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
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Dan LePera- HorseRace Coverage
Horse-Race Coverage in the Media
We have learned all that there is about horse- race coverage in our class. Horse-race coverage is all about who is winning and who is losing. They cover elections like they would a horse race. They talk about who is running strong and who is looking like they might have to pull up before the race is over. They talk about who looks the best and who looks sloppy. Media tends to make it into a one on one battle instead of which one’s plans and policies are better for the people. This is a great illustration of this.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-10-26-campaign-sunday_N.htm
First of all we have the title. It says, “McCain, Obama campaign hard in final stretch.” This is horse race coverage at its finest. They are talking about the stretch run, in a campaign for the presidency. Next the reporter says that McCain believes that unlike poles show he is gaining ground on his opponent, almost like it is a race. Finally the reporter uses such words as leading, underdog, and prevails when describing the political race. There is not much about the plans of the candidates, so how can the public choose the right candidate. This is a negative in horse-race coverage.
There are positives. As weird as this might sound, competition is always better. By competing for something it makes the winner stronger. I am a firm believer that people are more interested in something when there are two or more people competing. People might become more informed by following politics because they are interested in who will win and who will lose. I just think for picking a candidate, this is not the best way. We need people to focus on the person and not the competition, whether that person is winning or losing.
I am not here to say there is no place for horse-race coverage in politics because I believe it definitely has a place in politics. It is human nature for someone to want to know who is winning and who is losing. It is human nature for someone to want to know one candidate’s plan versus the others. I just believe based on what we know about horse-race coverage I feel that the media has to put more effort in telling the public what the individual candidate’s specific plans are, and let them choose who is the right man or woman for the job.
Dan LePera
We have learned all that there is about horse- race coverage in our class. Horse-race coverage is all about who is winning and who is losing. They cover elections like they would a horse race. They talk about who is running strong and who is looking like they might have to pull up before the race is over. They talk about who looks the best and who looks sloppy. Media tends to make it into a one on one battle instead of which one’s plans and policies are better for the people. This is a great illustration of this.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-10-26-campaign-sunday_N.htm
First of all we have the title. It says, “McCain, Obama campaign hard in final stretch.” This is horse race coverage at its finest. They are talking about the stretch run, in a campaign for the presidency. Next the reporter says that McCain believes that unlike poles show he is gaining ground on his opponent, almost like it is a race. Finally the reporter uses such words as leading, underdog, and prevails when describing the political race. There is not much about the plans of the candidates, so how can the public choose the right candidate. This is a negative in horse-race coverage.
There are positives. As weird as this might sound, competition is always better. By competing for something it makes the winner stronger. I am a firm believer that people are more interested in something when there are two or more people competing. People might become more informed by following politics because they are interested in who will win and who will lose. I just think for picking a candidate, this is not the best way. We need people to focus on the person and not the competition, whether that person is winning or losing.
I am not here to say there is no place for horse-race coverage in politics because I believe it definitely has a place in politics. It is human nature for someone to want to know who is winning and who is losing. It is human nature for someone to want to know one candidate’s plan versus the others. I just believe based on what we know about horse-race coverage I feel that the media has to put more effort in telling the public what the individual candidate’s specific plans are, and let them choose who is the right man or woman for the job.
