Ok, I know that it may be a bit late in the semester to be blogging about simple internet site headline differences, but sometimes these types of things really get under my skin and I feel the need to at least mention them.
So a quick glance at the CNN and FOX News web pages is all that it takes to get me a little upset. First off, CNN appears to be matching pictures of President Obama and India's Prime Minister up with headlines regarding the strengthening of ties between world powers. Two of the World's largest democracies forming a stronger bond between its leaders appears to eb headline worthy material. And apparently so is the circumstance by which the two leaders came together.
Highlighting the State dinner at the White House, both CNN and FOX News give insight to the night's appeal, guest list, and other aspects. The angle taken by each media source remains interesting to me. It is still the same old battle between media powerhouses to bolster or strike the President, depending on the political slant. It just gets old to me. Maybe now I see it more clearly and that is what makes this whole thing seem silly, but the only picture on FOX News's web page that contained both President Obama and Prime Minister Singh was backed up by a caption that dealt with Obama's approval rating dropping. To the contrary, the whole beginning of this post regarding the strengthening of ties between world powers and what not, was inspired by the tone of CNN's captions and headlines that accompanied pictures of the two leaders. It is just frustrating to be fed the same slanted slop day in and day out.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Soldiers in Prison
All this week CNN is running a special on the story of three Army Sergeants who were convicted of premeditated murder of 4 Iraqi detainees. This story first surfaced as the Killings at the Canal. Briefly, there were four detained Iraqi men who were believed to be a constant threat to soldiers. With the rules that govern the intake and release of these individuals it is not uncommon to keep fighting the same enemy over and over due to the fact that if there is not enough evidence to hold detainees then they are released. These sergeants apparently saw this flaw as detrimental and took matters into their own hands. They killed the four men and swore, along with 10 other soldiers who knew of the incedent, not to speak of it again. This story obviously did get out and the men in charge are currently serving prison sentences of multiple decades each.
My first reaction to this is that theses unfortunate soldiers have been used as an example. I feel that this may be something that we hear about in a few years, only as a happy story of soldiers being released from prison. I am not sure how closely the military imprisonment of an individual parallels that of a civilian, and maybe I am simply jaded by years of innundation by movies and TV shows on law, court, trials, etc., but I feel that these men stand little chance of serving their entire sentences. I feel that the media in this case acts as both a harm and a good for these men.
The media hopped all over this story and soon after the American public knew of the actions of these three soldiers, they were being sentenced. I think that the ability for information to simply explode onto the American public at the rate that it does, in a sense, prevents these types of secrets to be held. Sensationalist reporting and ratings chasing leads to the unearthing of some things that may be best left untold. I am by no means condoning the actions of the three sergeants, but who is to say that what they did did not make them and their men safer? Do these men deserve to be serving these sentences?
No. And that is where the media can play a positive role. This story includes families, wives, kids, fathers (on both sides of the lines) and there is sensational appeal in alomst ever layer. The very same media characteristics that have acted as a detriment to these men thus far can also help their cause in the future. As soon as this story is forgotten, a few weeks of breaking news later, the majority of Americans will have thier minds on something else. It appears as though the American government is doing what it needs to to in order to 'play fair' among warring nations, and the unfortunate soldiers stand as scapegoats. A few years from now though, don't be surprised to hear of the commuted sentences of these three American soldiers.
My first reaction to this is that theses unfortunate soldiers have been used as an example. I feel that this may be something that we hear about in a few years, only as a happy story of soldiers being released from prison. I am not sure how closely the military imprisonment of an individual parallels that of a civilian, and maybe I am simply jaded by years of innundation by movies and TV shows on law, court, trials, etc., but I feel that these men stand little chance of serving their entire sentences. I feel that the media in this case acts as both a harm and a good for these men.
The media hopped all over this story and soon after the American public knew of the actions of these three soldiers, they were being sentenced. I think that the ability for information to simply explode onto the American public at the rate that it does, in a sense, prevents these types of secrets to be held. Sensationalist reporting and ratings chasing leads to the unearthing of some things that may be best left untold. I am by no means condoning the actions of the three sergeants, but who is to say that what they did did not make them and their men safer? Do these men deserve to be serving these sentences?
