http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/15/tea.party/index.html
The main focus of this story was on the Tea Party's nominations for positions, and its list of targeted lawmakers for the upcoming mid-term elections. The article is clearly biased towards the Tea Party because all the quotes in it are from Tea Party members, most of the mentions were of Tea Party candidates and the other candidates mentioned were mentioned because they were targets of the Tea Party. While I think the bias in this article was structural, the article definitely falls into the category of horse race coverage rather than issue coverage. The entire story focused on the Tea Party's "targets" and efforts to win or "defeat" certain candidates while focusing on very little substantial about the Tea Party candidates. If anything I think that this article was biased against the Tea Party, because while they are mentioned far more often, it reduces their message to one of mere election politicking rather than focusing on the issues they care about.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Framing and Agenda Setting
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4151380/a-rare-case-of-bipartisanship?playlist_id=86925
This video discusses a bipartisan plan to cut taxes, but it draws on some preexisting frames, such as seeing the two parties as enemies. The congressmen make reference to the fact that we are used to seeing Democrats and Republicans at each others throats, however in this particular circumstance they are working together. Creating this dichotomy allows them to compare the frames we have in our heads about Democrats facing off against Republicans to what the congressmen are doing now: working together. This makes them look good, because they're working together as opposed to being enemies. Also it could be said the video contains some agenda setting, because it centers around tax breaks, and it also stresses bipartisanship.
This video discusses a bipartisan plan to cut taxes, but it draws on some preexisting frames, such as seeing the two parties as enemies. The congressmen make reference to the fact that we are used to seeing Democrats and Republicans at each others throats, however in this particular circumstance they are working together. Creating this dichotomy allows them to compare the frames we have in our heads about Democrats facing off against Republicans to what the congressmen are doing now: working together. This makes them look good, because they're working together as opposed to being enemies. Also it could be said the video contains some agenda setting, because it centers around tax breaks, and it also stresses bipartisanship.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Cynicism
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-24-2008/local-campaign-ads
- Tom Corcoran
This is an obvious lead to cynicism for the general public. The way than John Stewart makes fun of these campaign videos makes people look at these candidates like idiots.
- Tom Corcoran
Media bias
http://www.arecentstudy.com/images/media-bias.jpg
This political cartoon shows that people believe that there is a large amount of political bias in certain outlets like the New York Times. This cartoon displays the screens that define bias to this person, and most of the public.
-Tom Corcoran
John McCain's "Cynicism" Express
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8LfDBYKmN4
This was an issue brought up from the show Morning Joe on MSNBC. I felt that this was a great example of the great cynicism brought on by the McCain camp. The balanced group is seeking answers during the Republican National Convention. Where I think they make a great point is when they question McCain's judgement in picking Sarah Palin as his Vice President after only meeting her ONE time for fifteen minutes. For all the the criticism Barack Obama and the democrats got for being unprepared for the presidency, it's extremely off-putting that the republican's choice for Vice President would be a very risky choice in the unknown Sarah Palin. I feel that it was their cynicism that led to this choice. They never admitted that they probably picked Mrs. Palin to win the women votes, mostly democratic and middle-age voters who are unsure about Barack Obama. Palin's ability was not the question, the democrats had a black nominee and the republicans had to match their buzz by picking someone that no one expected. This is why I believe John McCain was a bit politically cynical as we described in class.
Dave Henney
Image vs. Issue ads
Above is a link for a website that features several ridiculous political ads. The first one which is the one I’m focusing on is for the senate race in California. It is in support of Carly Fiorina a republican candidate for the senate. She portrays the image of her opponent Tom Campbell as a wolf in sheep’s clothing literally. She actually uses wolf dressed as a sheep to show him as a liar and a terrible person also there is ominous music playing in the back round and glowing eyes on the sheep Campbell is supposed to represent. Yet there are also a lot of issues that are brought up and many of them have his voting record on issues and the bills that he has proposed. This commercial while ridiculous and is a clear attack ad against Campbell is able to bring up issues on Campbell’s record though there is few information on her. The question I am trying to raise is the new type of hybrid political ad than incorporates many aspects of traditional ads like attack, issue, and image? Also is this going to be a growing trend for candidates to use to convey their message and their opponents’ failures?
political ad campaigni nvestment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkb5CAQC4IM
My main concern is that so much money is being put into these campaigns when so much money is needed elsewhere. Numerous political supporters are ready to drop the dollars to help fund expensive campaigns but then complain about giving the actual government money to take care of the country. What does it say to me (the voter) when my candidate (and the opposition) is ready to spend that much money on a short clip for TV instead of forwarding those fund to public school or hospitals?
by Maria João Reis
My main concern is that so much money is being put into these campaigns when so much money is needed elsewhere. Numerous political supporters are ready to drop the dollars to help fund expensive campaigns but then complain about giving the actual government money to take care of the country. What does it say to me (the voter) when my candidate (and the opposition) is ready to spend that much money on a short clip for TV instead of forwarding those fund to public school or hospitals?
by Maria João Reis
Agenda Setting/Framing/Gendering in media
http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/04/14/mr.nice.guy.backlash/index.html
In this article, the author cites multiple "experts" on dating and relationships, who all seem to have advice for 'nice guys': Don't be so nice. One of these experts (Dan Macon) is quoted as saying the following:
"Sure, women want you to show them respect and love, but they also want you to be a man and take charge. If you can't do that, women won't want to be with you."