Dan LePera
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Fox News Framing http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,523063,00.html
Obama selects Sonia Sotomayor to High Court
At first, when I thought of the term “framing” in reference to the media, I subconsciously limited it to only apply to the issues, and not necessarily individual people. The more I thought about it, I realized that people are framed by the reports who write about them. I think there is no better example than pitting enemies against each other. In this article, we have Obama, our democratic president, vs. Fox News, a staunch republican news medium. Although subtly, it becomes clear throughout the first few paragraphs exactly how Fox News is trying to paint Obama and by association, Sotomayor. The following bolded words are direct quotes from the article. “President Obama nominated federal Appeals Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday, citing her "inspiring life story" and "distinguished career" in his decision.” To me, this opening statement seems to be cynical, if only slightly. By putting “inspiring life story” and “distinguished career” in quotes, it seems Fox is already trying, non-verbally to argue that these are not good reasons to appoint someone to the Supreme Court. “She is the daughter of Puerto Rican parents, and she was raised in a Bronx housing project. She has dealt with diabetes since age 8 and lost her father at age 9, growing up under the care of her mother. Sotomayor supposedly became interested in law after watching the TV show "Perry Mason." Again, I think that although most people see Sotomayor’s childhood as a testament to her strength and resolve, I feel that Fox is very delicately questioning her right to be in this prestigious position. By ending this statement showing that her interest in law came from television, I feel this is another unfair shot as Ms. Sotomayor. “Tuesday's selection drew swift praise from liberals like the Rev. Al Sharpton, who called the choice "prudent" and "groundbreaking." New York Sens. Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand, Democrats from Sotomayor's home state, also praised the pick and released a letter they wrote to Obama earlier in the month recommending her as an "excellent selection." By only showing liberals that support this appointment, it makes it seem as though any right-wing politicians would obviously disagree with this decision. The rest of the article takes stabs at Sotomayor and Obama here and there, but always maintains a level of professionalism which I assume is to preemptively deflect harassment from anyone who sees the article like I do.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Sarah Palin and Gatekeeping
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/264042/february-08-2010/sarah-palin-uses-a-hand-o-prompter
In this clip from the Colbert Report we see Sarah Palin speaking at a teas party convention. The way she and Rush Limbaugh are presented while very funny is an example of gate keeping. Gate keeping is the process through which ideas and information are filtered for publication and this is a tactic of a lot of late night comedy shows. Gate keeping we only see certain clips that show her and Limbaugh in the way that the Colbert Report wants to display them in. We don’t get to see the comments before or after the footage that was shown. Their comments were probably taken out of context to put them in a bad light. While the Colbert Repot is just a comedy show aimed at satire this kind of action is taking place in major media outlets all the time is places like fox news. Certain major news network use clips of context to either build up someone or show them in a bad light. Whatever it takes to get their political agenda across.
Chris Juran
Public Opinion & Spiral Of Silence
http://iowajournalism.wordpress.com/2009/09/07/public-opinion-and-spiral-of-silence-by-brendan-ferguson/
In class, we mostly associated the Theory of the Spiral of Silence to political issues and presidential election polls, but I also found another interesting and very appropriate comparison to sports. Something that a lot of us can relate too yet may not have ever put the two together. This article mentions two legendary sports teams in the grandest city of American Sports. These two teams are the New York Mets and the New York Yankees. This poll that the article mentions states what most sports fans already know and that is that more baseball fans in New York like the Yankees over the Mets. The poll found that 34% of New York roots for the Yankees, while 25% root only for the Mets. The interesting thing I found that relates most to the Spiral of Silence Theory is that the other 41% of New York fans are either undecided or like cheering for both of the teams. It makes sense that most fans have allegiance to one team but if they are around opposing fans that like the other team. Some fear alienation whereas other fans are more brave as to show their alliance. This is frequently seen at sports games when the home team scores, if there are fans wearing the opposing jersey or hat, they are more likely to stay seated and not draw attention to them. I found it to be a very cool and interesting article.
Dave Henney
The Daily Show on CNN's coverage of the health care bill
This clip is rather old, but it is a great example of the changing nature of what is considered "news."
What I found most interesting about this clip, if you managed to make it all the way through, was that it really did a good job of emphasizing the lack of serious journalism in the media today. The underlying point Stewart was trying to make was that the media today does not really seek out the truth, rather they simply propagate the same information that is given to them.
We learned in class about how the media today is largely profit driven. This has led to a decline in investigative journalism, which is costly in both time and money, and a move towards opinion-based journalism where either one commentator states their opinion, or two or more people debate an issue. This has also led towards more coverage of the "horse race" aspects of politics rather than actually investigating closely what the politicians or politicians are actually saying.
Even though this clip came out before I started taking this class, when I first watched it I was appalled at the lack of serious journalism being done. As Stewart pointed out rather sarcastically, fact checking is supposed to be the function of news. In the past many great journalists made a name for themselves by investigating the statements and actions of politicians. Even the Watergate Scandal was broken because of the investigative journalism efforts of Carl Bernstein, who at the time was a young reporter for the Washington Post.