No. And that is where the media can play a positive role. This story includes families, wives, kids, fathers (on both sides of the lines) and there is sensational appeal in alomst ever layer. The very same media characteristics that have acted as a detriment to these men thus far can also help their cause in the future. As soon as this story is forgotten, a few weeks of breaking news later, the majority of Americans will have thier minds on something else. It appears as though the American government is doing what it needs to to in order to 'play fair' among warring nations, and the unfortunate soldiers stand as scapegoats. A few years from now though, don't be surprised to hear of the commuted sentences of these three American soldiers.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Flying free of Fox
Two weeks ago I found myself on an airplane headed to the west coast. I was taking a little time away from it all and attening a music festival in southern California and on my plane ride out to Las Vegas (which included a subsequent van ride through the, as Hunter S. Thompson so elloquently put it, Back Country between there and the neighboring Golden State) and as I sunk deep into my seat for the 4 and a half hour period I wondered how I would keep myself entertained. With my girlfried at my side and beautiful blue sky out the window (yes, I was not only smart enough to book a window seat, but also kind enough to assign my girlfriend to it) I wasn't necessarily worried about the entertainment aspect, but my mind still wondered. Finally after about an hour in the air and some school reading behind me I decided to stop a flight attendant and get one of those pair of really comfortable headphones of the $2 variety and tune into the back headrest of the seat in front of me.
There was a pretty impressive array of cable channels availible for free viewing and as I scanned the options I was pretty sure that I did not see the Fox news network. So I made another pass through the channels and, sure enough, NO Fox News. Not to give too much away, but I was overjoyed at the thought of operating the up and down button and not having to even glimpse at the content of that awesome channel.
I was wondering how Delta escaped this....
There was a pretty impressive array of cable channels availible for free viewing and as I scanned the options I was pretty sure that I did not see the Fox news network. So I made another pass through the channels and, sure enough, NO Fox News. Not to give too much away, but I was overjoyed at the thought of operating the up and down button and not having to even glimpse at the content of that awesome channel.
I was wondering how Delta escaped this....
Monday, October 19, 2009
Obama's "Sudan Strategy"
Upon reading this statement by President Obama I was immediately reminded of a talk that I had with my father a couple of years ago regarding the U.S. occupation in Iraq. Just to set the background a bit: My father is a pretty hard core right-wing conservative and a proud Christian. These are all things that I have to factor in when having any political or philosophical discussion with him, and this day was no different. I, being the synnical twenty-something, and he being the seasoned veteran set the stage for our differences.
I kept rainling on about how we had no business being over there under the circumstances which we made our invasion. I cited the absence of any WMD's and how we only went after Iraq because Saddam was an easy target following the attacks of 9/11 and how we were only primarily interested in an area of the globe which would help yeild control over large oil reserves. I can't say that the reasoning behind my opinion at the time would have been considered free of fallacies, yet I felt that our occupation in Iraq was not for reasons stated by our government in the media (and I still hold to that to a degree today). But I remember my father going on about how much better off the people in Iraq were since Saddam was taken out of power and how the U.S. had a responsibility to step up and help a nation that was in such dissarray. I could kinda understand where he was coming from, and I can say that I do feel that the people of Iraq may very well be better off not being ruled by their former dictator, but I was and am still sceptical of the motivation of our invasion.
Anyway, I could not help but think of other areas of the world where there are situations where citizens of countries are subjected to genocide and terrible living situations, where the only hope seems to be the intervention of a more powerful nation or alliance of nations. Why were we not running to help those people? If it were all about helping out those who are in trouble; being the shining example among the world's leading nations, would we not seek to do something about, oh...I don't know...maybe the genocide in Darfur?
Well, today as I read President Obama's release regarding his Sudan Strategy I was reminded of my mindset of a few years back. I began to think to myself that Obama be the right person to be in place to help these people...and then I read further. This statement is weak at best. I typically lean to the left on a lot of issues and did not expect to end up thinking the way that I did by the end of his statement. It sounds like he is only hinting at the issues. I have to agree with a couple of people who posted comments to the report on (I can't believe that I am gonna say this) Foxnews.com, and I pretty much have to agree that the 'strategy' does not seem to involve anything which is not presently in place regarding our action towards the circumstances in this region. I found myself saying a couple of duh's throughout my reading of this statement, and to be honest I feel that we are really no closer to doing any real good for these people. Am I missing something here? I sure hope so...