This is gendering as it happens. Here, we have a media outlet literally telling readers what a man is, or should be. It is also the media dictating what kinds of issues are important via Agenda Setting: here, we see that the emphasis is on relationships (with the subtext that they should be STRAIGHT relationships nonetheless) and how to succeed at them. This may or not be of paramount importance to some people, but the very appearance of an article like this begins to plant seeds of what a relationship ought to look like, and how to attain one.
Some things the article fails to mention are the ways that these "relationships" work out. Eg: You act like a jerk (or a MAN in this articles words) and acquire a new girlfriend. Which kind of relationship do you think you're more likely to have: a meaningful, lasting relationship or one that serves to do little other than relieve sexual tension? Building relationships based on "man qualities" or being assertive might not be the best lifestyle choice when you think about it critically, but none of this is addressed in the article.
What do you guys think? Is there a niche market for this kind of journalism, or does it only serve to gender/set the agenda for the public at large?
In this article, the author cites multiple "experts" on dating and relationships, who all seem to have advice for 'nice guys': Don't be so nice. One of these experts (Dan Macon) is quoted as saying the following:
"Sure, women want you to show them respect and love, but they also want you to be a man and take charge. If you can't do that, women won't want to be with you."
This is gendering as it happens. Here, we have a media outlet literally telling readers what a man is, or should be. It is also the media dictating what kinds of issues are important via Agenda Setting: here, we see that the emphasis is on relationships (with the subtext that they should be STRAIGHT relationships nonetheless) and how to succeed at them. This may or not be of paramount importance to some people, but the very appearance of an article like this begins to plant seeds of what a relationship ought to look like, and how to attain one.
Some things the article fails to mention are the ways that these "relationships" work out. Eg: You act like a jerk (or a MAN in this articles words) and acquire a new girlfriend. Which kind of relationship do you think you're more likely to have: a meaningful, lasting relationship or one that serves to do little other than relieve sexual tension? Building relationships based on "man qualities" or being assertive might not be the best lifestyle choice when you think about it critically, but none of this is addressed in the article.
What do you guys think? Is there a niche market for this kind of journalism, or does it only serve to gender/set the agenda for the public at large?
Media Bias UCLA Study
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx
This article deals with a study conducted by a political science major from UCLA. The first thing she acknowledges is the fact that the Wall Street Journal, a well-known conservative source, has recently taken a liberal shift. She states that she assumed media bias would be present in multiple outlets, but just how pronounced the findings were surprised even her. She compares bias in media to the member of congress. "Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left." To me, this just shows how a change in the control of congress can completely reshape the way media outlets report news. For instance, just a few years ago, when republicans controlled congress, the bias was to the right.
In a study conducted using articles over the past ten years, comprising twenty major media outlets, eighteen of the twenty scored left of center. Only Fox News and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter. This shows conclusively that bias does exist whether or not the public acknowledges it.
Her next assertion is if viewers spent as much time watching Fox's "Special Report" as they did watching ABC's "World News" or NBC's "Nightly News" then they would receive a nearly perfect balance of right and left wing news. In my opinion, this would lead to a much more informed public. If everyone watched the news that was reported in a way they didn't agree with, the overall knowledge that people based their political stance on would be much more even. Often times, people only hear or read the news that they want to hear, because they know they will agree with that particular source. With more diversity in the media, bias would be less prevalent.
Overall, this report and study shows exactly how many media outlets cater to the bias that they think the public wants. If more reporting was done without bias, so as not to appease people, but instead inform them of what they need to know, the general population that watch news would be better adept at making decisions based on what they know. Media bias won't just go away, and it's almost natural because media outlets want to draw readership viewership and they know the best way to do that is through agreeing with the majority.
This article deals with a study conducted by a political science major from UCLA. The first thing she acknowledges is the fact that the Wall Street Journal, a well-known conservative source, has recently taken a liberal shift. She states that she assumed media bias would be present in multiple outlets, but just how pronounced the findings were surprised even her. She compares bias in media to the member of congress. "Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left." To me, this just shows how a change in the control of congress can completely reshape the way media outlets report news. For instance, just a few years ago, when republicans controlled congress, the bias was to the right.
In a study conducted using articles over the past ten years, comprising twenty major media outlets, eighteen of the twenty scored left of center. Only Fox News and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter. This shows conclusively that bias does exist whether or not the public acknowledges it.
Her next assertion is if viewers spent as much time watching Fox's "Special Report" as they did watching ABC's "World News" or NBC's "Nightly News" then they would receive a nearly perfect balance of right and left wing news. In my opinion, this would lead to a much more informed public. If everyone watched the news that was reported in a way they didn't agree with, the overall knowledge that people based their political stance on would be much more even. Often times, people only hear or read the news that they want to hear, because they know they will agree with that particular source. With more diversity in the media, bias would be less prevalent.
Overall, this report and study shows exactly how many media outlets cater to the bias that they think the public wants. If more reporting was done without bias, so as not to appease people, but instead inform them of what they need to know, the general population that watch news would be better adept at making decisions based on what they know. Media bias won't just go away, and it's almost natural because media outlets want to draw readership viewership and they know the best way to do that is through agreeing with the majority.
Negative Political Advertising & its Overall Effects (now and later)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQ1p3tLKE-A&feature=player_embedded
This YouTube clip is a prime example of a negative political advertisement. In this particular clip Darcy Burner attacks congressman Dave Riechert. Burner makes several attacks towards his character and doubts his ability to "get things done", ultimately stating that rather than being "independent" he is "ineffective." Interestingly enough, Burner does not state what she is going to do in congress in order to be "effective", her voice is just heard at the end of the advertisement saying that she approves this message.