I think this clip is also important because it further illustrates how it has become the job of Comedy Central to hold the media accountable. The reason John Stewart has become the most trusted journalist in America is because he is brave enough to at least hold the media accountable for their mistakes. I think his success should also illustrate to the media that there is actually room for responsible journalism today, and that people really do want to watch news that investigates the truth, rather than just acting as a forum for politicians to disseminate false or misleading information.
Political ads can be a great source of agenda setting, framing, and image priming. As I was going through political ads from the last few years I came across Mike Huckabee's ad from 2007. This ad entitled Mike Huckabee and Chuck Norris. My first thought is image priming. However after this incident of image priming was not done by Mr. Huckabee, instead Chuck Norris was really priming Mr. Huckabees image.
Here is the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDUQW8LUMs8
After watching the ad, it is quite funny at first. Then I think to myself, "wow this guy potentially could be our next president." He did a great job teaming up with someone that would get him some limelight and exposure. On the other hand having Chuck Norris jokes support your run to the White House is a bit amateurish. This video in a way reminds me of the "John McCain celebrity ad that we watched a couple times during our class." The ad declares Obama is more of a celeb than a candidate.
Instead of someone saying Huckabee is a celebrity, he instead brings in a celebrity to his side to reach out to Americans to gain their vote. In a way if I would have watched this commercial during the election I would be interested. However when it comes down to the economy, health care, and so on Chuck Norris is not going to be of much help to Mike Huckabee then. Actors have a great power over masses of people and candidates will use their star power to project them into the entertainment spotlight. Ronald Reagan was one of the first presidents to use his acting career as a platform to stand on.
I think this commercial just shows how entertainment can draw Americans to someone just because of a celebrity. If not, we would not see Chuck Norris on TV endorsing Mike Huckabee. This was a great example of image priming because by having support from a tough hard hitting guy like Chuck Norris, some Americans like their candidates tough and intimidating. That is the approach I assume Mike Huckabee wanted to fulfill.
-----Corey Righter
Here is the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDUQW8LUMs8
After watching the ad, it is quite funny at first. Then I think to myself, "wow this guy potentially could be our next president." He did a great job teaming up with someone that would get him some limelight and exposure. On the other hand having Chuck Norris jokes support your run to the White House is a bit amateurish. This video in a way reminds me of the "John McCain celebrity ad that we watched a couple times during our class." The ad declares Obama is more of a celeb than a candidate.
Instead of someone saying Huckabee is a celebrity, he instead brings in a celebrity to his side to reach out to Americans to gain their vote. In a way if I would have watched this commercial during the election I would be interested. However when it comes down to the economy, health care, and so on Chuck Norris is not going to be of much help to Mike Huckabee then. Actors have a great power over masses of people and candidates will use their star power to project them into the entertainment spotlight. Ronald Reagan was one of the first presidents to use his acting career as a platform to stand on.
I think this commercial just shows how entertainment can draw Americans to someone just because of a celebrity. If not, we would not see Chuck Norris on TV endorsing Mike Huckabee. This was a great example of image priming because by having support from a tough hard hitting guy like Chuck Norris, some Americans like their candidates tough and intimidating. That is the approach I assume Mike Huckabee wanted to fulfill.
-----Corey Righter
More Celebrities, Less News
Towards the beginning of the semester, we talked about how news was getting "softer." We are seeing more reports about celebrities, just because it is cheaper to produce. This clip is straight from CBS News Online's YouTube page, and not only is it about celebrities, but it tells you how to make yourself look like one. I hardly find this to be news. Yes, it is informative, but it is really just an excuse to have some guy promote his book and give CBS some cheap material to "report." It is not exactly something that I believe should be pushed on the American public as important, let alone advertised as news. The thing I find even sadder about this is that under the "more from user" tab on YouTube, every video is related to celebrities or fashion, instead of any of the "real" news that is also offered by this user.