I kept rainling on about how we had no business being over there under the circumstances which we made our invasion. I cited the absence of any WMD's and how we only went after Iraq because Saddam was an easy target following the attacks of 9/11 and how we were only primarily interested in an area of the globe which would help yeild control over large oil reserves. I can't say that the reasoning behind my opinion at the time would have been considered free of fallacies, yet I felt that our occupation in Iraq was not for reasons stated by our government in the media (and I still hold to that to a degree today). But I remember my father going on about how much better off the people in Iraq were since Saddam was taken out of power and how the U.S. had a responsibility to step up and help a nation that was in such dissarray. I could kinda understand where he was coming from, and I can say that I do feel that the people of Iraq may very well be better off not being ruled by their former dictator, but I was and am still sceptical of the motivation of our invasion.
Anyway, I could not help but think of other areas of the world where there are situations where citizens of countries are subjected to genocide and terrible living situations, where the only hope seems to be the intervention of a more powerful nation or alliance of nations. Why were we not running to help those people? If it were all about helping out those who are in trouble; being the shining example among the world's leading nations, would we not seek to do something about, oh...I don't know...maybe the genocide in Darfur?
Well, today as I read President Obama's release regarding his Sudan Strategy I was reminded of my mindset of a few years back. I began to think to myself that Obama be the right person to be in place to help these people...and then I read further. This statement is weak at best. I typically lean to the left on a lot of issues and did not expect to end up thinking the way that I did by the end of his statement. It sounds like he is only hinting at the issues. I have to agree with a couple of people who posted comments to the report on (I can't believe that I am gonna say this) Foxnews.com, and I pretty much have to agree that the 'strategy' does not seem to involve anything which is not presently in place regarding our action towards the circumstances in this region. I found myself saying a couple of duh's throughout my reading of this statement, and to be honest I feel that we are really no closer to doing any real good for these people. Am I missing something here? I sure hope so...
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Right and Left aside, is there Truth in Journalism?
With some recent data showing that there is a decline among public opinion regarding the honesty of the journalists in America coupled with factors such as media outlets' need to report sensational stories to keep up in the ratings game and slanted reporting to appease television/print/internet audiences, it seems as though the worst may be happening....
It is bad enough for media outlets to have turned away from the "seek truth and report it" role and transformed into ratings chasers which have twisted and slanted news reports to the degree that the public has lost a great deal of faith in the Media's ability to report the truth. But couple this with the continued dependency of the American public on the Media to provide information on politics and such, and it appears as though we don't care if we are being lied to as long as someone is telling us something.
There are numerous alternative media outlets with which an American can choose to acquire their information regarding important national and global news, and I do believe that these are being sought out by those people who care more about finding out the truth within events and issues. I just find it funny that so many Americans place thier trust in media outlets that are comprised of the very journalists that they feel as being largely dishonest. It makes me wonder if the majority of news watching is in an attempt to get the facts or perhaps, rather, another form of entertainment where the trend of 'infotainmtent' does nothing but feed the national audiences' need to be entertained.
It is bad enough for media outlets to have turned away from the "seek truth and report it" role and transformed into ratings chasers which have twisted and slanted news reports to the degree that the public has lost a great deal of faith in the Media's ability to report the truth. But couple this with the continued dependency of the American public on the Media to provide information on politics and such, and it appears as though we don't care if we are being lied to as long as someone is telling us something.
There are numerous alternative media outlets with which an American can choose to acquire their information regarding important national and global news, and I do believe that these are being sought out by those people who care more about finding out the truth within events and issues. I just find it funny that so many Americans place thier trust in media outlets that are comprised of the very journalists that they feel as being largely dishonest. It makes me wonder if the majority of news watching is in an attempt to get the facts or perhaps, rather, another form of entertainment where the trend of 'infotainmtent' does nothing but feed the national audiences' need to be entertained.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
The Smoke Has Cleared.....and Students Seem to be Unharmed.