In class we learned that negative political character based advertisements such as these promote political cynicism as well as a decrease self-efficacy from the general public especially after multiple exposures. However, negative advertisements such as these create another response that benefits the attacker showcased in the ad. A study done by Digital Democracy, revealed that the majority of people who saw such negative based ads voted for the attacker. Proving that negative ads do generate the type of response that a vote hungry politician needs. In addition to these findings, it was also discovered that people who saw these negative ads overtime may have forgotten where/when they had heard something negative about the politician being attacked in the ad, but the negative content was still stuck in their minds. Such findings show that not only does negative information stick, but it sticks longer than the positive information.
So where do we go from here? If negative ads in the long-run promote cynicism and decrease self-efficacy from the public which may decrease overall voting, but currently are giving politicians their desired response, a vote in their favor, how do we as a society make a change in this dangerous pattern? There really isn't much we can do except try to avoid and/ or protest negative political advertising by not voting for that particular candidate who uses negative advertising as their prime component of their campaign. However, as a society can we do that or do we secretly like hearing the negative aspects of another politician?
-Maria Matlack
This YouTube clip is a prime example of a negative political advertisement. In this particular clip Darcy Burner attacks congressman Dave Riechert. Burner makes several attacks towards his character and doubts his ability to "get things done", ultimately stating that rather than being "independent" he is "ineffective." Interestingly enough, Burner does not state what she is going to do in congress in order to be "effective", her voice is just heard at the end of the advertisement saying that she approves this message.
In class we learned that negative political character based advertisements such as these promote political cynicism as well as a decrease self-efficacy from the general public especially after multiple exposures. However, negative advertisements such as these create another response that benefits the attacker showcased in the ad. A study done by Digital Democracy, revealed that the majority of people who saw such negative based ads voted for the attacker. Proving that negative ads do generate the type of response that a vote hungry politician needs. In addition to these findings, it was also discovered that people who saw these negative ads overtime may have forgotten where/when they had heard something negative about the politician being attacked in the ad, but the negative content was still stuck in their minds. Such findings show that not only does negative information stick, but it sticks longer than the positive information.
So where do we go from here? If negative ads in the long-run promote cynicism and decrease self-efficacy from the public which may decrease overall voting, but currently are giving politicians their desired response, a vote in their favor, how do we as a society make a change in this dangerous pattern? There really isn't much we can do except try to avoid and/ or protest negative political advertising by not voting for that particular candidate who uses negative advertising as their prime component of their campaign. However, as a society can we do that or do we secretly like hearing the negative aspects of another politician?
-Maria Matlack
Political Cynicism
http://www.veoh.com/collection/Penn-Says/watch/v18318330asZynqbp#
For my post I watched a video blog by Penn Jillette. In it he discusses polical cynicism and believes that it maybe called for in an election and does have an effect on whether or not you will vote for someone. He says that when hanging out with his friends, they call the politicians liars and hypocrites even if that is the person they are rooting for to win an election. He closed up by saying that we should just take politicians at their word and what they say and "the only way to waste your vote is to vote."
I think that this touched on a topic we discussed in class. When we talked about political cynicism, we said it has the possibility to make someone not want to vote. Penn is an example supporting this. Because of his cynicism, he's turned off by the whole voting process and believes it's a waste because either way a liar or hypocrite will win. While this does support that argument, I don't think it's necessarily true in all cases. Yes, maybe a cynic will view the election process as picking a lesser of two evils but that's just it, you want the lesser of the two evils to win, so some people may want to vote just to make sure the one they are more cynical towards doesn't win.
Christine Crowley
For my post I watched a video blog by Penn Jillette. In it he discusses polical cynicism and believes that it maybe called for in an election and does have an effect on whether or not you will vote for someone. He says that when hanging out with his friends, they call the politicians liars and hypocrites even if that is the person they are rooting for to win an election. He closed up by saying that we should just take politicians at their word and what they say and "the only way to waste your vote is to vote."
I think that this touched on a topic we discussed in class. When we talked about political cynicism, we said it has the possibility to make someone not want to vote. Penn is an example supporting this. Because of his cynicism, he's turned off by the whole voting process and believes it's a waste because either way a liar or hypocrite will win. While this does support that argument, I don't think it's necessarily true in all cases. Yes, maybe a cynic will view the election process as picking a lesser of two evils but that's just it, you want the lesser of the two evils to win, so some people may want to vote just to make sure the one they are more cynical towards doesn't win.
Christine Crowley
John Stewart: Cynicism at its finest
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JnDY2Gv5YQ
In the video above, you see John Stewart giving a brilliant performance of cynicism while critiquing Glenn Beck's ideological biased rants. Glenn Beck is one of the most bias personalities on television. He has a strong preference to covering stories that favor his ideologies and additionally verbally attacks all who have opposing opinions. His one-sided prime-time show has one of the largest television audiences of any cable network. His influence on their voting habits and ability to organize makes him one of the most influential men on T.V. This can be very dangerous when the message he is giving is so biased and often times dishonest. John Stewart's cynical depiction of his latest "chalk-board rant" questions everything from Beck's ideologies to his intelligence. Stewart shows the absurdity of linking social justice to Nazi Germany, which Glenn Beck actually does. Stewart points out the ridiculousness of the notion that says "because you subscribe to an idea, you subscribe to an ideology, and to every possible negative consequence that the ideology remotely implies when you carry it to absurd extremes." This kind of critique of individuals who carry great influence is critical to a lively democracy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JnDY2Gv5YQ
This clip is from the Daily Show with Jon Stewart. It was featured by the more liberal MSNBC as a way to attack more conservative Fox News. Given MSNBC's larger viewing audience vs. the Daily Show, it is logical to conclude that more people saw this piece of cynical TV. The whole clip is dedicated to showing how Glenn Beck, who is a host on Fox News with millions of viewers every day, is using his program to spread fear and dissent among his viewers, with the hopes that it will spread even farther. Jon Stewart lampoons him by using Glenn Beck's very own style of news delivery to show how ridiculous his claims are. Following Baumgartner and Morris' thoughts on cynicism, I believe that this is an example that shows the exception to a cynical public. While many news shows foster cynical thought unintentionally, Jon Stewart wants his audience to see how absurd Glenn Beck is, making them cynical toward that show on purpose. I believe that he does this for the benefit of the viewers, as he, like many others, believe that Glenn Beck is spreading hatred and fear rather than good news.