Anna Sartori
Agenda Setting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pB_CNBL8xA
This comedy routine talks about agenda setting, and how one media outlet breaking a story can not only affect the rest of the media, but the lives of the general public. The comedian first talks about Swine flu, and how it garnered national attention from its media coverage. It talks of how the media convinced the entire nation that they were in immediate danger of this deadly disease. It than continues to mention how as soon as news broke of Michael Jackson's death, the coverage of swine flu did as well. And subsequently the entire nation seemingly forgot about the once notorious disease just because every media outlet's eye was squarely on Michael Jackson's death. His routine progresses, talking about how coverage, followed by national attention, of swine flu flucuates simply by what else the media wants to cover. He than compares it to the coverage of tsars, bird flu, and the mad cow disease. His routine is dedicated to sarcastically describing aganeda setting, and the immense effect it has on the publics focus, and perception.
Ryan Mead
This comedy routine talks about agenda setting, and how one media outlet breaking a story can not only affect the rest of the media, but the lives of the general public. The comedian first talks about Swine flu, and how it garnered national attention from its media coverage. It talks of how the media convinced the entire nation that they were in immediate danger of this deadly disease. It than continues to mention how as soon as news broke of Michael Jackson's death, the coverage of swine flu did as well. And subsequently the entire nation seemingly forgot about the once notorious disease just because every media outlet's eye was squarely on Michael Jackson's death. His routine progresses, talking about how coverage, followed by national attention, of swine flu flucuates simply by what else the media wants to cover. He than compares it to the coverage of tsars, bird flu, and the mad cow disease. His routine is dedicated to sarcastically describing aganeda setting, and the immense effect it has on the publics focus, and perception.
Ryan Mead
Agenda Setting - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8519685.stm
This article details the changeover in the British Tory Party, a conservative party much like the Republican party in the States, to supporting gay rights. The agenda setting part is very obvious: including gay politicians in their party, they hope to swing the gay community's vote back towards them, to increase their chances of election/re-election and increase their power within the British Parliament. The article deals with issue priming and framing as well. The priming aspect comes from the public's previous viewpoints on the homosexual community and the news coverage they received. Now as the country becomes more and more progressive, citizens were not responding well to the too-conservative policys of the Tory party. Acknowledging this failure, the party then uses a new framework to change the publics viewpoint of their stand towards gay rights. Image priming is another factor, although not quite as large. The head spokesperson, Mr. Herbert, who is openly gay, is the new face of the party, and some 15 other politicians, also openly gay, portray a "gay-friendly" face to the party. This combination of issue/image priming, framing are used well under the umbrella of agenda setting and effectively show the system in action.
Agenda Setting
This video was put together to show how the media set an agenda during the democratic debates during the last election. You can see how the public, during the debate, was largely agreeing with Obama's answer to the question; that he would meet with world leaders after the election with no preconditions. When Clinton answered the other way the public did not support her as much. The next part of a clip is a compilation of news clips that show how the media tried to persuade the audience that Clinton had the right idea and she had won the debate. When you watch it all together it makes a lot of sense.
Julie Colvin
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Political Framing
I found this political cartoon to be quite comical as well as representative of some of the thoughts and feelings of the American public. This specific use of image framing of the current political staff in power triggers a direct, immediate response from its viewers. This political cartoons artist's goal was to negatively portray the current administration by using an emotional frame, specifically fear. The artist dresses the three key political players in the decision making process for bills, laws, reforms, etc. in lab coats, gloves and even has Harry Reid holding a large needle. The artist does this because most human beings fear being hoovered by people holding large needles and lab coats, getting ready to operate on them. The meaning behind this cartoon is simple, do we the American public trust our government in power to "operate on our country?" The facial expressions and the order in which the characters are standing is also important. Pelosi and Obama are standing back while Reid takes front and center, needle in hand ready to operate. This may mean that he has more perceived power than Obama and Pelosi. Additionally, the facial expressions on all of the characters are that of confusion and uncertainty. These are facial expressions that a person would not want to see before being operated on, hence reinforcing the artist's frame of fear. Having a clueless political administration in charge of our country is quite scary. I believe that the artist did a fantastic job of picking a fairly general concern of the American public and using image framing to initiate a specific response.