It all began for me around Friday of this past week. I believe that it was my girlfriend who was remarking about one of the discussions which she had in one of her journalism classes that had to do with the coverage of President Obama's planned speech to students on September 8th. This was the first that I knew of Obama's plan to do so, and at first glance it seemed like a reasonable request of the President of the United States. It appeared to me that what he planned to do was encourage students to stay in school, and set goals and work hard to achieve them (and after viewing the speech for myself I have come to realize that I was initially correct). I have never pronounced any sort of partisan affiliation, personally. I have grown to believe that to a degree the way that partisan politics is handled, especially in the case of mass media, does more to harm the democratic process than help it. I believe that there should be opposing opinions among the American population in order for the best results to be achieved by the political process. This certainly would not be the nation that it is if one political ideology reigned supreme. With that said, I want to acknowledge that my opinion on whether President Obama did the right thing by addressing the students of our nation has nothing to do with my personal political affiliation, which favors neither the Right over the Left nor vice versa.
What I did not expect (and in retrospect I feel as though I was a bit naive in doing so) was the lashing out of so many Americans, from parents to politicians, over the President's proposed speech. This was particularly interesting as I was enjoying some family time over the long weekend and I was discussing this matter with my brother, mother and aunt. My aunt is an elementary school secretary in Walker County, Georgia. To say that her school is out in 'the sticks' is an understatement (no offense meant to anyone from Walker County...I love it up there, it is especially beautiful in the Fall) and I have come to understand that the politics of many rural Georgia areas are not exactly in line with that of our current administration. So when my aunt started going on about how the parents of the students in the schools up there were more or less freaking out and boycotting the President's address to students I was struck with some interesting emotions and internal arguments. To my left was my brother (borderline conspiracy theorist, though extremely well read), opposite of me was my mother and aunt who are both pretty balanced with regard to political affiliation (they represent Republicans who feel burned by the prior administration). Among this crowd was plenty of talk of how Obama planned to inundate the most impressionable minds in the country with his socialist propaganda, and how he was using this speech as an opportunity to skirt another day's worth of health care reform focus. I even read about Florida GOP chairman Jim Greer's comments which echoed the socialist rhetoric accusations.
Now, as I pour through the news outlets to find coverage of how Americans are responding to Tuesday's speech I see nothing that disturbs me. Actually, after viewing the speech for myself last night, being that I am a student, I felt a small surge of encouragement and could completely see how if I was 12 years old again and heard my president deliver that message that I would take it to heart. I listened very carefully to the speech trying to pinpoint the evil. I even read the proposed lesson plans that the Department of Education suggested be used as supplementary material for the speech and saw no red flags. Granted, Obama said nothing of the national debt, the health care crisis, foreign policy or anything not pertaining to staying in school and setting and achieving goals. I have to say that this was not the forum for the delivering of any political agenda whatsoever. And regardless of where I stand on those issues, I feel that the President's speech was uplifting and pertinent to the start of the school year.
What I did not expect (and in retrospect I feel as though I was a bit naive in doing so) was the lashing out of so many Americans, from parents to politicians, over the President's proposed speech. This was particularly interesting as I was enjoying some family time over the long weekend and I was discussing this matter with my brother, mother and aunt. My aunt is an elementary school secretary in Walker County, Georgia. To say that her school is out in 'the sticks' is an understatement (no offense meant to anyone from Walker County...I love it up there, it is especially beautiful in the Fall) and I have come to understand that the politics of many rural Georgia areas are not exactly in line with that of our current administration. So when my aunt started going on about how the parents of the students in the schools up there were more or less freaking out and boycotting the President's address to students I was struck with some interesting emotions and internal arguments. To my left was my brother (borderline conspiracy theorist, though extremely well read), opposite of me was my mother and aunt who are both pretty balanced with regard to political affiliation (they represent Republicans who feel burned by the prior administration). Among this crowd was plenty of talk of how Obama planned to inundate the most impressionable minds in the country with his socialist propaganda, and how he was using this speech as an opportunity to skirt another day's worth of health care reform focus. I even read about Florida GOP chairman Jim Greer's comments which echoed the socialist rhetoric accusations.