How TV ads trigger emotions and set the agenda for other forms of media
For my blog post, I chose to write about emotional political ads. I chose this topic because I think it plays a huge part in democracy and it is very effective. Emotion is what sparks heated debates, which often turn in to arguments. Emotion is what makes many people lose their temper and do things they might regret. So, this is the perfect way to motivate a person to vote and make their voice heard. Another tactic is by using fear but this post focuses on the power of political ads that trigger emotion in people.
The example i used was this advertisement President Obama used on healthcare. He used this advertisement, which was very emotional, to gain the publics' attention and trigger emotions. This advertisement made me feel a sense of sadness and I felt sorry for Obama. After watching this, I also began thinking how important healthcare is but I was triggered emotionally. I thought of my own family and how I would feel if a family member passed away because they didn't have healthcare. And these type of ads are what honestly motivated my decision in the presidential election, congressional and local elections.
Though the ad was presented on TV I think it would have had the same impact if it were in print media. In print, a writer would have crafted a feature story about a person was died or was dying because they didn't have healthcare. And, if it was a local story, I would realize how close to home the issue really is. So, in a way, these political ads also set the agenda for the print media because they write stories similar to the ads, which can have an effect in the community and on democracy.
- PETER PANEPINTO
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aR3Gpsn4v4
Greenpeace and the Media
Many of us may remember a few months ago when College Ave. was lined with Greenpeace people trying to get supporters. It may have been slightly annoying to hear, "Hey, you look like you care about the environment!" every hundred feet, but it got me thinking about how they use the media as a grassroots organization to find more supporters and get their message out. Just on the first page of my Google search of "Greenpeace" I found their webpages for USA and International, a Greenpeace webpage just for supporting the health of the oceans, A Wikipedia Article on Greenpeace, Twitter, Weblog, Myspace, Vimeo (which is kind of like YouTube), and tons of news related sites mentioning Greenpeace. I think this is a prime example of a special interest group using the media to become more popular and really keep supporters informed in what they're doing.
Here are some of the links I found:
http://twitter.com/greenpeace
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/
www.greenpeace.org/international/
oceans.greenpeace.org
www.myspace.com/gpus
vimeo.com/greenpeace
Anna Sartori
Emotional Ads
This political ad by John McCain is an excellent example of an emotional ad. This ad aims for sympathy toward McCain for his time serving our country. With the videos of prisoner conditions and the testimonials by some of the people closest to him during his time as a POW, you are supposed to feel something for him. This video even contains a testimonial from his mother and includes his wife. At the end of the video McCain is talking about the biggest threat to the American people as being the threat of Terrorism. This is supposed to trigger a fear response. The only way that we can face the radical Islamic extremists is to have John McCain leading our country. With his great service record we would be in good hands. This is a prime example of an emotional ad.
Julie Colvin
Media is so cynical with Fandom Sites
Young teens including myself tend to go on blogs everyday, for example I go on Kim Kardashians or just on google, but I think these Fandom sites are now becoming just to cynical, negative and hurtful. Teens seem to think that going on these sites and writing to these celebrities will help them to get to know them. Most likely the celebs are not even the one who set up their site. Like Brittany Spears' assistant made her website and her workers update it not her. Sometimes there are pictures of her getting frozen yogurt with her boyfriend or walking around with her kids and it is cute to see that celebs are just like us, which to me means..leave them alone. Celebrities are people they are not super heroes and they are not in humane so the fact that if someone has a mental breakdown or if they have a tattoo or looked ugly or had a bad day is ridiculous to hold against them and it honestly makes me mad. I believe that my job in the future will consists of being in the entertainment world but when I see how cruel people are on these websites thinking they know the people it honestly makes me sick and makes me feel as if these stars should not even want to reach out to some of their fans and give them this much if all they are going to do is be negative, bring them down, and critique.
Below I put a link to Kim Kardashian, Khloe Kardashian, Kourtney Kardashian, and Britney Spears' blogs or fan sites. What do you guys think?
http://kimkardashian.celebuzz.com/
http://khloekardashian.celebuzz.com/
http://officialkourtneyk.celebuzz.com/
http://www.britneyspears.com/
By: Lauren Bruno
Below I put a link to Kim Kardashian, Khloe Kardashian, Kourtney Kardashian, and Britney Spears' blogs or fan sites. What do you guys think?
http://kimkardashian.celebuzz.com/
http://khloekardashian.celebuzz.com/
http://officialkourtneyk.celebuzz.com/
http://www.britneyspears.com/
By: Lauren Bruno
The daily show. Journalism or not?