-Maria Matlack
Priming and Agenda Setting
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/health/2010/02/16/am.gupta.fat.babies.cnn
This is an excellent example of priming and Agenda Setting. Here, the seed of influence is planted in the minds of all the parents/parents to be/grandparents that fat babies are the start of fat children and fat children AREN'T GOOD FOR ANYONE. This video, while not directly talking about it, emphasizes obesity as one of America's primary problems. The very nature of its existence speaks volumes about how the media portrays weight as an issue, and how large of an issue it has become. I think possibly the most interesting part of the video is the reporter stating that "keep in mind this doesn't mean that a chubby baby will be a chubby adult, or an obese adult." Not only does this affirm any passing thoughts about obesity that may have been floating around in your mind, but it also manages to continue to set an agenda concerning weight in America. Later in the video, the female co-anchor mentions that it is hard or impossible to overfeed a baby by breastfeeding during the designated window, and the Dr. says nothing to refute this claim...and instead confirms it in many ways. NOW we have yet another ideal hidden in the subtext: breastfeeding vs formula. Is weight a problem in America? Probably. Is this kind of news coverage the way to deal with it? I would challenge that.
-Tim
Framing on whether to show a certain photo or video
By:Lauren Bruno
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2001-03-06-smart-cars.htm
http://www.911dispatch.com/video/miami/index.html
When deciding what topic I wanted to discuss in this blog I thought of what situation I felt like was most interesting. I decided to choose from our topic of class discussion and the article on February 3rd's class.
“A classic debate in every newsroom is whether they should run the photo and where” (Strupp, 2005). This quote was said in the article and I think is a very good point; it is a very tough decision whether to run a photo or a video when you are a journalist. If you do not run it you may get fired but if you do run it you may loose respect from other people as a person.
My example is a story that is very tramautizing to me. Karla Gutierrez drove her car off the road into a canal and found her car was sinking. She frantically called 9-1-1 and the conversation was sent through out the internet and actually played during evening news on some stations.
This is a topic we did discuss about framing on February 3rd's class when mentioning if you would publish certain photos or videos as a journalist and this to me is something that very well supports that. It is something that goes with the topic very well and I think a lot of people would not know what to do as well. I would have never played this video of a woman frantically calling 9-1-1 on the evening news. There are families eating dinner with little children and hearing this lady panick and then her just get disconnected, you know she drowns and when I first read about this and heard this video I was very traumatized, so to me it is something as a journalist I just think is not necessary or right at all to publish to internet sites or the news. On the side of the end of the website link I published it also says 'Operator: Well, we lost her.' That is something else that should not be shown, an operator acting as if it was not a big deal. When reading this and picturing the lady is tramautizing, it should not have been shown. Certain news stations after tried to make a come back saying they used the video of her voice to show people how to get out of a sinking car and that is helpful but Karlas voice and words should not have been published. To me this was an explicit and great example of February 3rds discussion.
By:Lauren Bruno
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2001-03-06-smart-cars.htm
http://www.911dispatch.com/video/miami/index.html
When deciding what topic I wanted to discuss in this blog I thought of what situation I felt like was most interesting. I decided to choose from our topic of class discussion and the article on February 3rd's class.
“A classic debate in every newsroom is whether they should run the photo and where” (Strupp, 2005). This quote was said in the article and I think is a very good point; it is a very tough decision whether to run a photo or a video when you are a journalist. If you do not run it you may get fired but if you do run it you may loose respect from other people as a person.
My example is a story that is very tramautizing to me. Karla Gutierrez drove her car off the road into a canal and found her car was sinking. She frantically called 9-1-1 and the conversation was sent through out the internet and actually played during evening news on some stations.
This is a topic we did discuss about framing on February 3rd's class when mentioning if you would publish certain photos or videos as a journalist and this to me is something that very well supports that. It is something that goes with the topic very well and I think a lot of people would not know what to do as well. I would have never played this video of a woman frantically calling 9-1-1 on the evening news. There are families eating dinner with little children and hearing this lady panick and then her just get disconnected, you know she drowns and when I first read about this and heard this video I was very traumatized, so to me it is something as a journalist I just think is not necessary or right at all to publish to internet sites or the news. On the side of the end of the website link I published it also says 'Operator: Well, we lost her.' That is something else that should not be shown, an operator acting as if it was not a big deal. When reading this and picturing the lady is tramautizing, it should not have been shown. Certain news stations after tried to make a come back saying they used the video of her voice to show people how to get out of a sinking car and that is helpful but Karlas voice and words should not have been published. To me this was an explicit and great example of February 3rds discussion.
