Network, directed by Sidney Lumet, is a prophetic film about the negative effect of corporate culture and mass market on society. Released in 1976, this film portrays the corporations as the devil, the destroyer of all that is good. In this film, corporate control of the media destroys America, destroys individuals, destroys families, and destroys love. Corporate control destroys anything that the individual creates, be it his or her own thoughts or even a liberation army.

Frequently when corporate control of the media is discussed terms like profit-seeker model are applied and the effects on the consumer or audience are analyzed. The effect on the public is expressed as the main concern. What I found interesting in this film was that instead of focusing on the effect of corporate control of newsgathering on the public, the film focused on its effect on those involved in the “production” of news. It is not the audience who are the focus of the film; it is the newscaster, the head of the news department, the corporate executive and other network officials through which the theme of the destructive power of the corporation is expressed. It is their lives that are destroyed. Howard Beale is driven insane, prevented from getting the help he needs, and eventually killed. Diana loses any connection to reality, lives life like it is a series of scripts, and becomes incapable of feeling real-life emotion, like love. Both the leaders of the Communists and the Ecumenical Liberation Army are brought under the sway of the media corporation and appear to lose their initial passion and independent spirit. It seems that Max is the only one who in the end sees the corporate control of the media for what it is, and even his life is ruined because of it. While one could suggest that this film may be a rather dramatized exaggeration of the effects of corporate control of the media, it is nevertheless insightful and telling.
The idea of the power of television is so profound in this film and its control over people is eerie. As Beale states,

“ Because less than three percent of you read books. Because less than fifteen percent of you read newspapers. Because the only truth you know is what you get from over this tube. Right now there is a whole, an entire generation that never knew anything that didn't come out of this tube.”

All Beale has to do is tell his audience to do something and they jump. They yell out their windows, they send telegrams to the President.

However, the one part of the movie that I did find uplifting and raised my opinion of the public was at the end, when the people had experienced enough of Howard Beale. They no longer cared for his depressing message, imposed upon him by Mr. Jensen. They were not wholly under Beale’s control; they were under no one’s control. They were his followers when he empowered them as individuals, urging them to rise up, giving them an escape from their depressing daily lives. But, when he began to preach on dehumanization of the world and the powerlessness of the individual, the people lost interest and the show lost ratings.

This film left me with mixed feelings. On the one hand I saw the destructive and manipulative power that the corporations have and exercise through control of news media. Yet, on the other hand I saw the power of the American people, their independence and unwillingness to fall prey to everything the corporate world tries to impose upon them.

So I say to my fellow Americans and classmates, fear not! Do not worry about the profit seeking, media controlling corporations. As long as we retain our independent thought and control over what we believe and what we do the apparently evil forces of corporate network owners will not corrupt us.

2006-08-29T19:44:00.000-04:00

For this assignment I spent a few hours in front of the television this morning. I spent a good amount of time switching, from CNN to Fox to MSNBC and back. Like I knew it would be, all three networks shared most of the same stories. But one story was the focus of all three networks- the one-year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina. Each network devoted time to recapping what happened and the hurricane’s aftermath. Time was also given to discuss what has been done since to rebuild New Orleans. While I wholeheartedly agree that this day should be commemorated and thought should be given to what we have done and how much more we have to do, I nevertheless, find this news to be not totally “newsworthy.”
132 people were killed in India because of flooding. A bomb in Turkey, the fourth bomb since Sunday, killed 3 people. 67 Iraqis were killed after a pipeline explosion. Two more American soldiers were killed in Iraq. A potentially devastating hurricane is quickly approaching Florida. Israel and Lebanon are still stuck in negotiations. And what was the front page of the New York Times webpage? “Gulf Coast Marks Year After Katrina.”
After completing this week’s reading this only makes sense. The Hurricane Katrina story is the epitome of a human-interest story. It was sad, people died, and to top it off, it sparked political finger pointing on who should have done what. Yet, even so, it is difficult to see so much attention given to a story when there are so many more immediate issues that merit the same attention.

2006-08-23T21:17:00.000-04:00

When discussing the power of the media an issue that frequently comes to my mind is that of fact checking. How sure can a newspaper or a news network be that its journalists are being honest and true to the facts? However, in recent news we see that not only do we need to be concerned about the journalists, but we also need to be concerned about the photographers. Sure, we have all seen mislabeling, but actual doctoring of photos, now that’s crazy!
Nevertheless, last week, Reuters (yes, Reuters) had to withdraw 920 pictures taken by photographer, Adnan Hajj, from Lebanon. Reuters has confirmed that Hajj used Photoshop to alter a picture following an Israeli air attack on a Lebanese city to appear to have more billowing smoke than it really did. Reuters also found that another photo it published had been doctored, of a F-16 fighter over Southern Lebanon dropping three flares, when in truth it only dropped one. Because of these photographs, they have withdrawn all of Hajj’s pictures.
It is interesting to think of this incident in the context of this class and the first reading. We see how much influence the media has on people’s thoughts and attitudes. It is eerie to even consider how a little Photoshop magic could affect the opinions of many.