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/829/the-daily-show-journalism-satire-or-just-laughs
This article does a fantastic job at defining exactly what the Daily Show hosted by Jon Stewart actually is. It first starts by stating that it is, in fact, not journalism. It even quotes Stewart as saying so. However, the show spends 47% of its time discussing politics, especially concerning Washington D.C, and our international affairs. The show draws its agenda off news stories, but neglects some of the less attractive stories. The story goes on to explain that this is much like cable news, who also must keep the news 'sexy' in order to sustain a viewer population. Even some stories are kept off the daily show that have a large public attraction. Sensitive events that are not morally correct to poke fun at, such as the Minneapolis Bridge collapse, and the Virginia Tech shootings, were never mentioned on this show.
I think the biggest point this article made was that all the jokes in the show are based around news stories. So it requires the active viewer to be previously informed about the current events if they want to understand the joke. So all in all, the Daly Show should not be ones primary source of news. It should however, be something to spark interest in the news, and something to be taken more seriously than stand up comedy.
Ryan Mead
This article does a fantastic job at defining exactly what the Daily Show hosted by Jon Stewart actually is. It first starts by stating that it is, in fact, not journalism. It even quotes Stewart as saying so. However, the show spends 47% of its time discussing politics, especially concerning Washington D.C, and our international affairs. The show draws its agenda off news stories, but neglects some of the less attractive stories. The story goes on to explain that this is much like cable news, who also must keep the news 'sexy' in order to sustain a viewer population. Even some stories are kept off the daily show that have a large public attraction. Sensitive events that are not morally correct to poke fun at, such as the Minneapolis Bridge collapse, and the Virginia Tech shootings, were never mentioned on this show.
I think the biggest point this article made was that all the jokes in the show are based around news stories. So it requires the active viewer to be previously informed about the current events if they want to understand the joke. So all in all, the Daly Show should not be ones primary source of news. It should however, be something to spark interest in the news, and something to be taken more seriously than stand up comedy.
Ryan Mead
Campaign Commercials
Even though statistics seem to show that they are effective, I find political campaign commercials some of the most ridiculous commercials to air on television. In looking for others opinions on political advertising, I came across an post on Huffington Post. The article.
"The Craziest Political Campaign Ads from Across the Country" showcases some of the more outrageous videos from around the country. To me, it's amazing how far some politicans stretch the facts into outlandish statements.
The advertisement below, for example was created against Michael Arcuri stretched the truth of events that led to phone call to a sex hotline- and then the call was charged to taxpayers. It was a misdial by by an aid of Arcuri, taxpayers were collectively charged $1.25. The commercial stretched the truth of this entire event. It is commercials like these that make me hesitant to believe that voters actually make decisions based on these advertisements. The unfortunate thing is that for voters who just vote to vote and do not develop their own opinions through research, these ads are probably extremely influential to them.
The end of this article makes a good point that because of new technology, these commercials can be so easily and cheaply created, politicians running for political offices of all levels can make and distribute them. The cheapened value of the commercials however, has led to an increased entertainment value. Some of these commercials almost seem more entertaining than anything. In many cases, the entertainment factor of these commercials completely undermines any political message the candidate is trying to send.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/16/the-craziest-political-ca_n_499989.html#s74115
By: Emily Andrews-Rice
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Political Cynicism Around the World
I found the topic of cynicism and the effect it has on politics to be very interesting. I know that at times I have felt very cynical towards certain aspects of politics. After thinking about it, I wondered if America was the only country that felt cynicism on the same level as we do here. At times I think that many Americans just flat out do not believe anything that our politicians have to say because we're always looking for the hidden meaning.
I found 3 editorial blogs/articles all written in different countries about this topic. The first one is from an American source talking about U.S. Representative Rangel who is in hot water for many issues including violations of gifting rules as well as many other ethical issues. The author goes on to say that it is no wonder that American voters are losing faith in political leaders because "Neither party has a monopoly on virtue — or a clue about virtue, it sometimes seems."
The second article comes from an Irish newspaper opinion piece discusses the author's reasons for becoming so politically motivated and serves to highlight his plea to Irish voters to refrain from cynicism. He states that "unfair criticism or cynicism about politics can only weaken and threaten democracy and we all have a responsibility in this regard." His piece is a call to action to stay away from cynical thoughts to preserve the young democracy in the country.
The third article comes from a British site is part 2 of a look into parties and elections of the country. The author explains that it has been shown that cynicism is dangerous and involved in almost every aspect of politics. He reasons that this started as a campaign tactic for one political party against another to create doubt in the ruling party but was not abandoned once the power moved from one party to another. His solution is to remove individuals who cause cynicism from politics altogether and instead elect a higher caliber of individuals.
These articles demonstrated that political cynicism is not simply an American problem. People all around the world are slowly learning to distrust their government officials, and most of the time it is because a few bad apples ruin it for all of the political figures. This has the potential to become an even bigger problem if these individuals are not weeded out now, as explained by the British source, and political parties stop defending guilty individuals. The public's trust all over the world is slowly being turned to resentment, apathy and an overall sense of distrust toward the very officials that are representing them in some very important issues.
Brittany Thomas
I found 3 editorial blogs/articles all written in different countries about this topic. The first one is from an American source talking about U.S. Representative Rangel who is in hot water for many issues including violations of gifting rules as well as many other ethical issues. The author goes on to say that it is no wonder that American voters are losing faith in political leaders because "Neither party has a monopoly on virtue — or a clue about virtue, it sometimes seems."