By:Lauren Bruno
Sarah Palin & Image Priming
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xqDKKcdra8
The above video is a display of image priming and I believe that Sarah Palin's image, which consists of her demeanor, style and personality, played a large part in voters' backing her.
I do not believe they paid much attention to her stance on issues but they fell in love with her character instead. The same can be said about Barack Obama but I think it applied to Sarah Palin more. For example, the above video got more attention than her actual stance on issues. Her "soccer mom" image and "pitbull with lipstick" comments were talked about day in and day out on every channel including CNN, FOX and MSNBC. I listened to her opinion on certain issues but I found it strange that in certain interviews she barely had anything with much substance to say regarding issues.
Palin was a compelling figure because she was a woman, she was an attractive candidate to many and she was energetic. These factors could be a reason as to why many people chose to vote on McCain's behalf. I think her image carried her more than her actual opinions and her beliefs on issues that are currently impacting America.
- Peter Panepinto
The above video is a display of image priming and I believe that Sarah Palin's image, which consists of her demeanor, style and personality, played a large part in voters' backing her.
I do not believe they paid much attention to her stance on issues but they fell in love with her character instead. The same can be said about Barack Obama but I think it applied to Sarah Palin more. For example, the above video got more attention than her actual stance on issues. Her "soccer mom" image and "pitbull with lipstick" comments were talked about day in and day out on every channel including CNN, FOX and MSNBC. I listened to her opinion on certain issues but I found it strange that in certain interviews she barely had anything with much substance to say regarding issues.
Palin was a compelling figure because she was a woman, she was an attractive candidate to many and she was energetic. These factors could be a reason as to why many people chose to vote on McCain's behalf. I think her image carried her more than her actual opinions and her beliefs on issues that are currently impacting America.
- Peter Panepinto
Agenda Setting and Stereotyping
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2010/02/12/pm.1.backhanded.politics.cnn?iref=allsearch
This video is centered around the president's recent push for bipartisanship in order to get things accomplished. There are numerous clips of Obama speaking about Democrats in his administration working together with Republicans. The video then goes on to talk about how his approval rating has been plummeting, which leads one to believe that Obama is so prominently promoting bipartisanship not only for progress, but also perhaps to gain support from Republicans, Independents, or even Democrats that have lost faith. It then talks about how Obama said the only way to move forward with healthcare reform is to throw out the bill that the Democrats wrote and work on one together, which also supports the previous statement. This would be an example of agenda setting both in the sense that he is promoting bipartisanship to boost his approval rating, and that he is addressing the controversy over the healthcare bill, which is already a very prominent issue. The video also has examples of gender stereotyping. It covers Michelle Obama's plan to cut back on childhood obesity, which is a healthcare issue. Healthcare issues are commonly associated with females which is a type of gender stereotyping.
-Carl Ballard
This video is centered around the president's recent push for bipartisanship in order to get things accomplished. There are numerous clips of Obama speaking about Democrats in his administration working together with Republicans. The video then goes on to talk about how his approval rating has been plummeting, which leads one to believe that Obama is so prominently promoting bipartisanship not only for progress, but also perhaps to gain support from Republicans, Independents, or even Democrats that have lost faith. It then talks about how Obama said the only way to move forward with healthcare reform is to throw out the bill that the Democrats wrote and work on one together, which also supports the previous statement. This would be an example of agenda setting both in the sense that he is promoting bipartisanship to boost his approval rating, and that he is addressing the controversy over the healthcare bill, which is already a very prominent issue. The video also has examples of gender stereotyping. It covers Michelle Obama's plan to cut back on childhood obesity, which is a healthcare issue. Healthcare issues are commonly associated with females which is a type of gender stereotyping.