Now, as I pour through the news outlets to find coverage of how Americans are responding to Tuesday's speech I see nothing that disturbs me. Actually, after viewing the speech for myself last night, being that I am a student, I felt a small surge of encouragement and could completely see how if I was 12 years old again and heard my president deliver that message that I would take it to heart. I listened very carefully to the speech trying to pinpoint the evil. I even read the proposed lesson plans that the Department of Education suggested be used as supplementary material for the speech and saw no red flags. Granted, Obama said nothing of the national debt, the health care crisis, foreign policy or anything not pertaining to staying in school and setting and achieving goals. I have to say that this was not the forum for the delivering of any political agenda whatsoever. And regardless of where I stand on those issues, I feel that the President's speech was uplifting and pertinent to the start of the school year.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Death of Senator Kennedy covered around the globe.
The death of Senator Edward Kennedy this week has made headlines on just about all media fronts in the U.S., and as well is an event which has been covered around the globe. It is reasonable for someone of Kennedy's status to receive such attention. The death of any U.S. senator would draw national, and perhaps world wide attention, but in the case of Edward Kennedy the news of his death brings closure to one of America's political dynasties.
This is an incredibly news worthy event so I took some time this past Saturday to glance through my links and see how various online media sources were choosing to cover the story. Not to my surprise this was front page news on each of my U.S. media links (NPR, FOX News, and CNN) and since it was the day of his funeral it seemed as though the coverage was pretty neutral. There were no partisan spins, and mainly just words about his life and political career. I personally did not follow the career of Senator Kennedy but from what I was able to gather from what I have read this week he really did a lot to help bridge partisan gaps. Perhaps this was why his story was covered in such a neutral fashion, or it may have been simply due to the fact that the day of a man's funeral is hardly the time to start throwing stones.
What was also interesting was how this story was covered in the international media links (Al Jazeera, BBC News. As soon as I clicked on their respective links there was information on the first page that appeared about Senator Kennedy's life and funeral. These reports too were general in their discussion, and seemed not to delve much past Kennedy's political career and presence in politics as a member of the Kennedy family. This was nice to see. It seemed that around the world on Saturday he was being remembered well as having made a positive impact with his career.
I really did not have any starting point from which to gauge the coverage. I cannot say that I have payed close enough attention to the deaths of other U.S. senators to be able to make a comparison between how their lives were summarized on the day of their respective funerals, or if they would receive such attention due to the fact that they were not from the Kennedy family. What I did take away from my brief walk through the global and national coverage of Senator Kennedy's funeral, career, and life was that there does seem to be a window of opportunity for someone in political office to be portrayed neutrally across most mass media fronts, and I hope that I discover another instance, honestly, because I do not want to think that it takes a man's death for partisan-driven news sources to take off the gloves and report without slants.
This is an incredibly news worthy event so I took some time this past Saturday to glance through my links and see how various online media sources were choosing to cover the story. Not to my surprise this was front page news on each of my U.S. media links (NPR, FOX News, and CNN) and since it was the day of his funeral it seemed as though the coverage was pretty neutral. There were no partisan spins, and mainly just words about his life and political career. I personally did not follow the career of Senator Kennedy but from what I was able to gather from what I have read this week he really did a lot to help bridge partisan gaps. Perhaps this was why his story was covered in such a neutral fashion, or it may have been simply due to the fact that the day of a man's funeral is hardly the time to start throwing stones.
What was also interesting was how this story was covered in the international media links (Al Jazeera, BBC News. As soon as I clicked on their respective links there was information on the first page that appeared about Senator Kennedy's life and funeral. These reports too were general in their discussion, and seemed not to delve much past Kennedy's political career and presence in politics as a member of the Kennedy family. This was nice to see. It seemed that around the world on Saturday he was being remembered well as having made a positive impact with his career.
I really did not have any starting point from which to gauge the coverage. I cannot say that I have payed close enough attention to the deaths of other U.S. senators to be able to make a comparison between how their lives were summarized on the day of their respective funerals, or if they would receive such attention due to the fact that they were not from the Kennedy family. What I did take away from my brief walk through the global and national coverage of Senator Kennedy's funeral, career, and life was that there does seem to be a window of opportunity for someone in political office to be portrayed neutrally across most mass media fronts, and I hope that I discover another instance, honestly, because I do not want to think that it takes a man's death for partisan-driven news sources to take off the gloves and report without slants.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