The second article comes from an Irish newspaper opinion piece discusses the author's reasons for becoming so politically motivated and serves to highlight his plea to Irish voters to refrain from cynicism. He states that "unfair criticism or cynicism about politics can only weaken and threaten democracy and we all have a responsibility in this regard." His piece is a call to action to stay away from cynical thoughts to preserve the young democracy in the country.
The third article comes from a British site is part 2 of a look into parties and elections of the country. The author explains that it has been shown that cynicism is dangerous and involved in almost every aspect of politics. He reasons that this started as a campaign tactic for one political party against another to create doubt in the ruling party but was not abandoned once the power moved from one party to another. His solution is to remove individuals who cause cynicism from politics altogether and instead elect a higher caliber of individuals.
These articles demonstrated that political cynicism is not simply an American problem. People all around the world are slowly learning to distrust their government officials, and most of the time it is because a few bad apples ruin it for all of the political figures. This has the potential to become an even bigger problem if these individuals are not weeded out now, as explained by the British source, and political parties stop defending guilty individuals. The public's trust all over the world is slowly being turned to resentment, apathy and an overall sense of distrust toward the very officials that are representing them in some very important issues.
Brittany Thomas
Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert Interview
In Rolling Stone’s America’s Anchors,-Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert faked it untill they made it, Maureen Dowd interviews hosts of the Daily Show and The Colbert Report, Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart on their rise to fame with their political satires.They are not real news programs It is on Comedy Central, so it can’t be taken too seriously. They even admit they should not be taken seriously.Both are educated and have a training in stand-up comedy. They both went to college and they are ordinary people, so they appeal to people. I think that these types of shows should not be taken too seriously. They get people interested in the news. Colbert even claims in the interview that he makes up facts to get a discussion going. I think as long as people take these kinds of shows in perspective, then they can laugh about politics. This show should allow skeptics to be inspired to get more involved in current events and know what is happening. It should not be the only source of news. Cynics will never care about what’s going on.
Maria Lobron
Social Networking and Elections/Voter behavior
http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2010/02/28/130641_tasmania-news.html
The link above is to a story from Feb. 28th highlighting the Tasmanian election in Australia, and how the candidates are using Facebook to reach voters. In summary, the incumbent David Bartlett has almost 4 times as many friends on Facebook as his challenger, Will Hodgman. According to the article, this is due to the fact that Bartlett has been on Facebook for a while during his term in office, reaching out to constituents and updating his page personally. He isn't afraid to express himself frankly and clearly, and gets quite a few comments from constituents who want to voice their opinions. The article brings up an interesting point about the possible negative consequences of a candidate having social networking pages, particularly if that person's campaign updates the page rather than the candidate himself. It says that voters are turned off by policy updates via Twitter, or generic campaign status updates on Facebook. Social networking in political campaigns relies heavily on the voters believing that they are personally interacting with the candidates. This article is interesting because it is yet another example of a candidate finding success on Facebook, but it attributes that success to the fact that David Bartlett personally manages and updates his page. If studied, this could have impact on how campaigns consider running their social networking sites in the future.
-Kevin Shaffer
The link above is to a story from Feb. 28th highlighting the Tasmanian election in Australia, and how the candidates are using Facebook to reach voters. In summary, the incumbent David Bartlett has almost 4 times as many friends on Facebook as his challenger, Will Hodgman. According to the article, this is due to the fact that Bartlett has been on Facebook for a while during his term in office, reaching out to constituents and updating his page personally. He isn't afraid to express himself frankly and clearly, and gets quite a few comments from constituents who want to voice their opinions. The article brings up an interesting point about the possible negative consequences of a candidate having social networking pages, particularly if that person's campaign updates the page rather than the candidate himself. It says that voters are turned off by policy updates via Twitter, or generic campaign status updates on Facebook. Social networking in political campaigns relies heavily on the voters believing that they are personally interacting with the candidates. This article is interesting because it is yet another example of a candidate finding success on Facebook, but it attributes that success to the fact that David Bartlett personally manages and updates his page. If studied, this could have impact on how campaigns consider running their social networking sites in the future.
-Kevin Shaffer
The Daily Show and Cynicism
Link: http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/05/24/the_daily_show_cause_and_effect.php
This is blog I found very related to the topic we discussed on Monday the 12th. The blogger discusses the unclear issue of whether the The Daily Show is promoting cynicism in today's youth. The blogger cites a recent study done by Jody Baumgartner and Jonathan S. Morris, for American Politics research. The study is very similar to what we discussed, but added an argument that may play a part in the outcome of the research; the oversimplification of the concept. If we say that watching The Daily Show causes cynicism, and that cynicism is a lack of active participation due to distrust, then BOOM easy answer. Along with this the blogger discusses the fact that the average college student currently has a completely different level of trust to media in general, and that this range of trust has a major role in cynicism before The Daily Show even becomes involved.
It's a valid point, I'm happy I found it. I think it's funny because I was actually searching for cynical blogs but I ended up finding one that avoided such a claim.
Kyle Davis
This is blog I found very related to the topic we discussed on Monday the 12th. The blogger discusses the unclear issue of whether the The Daily Show is promoting cynicism in today's youth. The blogger cites a recent study done by Jody Baumgartner and Jonathan S. Morris, for American Politics research. The study is very similar to what we discussed, but added an argument that may play a part in the outcome of the research; the oversimplification of the concept. If we say that watching The Daily Show causes cynicism, and that cynicism is a lack of active participation due to distrust, then BOOM easy answer. Along with this the blogger discusses the fact that the average college student currently has a completely different level of trust to media in general, and that this range of trust has a major role in cynicism before The Daily Show even becomes involved.