-Carl Ballard
Media Ownership and Power
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDHJ4LN1l5M&feature=related
The media are “agents of those in power." They are in the business of creating a culture, a.k.a the culture industry. Diversity of the cultural realm is essential to the survival of democracy. That diversity has been dismantled, along with democracy. The Constitution was supposed to free culture from government and entrust it to “the marketplace of ideas.” Today, there is no form of media unregulated. Even if it is so-called “self-regulating,” the government still has say in content seeing how they provide funding and tax cuts to many major media conglomerates. The six major media conglomerates(News Corporation, Disney, General Electric, CBS Corporation, Time Warner, and Viacom) own the large majority of all media outlets, thus controlling the large majority of content distributed. This consolidation of content allows for the conglomerates to create a “Consciousness Industry” in which they attempt to produce a form of consciousness in the audience that benefits the class that owns the media. They control the context within which people think, define what is right and wrong, define social problems and their solutions, and how to behave in general.
The owners of these conglomerates sit on many boards and have many special interests world-wide that they are happy to promote via their media outlets. For example, debate over the arms race is almost completely absent from network TV because GE is a defense contractor for the government. Information about oil companies is compromised because oil representatives sit on boards of all the powerful news media. These examples are just a scratch of the surface of the kind of control over content that these major conglomerates and the powerful elite have.
Christian Saveoz
Framing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hppMh1DC2z4&NR=1
I found this video on YouTube. In the video, they have a clip of a video interview done with people who voted for Obama outside a polling station. They discuss the effects of how the 2008 presidential election was framed in the media. John Ziegler believes that people voted on personality and media perceptions rather than on campaign issues, inferring that Obama won because many who voted for him didn't vote on his policies. While I may not necessarily agree with this clip, I do see how the campaigns were framed in the media and how many people can vote for reasons other than beliefs or policies of the candidate.
-Christine Crowley
I found this video on YouTube. In the video, they have a clip of a video interview done with people who voted for Obama outside a polling station. They discuss the effects of how the 2008 presidential election was framed in the media. John Ziegler believes that people voted on personality and media perceptions rather than on campaign issues, inferring that Obama won because many who voted for him didn't vote on his policies. While I may not necessarily agree with this clip, I do see how the campaigns were framed in the media and how many people can vote for reasons other than beliefs or policies of the candidate.
-Christine Crowley
Agenda Setting & Twitter
As I started thinking about Agenda Setting, and doing some research I thought about the ability of Twitter as an entire outlet for agenda setting, not only by the media but by just about anybody. Posts on Twitter have the ability to become "trending topics," in which a large population of Twitter users are discussing the same matter. These "trending topics" become the most important topics on Twitter, whether locally, or nationally. This is essentially online agenda setting. Someone, usually a celebrity, or news outlet with a large number of followers post something that they would like to see discussed, and spread all over Twitter. People pick up on these posts as the most important news and "re-tweet" and publish the news throughout their Twitter accounts. Often the most important topics on Twitter are involving celebrity gossip, but it is the celebrities themselves, or personalities like Perez Hilton who take the opportunity to set the agenda for celebrity news gossip. When serious news breaks, news networks relay the most important facts via Twitter. Since the 2008 elections, politicians have also adopted Twitter as a way to set the agenda for their policies and provide their followers with snip-its of the issues they want voters to focus on.
As an example, I found a blog post about Twitter's Agenda Setting power and its influence on a local front in Austin, Texas.
http://socialmediaprclass.blogspot.com/2009/03/twitters-agenda-setting-power-example.html
-Emily Andrews-Rice
As an example, I found a blog post about Twitter's Agenda Setting power and its influence on a local front in Austin, Texas.
http://socialmediaprclass.blogspot.com/2009/03/twitters-agenda-setting-power-example.html
-Emily Andrews-Rice
H1N1 Scare
This article supports the theory of Spiral of Silence. The vast majority of people didn’t have swine flu it turns out. At Penn State, Health Services ended up ordering 4,0000 more swine flu vaccines because of the panic created among the general public. There were only 10 reported cases of students with swine flu at Penn State. I think people panic and got the shot even if they didn’t agree because everyone was getting them and pressuring them. Because people thought they were the minority, they didn’t speak out and got the shot or if they showed flu like symptoms, they automatically assumed its was the swine flu. It was all over the media. It caused a lot of tension and closing of schools. My high school ended up closing because of one case creating a mass panic. Half the school called out sick complaining of flu-like symptoms. There was a stress in the health care system. This shows how the media can create mass panic. People need to think and analysis certain issues when the media sends out mass panic reports.
Maria Lobron
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)