It's a valid point, I'm happy I found it. I think it's funny because I was actually searching for cynical blogs but I ended up finding one that avoided such a claim.
Kyle Davis
Monday, April 12, 2010
Austin Kelly "liberal media."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYlyb1Bx9Ic
Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky demolish one of the central tenets of our political culture, the idea of the "liberal media." Instead, utilizing a systematic model based on massive empirical research, they reveal the manner in which the news media are so subordinated to corporate and conservative interests that their function can only be described as that of "elite propaganda."
This 1997 documentary features Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman addressing the filters that news must flow though prior to publication. Journalists are never free to write anything they want. They must satisfy an editor who must satisfy the corporate head who must satisfy the advertisers who have political affiliations. And these journalists are selected from schools who teach them to conform to certain parameters in the first place. There is nothing liberal about the process and persuasion, rather than truth, is always the end game.
One example of how this works is a favorite of mine. The film presents a journalist who published a story about the dishonesty of local used car salesmen. Once the article went live, the salesmen pulled their ads refusing to return until a retraction was printed. Since the majority of the paper’s revenue came from used car lot advertisements, the editor posted a retraction and the salesmen came back.
The videos conclusion did reflect the larger portion of the counter culture experience. Still, the story is particularly one sided. While we get the smallest sense of Thompson’s understanding and acceptance of the pigs’ fight for the clarity of humanity, their general story is wholly satirized. They are the antagonists, the symbolic boundaries that rail against ultimate freedom, a necessary “evil” in a Stuart Hall type system, and yet (if you ask the waitress at the diner or the hotel owners) these “pigs” are absolutely impotent in creating social order for the greater good.
Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky demolish one of the central tenets of our political culture, the idea of the "liberal media." Instead, utilizing a systematic model based on massive empirical research, they reveal the manner in which the news media are so subordinated to corporate and conservative interests that their function can only be described as that of "elite propaganda."
This 1997 documentary features Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman addressing the filters that news must flow though prior to publication. Journalists are never free to write anything they want. They must satisfy an editor who must satisfy the corporate head who must satisfy the advertisers who have political affiliations. And these journalists are selected from schools who teach them to conform to certain parameters in the first place. There is nothing liberal about the process and persuasion, rather than truth, is always the end game.
One example of how this works is a favorite of mine. The film presents a journalist who published a story about the dishonesty of local used car salesmen. Once the article went live, the salesmen pulled their ads refusing to return until a retraction was printed. Since the majority of the paper’s revenue came from used car lot advertisements, the editor posted a retraction and the salesmen came back.
The videos conclusion did reflect the larger portion of the counter culture experience. Still, the story is particularly one sided. While we get the smallest sense of Thompson’s understanding and acceptance of the pigs’ fight for the clarity of humanity, their general story is wholly satirized. They are the antagonists, the symbolic boundaries that rail against ultimate freedom, a necessary “evil” in a Stuart Hall type system, and yet (if you ask the waitress at the diner or the hotel owners) these “pigs” are absolutely impotent in creating social order for the greater good.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Jon Stewart and Political Learning
In class we are about to discuss the effects on political learning from late night comedy shows, namely The Daily Show with John Stewart. Even though the presidential election is over and Obama holds the title of President of the United States, is it still "politically dangerous" to make jokes similar to the ones made about him during the election? When Obama and McCain were running against one another, it was commonly suggested that Obama was a Muslim, which was linked to him being a terrorist. Take a look at this Jon Stewart clip discussing Obama's winning of the Nobel Peace Price:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XksFlrm1E7k
Even though it seems like a harmless joke to us, the research from the reading for Monday's class shows that what we consider "harmless" is actually contributing to people's political opinions. Even though I can see through this joke I worry that this could further hurt the image of Obama in the eyes of those already against him. It is perpetuating a ridiculous insinuation that Obama had any background as a terrorist. I can sit back and chuckle at this joke, but I worry that not all Americans can, and some may take it more seriously. Is this healthy for our society?
-Cally McCurdy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XksFlrm1E7k
Even though it seems like a harmless joke to us, the research from the reading for Monday's class shows that what we consider "harmless" is actually contributing to people's political opinions. Even though I can see through this joke I worry that this could further hurt the image of Obama in the eyes of those already against him. It is perpetuating a ridiculous insinuation that Obama had any background as a terrorist. I can sit back and chuckle at this joke, but I worry that not all Americans can, and some may take it more seriously. Is this healthy for our society?
-Cally McCurdy
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Fox News Demonstrates Media Bias Against the Health Care Bill
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNsEbl6EoN4
I found this video on YouTube; it talks about one of the hottest topics in our society today, the Health Care Bill. It is an interview on FOX News with Glenn Beck and Kevin Williamson, a managing editor for National News. It is a prime example of media and ideological bias. The argument is completely one sided. Glenn Beck is ripping Health Care reform apart. He is completely focused on the negative, and even invites a source in to back his argument. He uses many negative words and frightening facts, and displays a dramatic persona. He is talking directly to America, and he lets us know that we have something to worry about. He makes it seem that we can not trust the president we elected to make positive changes.
FOX News clearly demonstrates a partisan bias and proves to many people that they are unable to fairly hear both sides of the news. Not once did they mention a positive aspect of the bill. Bad journalism like this can lead to many other things, like a spiral of silence, or agenda setting. Uninformed citizens will be seeing the same sided argument over and over, to the point that they are used to it, and will not speak out against it.
I found this video on YouTube; it talks about one of the hottest topics in our society today, the Health Care Bill. It is an interview on FOX News with Glenn Beck and Kevin Williamson, a managing editor for National News. It is a prime example of media and ideological bias. The argument is completely one sided. Glenn Beck is ripping Health Care reform apart. He is completely focused on the negative, and even invites a source in to back his argument. He uses many negative words and frightening facts, and displays a dramatic persona. He is talking directly to America, and he lets us know that we have something to worry about. He makes it seem that we can not trust the president we elected to make positive changes.
FOX News clearly demonstrates a partisan bias and proves to many people that they are unable to fairly hear both sides of the news. Not once did they mention a positive aspect of the bill. Bad journalism like this can lead to many other things, like a spiral of silence, or agenda setting. Uninformed citizens will be seeing the same sided argument over and over, to the point that they are used to it, and will not speak out against it.
Monday, April 5, 2010
Negative Political Advertising
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phBBnxXJdoM
This news clip from CBS discusses the beginning of the negative political ads for both candidates in the 2009 election. In the clip, the journalists claim that McCain started the negative campaigning when he released the "Celebrity" ad that criticized Obama's experience and how he campaigned. Because of this ad, Obama retaliated with the negative ad against McCain. Though the ads will get a lot of attention, the ads may backfire and make the candidates look like their ads are made to attack each other, rather than state their stances and issues. As stated in the news clip by Bob Schieffer, the ads are a stretch and may not work at all to persuade people not to vote for Obama. He also states in the clip that usually the candidate behind in the polls releases the attack ads first; which is a big deal as McCain's people are recognizing that they are behind. As we discussed in class, negative ads usually have negative effects and make the public more cynical towards candidates and politics in general. In a recent study, "The Effectiveness of Negative Political Advertisements: A Meta-analytic Review" by Richard Lau, Lee Sigelman, Caroline Heldman, & Paul Babbitt in the American Political Science Review, Volume 93, Number 4, December 1999, results from research found that Americans are getting more turned off by negative ads. The study showed that: 59% believe that all or most candidates deliberately twist the truth, 39% believe that all or most candidates deliberately lie to voters, 43% believe that most or all candidates deliberately make unfair attacks on their opponents but another 45% believe that some candidates do, 67% say they can trust the government in Washington only some of the time or never and lastly 87% are concerned about the level of personal attacks in today's political campaigns. However, in contrast to these statistics, the professionals who create the negative ads believe that they do in fact work. If done correctly without obvious attack strategy, the ads taint the view of the candidate being attacked. On the other hand, this study found that if the ad is obviously attacking the opposing candidate, that candidate's image is tainted for doing so. I chose this news clip because it discusses the attack ads of McCain, what it means to their campaign that they released them and because Obama's response is predicted as well. In summary, I think that the negative image ads are not very effective and may be difficult to create tactfully and subtly but the negative issue ads are the ones that have the potential ability to sway undecided voters.
Rachel Horensky
http://www.thisnation.com/question/031.html
This news clip from CBS discusses the beginning of the negative political ads for both candidates in the 2009 election. In the clip, the journalists claim that McCain started the negative campaigning when he released the "Celebrity" ad that criticized Obama's experience and how he campaigned. Because of this ad, Obama retaliated with the negative ad against McCain. Though the ads will get a lot of attention, the ads may backfire and make the candidates look like their ads are made to attack each other, rather than state their stances and issues. As stated in the news clip by Bob Schieffer, the ads are a stretch and may not work at all to persuade people not to vote for Obama. He also states in the clip that usually the candidate behind in the polls releases the attack ads first; which is a big deal as McCain's people are recognizing that they are behind. As we discussed in class, negative ads usually have negative effects and make the public more cynical towards candidates and politics in general. In a recent study, "The Effectiveness of Negative Political Advertisements: A Meta-analytic Review" by Richard Lau, Lee Sigelman, Caroline Heldman, & Paul Babbitt in the American Political Science Review, Volume 93, Number 4, December 1999, results from research found that Americans are getting more turned off by negative ads. The study showed that: 59% believe that all or most candidates deliberately twist the truth, 39% believe that all or most candidates deliberately lie to voters, 43% believe that most or all candidates deliberately make unfair attacks on their opponents but another 45% believe that some candidates do, 67% say they can trust the government in Washington only some of the time or never and lastly 87% are concerned about the level of personal attacks in today's political campaigns. However, in contrast to these statistics, the professionals who create the negative ads believe that they do in fact work. If done correctly without obvious attack strategy, the ads taint the view of the candidate being attacked. On the other hand, this study found that if the ad is obviously attacking the opposing candidate, that candidate's image is tainted for doing so. I chose this news clip because it discusses the attack ads of McCain, what it means to their campaign that they released them and because Obama's response is predicted as well. In summary, I think that the negative image ads are not very effective and may be difficult to create tactfully and subtly but the negative issue ads are the ones that have the potential ability to sway undecided voters.
Rachel Horensky
http://www.thisnation.com/question/031.html
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Political Advertisment
This video clip demonstrates a pattern of political advertisment known as issue ownership. Issue owernship is an important to a candidate's attempt to persuade voters because sheer involvement with a party is an indicator of the candidate’s capability to implement better policies and programs for dealing with the problems owned by the party. The main issues that the democratic party have owernship over are education, health care, jobs/labor, poverty, and environment, as discussed in class, and in this video all of these issues are spoken, proving the theory further and the issues that are mainly focused on by each party.---Shantell Browning
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)