The results of the 2008 election clearly show a shift in America from the conservative politics of George W. Bush to a more liberal set of American values. With numbers like a 2-to-1 Electoral College advantage, a pickup of between five and eight seats in the Senate, and anywhere between 20 and 25 seats in the House of Representatives, this shows a very large rejection of conservatism, and dare I say it, a mandate for liberals in American politics, but also a mandate for a change in Washington, D.C. and not just inside the beltway politics as usual. The results show that a large part of the American people want liberal change brought to Washington and have rejected conservatism for now.
But you would not know it from all the talk in the media. Everywhere you look, Obama is being praised for assembling a team of rivals that have opposing view points. This is good for forming ideas, but the members of the media are ignoring the fact that Obama ran on a platform of ideas from the left, and not from the center.
The fact that the media is completely ignoring this fact, and that you never see anyone on major networks criticizing Obama from the left just goes to show how afraid they are of debate, and how much their corporate interests rule what they do.
I have heard almost no criticizm from anyone on Obama keeping Gates, a prominent Republican around, no complaints about Hillary Clinton, and no complaints about anyone else. And it's making me sick.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
poverty discussion
You know what irked me in this past election, the fact that for all the bluster about the economy and Americans losing their jobs and how the middle class has been hurt, there was no discussion at all about the the lower classes. No talk about how to help them improve their standing, or what they should do to help themselves. I think it's because a) if people started to talk about it, they might actually have to do something about it, and b) people are afraid that if they make even the slightest comment about how these people can and should help themselves, they will be lambasted by people for insinuating that it's not the man that is keeping these people down.
Discussions of poverty and race (not just African-American, but any minority group) in this country often either get de-railed or don’t even happen because to suggest that people’s problems are even in the slightest bit their own doing is considered insulting. Of course that question is a multi-faceted one, and poverty is certainly not entirely someone’s own doing, but the suggestion that that could even be a part of it at all draws vehement opposition from people like Revs. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, and results in whoever said such having to apologize for what they said and it shuts down any kind of discussion that might have taken place.
This type of fear also comes in the form of almost refusing to criticize someone. People are afraid to criticize things that take place in a particular minority community, be it a racial community or a religious community that is perceived to be slighted or mistreated. For example, it is almost impossible in the United States to criticize Israel without being labeled an Anti-Semite. At American University where I spent my freshman year, I remember people who expressed pro-Palestinian positions being labeled “Nazis”. Any political candidate who proposes taking a critical look at the way Israel has conducted itself in the last half-century basically forfeits the election because they are labeled as anti-Israel.
Discussions of poverty and race (not just African-American, but any minority group) in this country often either get de-railed or don’t even happen because to suggest that people’s problems are even in the slightest bit their own doing is considered insulting. Of course that question is a multi-faceted one, and poverty is certainly not entirely someone’s own doing, but the suggestion that that could even be a part of it at all draws vehement opposition from people like Revs. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, and results in whoever said such having to apologize for what they said and it shuts down any kind of discussion that might have taken place.
This type of fear also comes in the form of almost refusing to criticize someone. People are afraid to criticize things that take place in a particular minority community, be it a racial community or a religious community that is perceived to be slighted or mistreated. For example, it is almost impossible in the United States to criticize Israel without being labeled an Anti-Semite. At American University where I spent my freshman year, I remember people who expressed pro-Palestinian positions being labeled “Nazis”. Any political candidate who proposes taking a critical look at the way Israel has conducted itself in the last half-century basically forfeits the election because they are labeled as anti-Israel.
political correctness
Political Correctness. The concept of political correctness has enveloped our country. People are almost afraid to utter anything controversial or make any statements that may be considered unkind or offensive to any one particular group of people. It seems like every five minutes some kind of public figure, be it a politician or a celebrity, is in front of their respective press corps making an apology for a comment that seemed innocuous at the time, but after hearing it over and over again, has been deemed offensive.
Now don’t get me wrong, people should watch what they say. Making broad generalizations about any particular group of people is often misguided and insulting. Labeling one particular group of people responsible for ills is irresponsible and wrong. People like Don Imus and Mel Gibson who make racially insensitive comments and blame whole races of people for the world’s ills are vilified in the court of popular public opinion, and rightly so. So in cases like this, our obsession with political correctness is a good thing.
However, political correctness is also detrimental to the solving of a problem, or even just discussion of a particular issue. Very little debate on any major issue gets anywhere in this country because everyone is always so worried about offending someone else.
I believe that was one of the problems with media coverage in this past election. Major stations were so concerned with offending someone either outside their company or higher up in their company that they avoided the real issues in favor of just covering horse race and talking about numbers in a fluid electorate.
Now don’t get me wrong, people should watch what they say. Making broad generalizations about any particular group of people is often misguided and insulting. Labeling one particular group of people responsible for ills is irresponsible and wrong. People like Don Imus and Mel Gibson who make racially insensitive comments and blame whole races of people for the world’s ills are vilified in the court of popular public opinion, and rightly so. So in cases like this, our obsession with political correctness is a good thing.
However, political correctness is also detrimental to the solving of a problem, or even just discussion of a particular issue. Very little debate on any major issue gets anywhere in this country because everyone is always so worried about offending someone else.
I believe that was one of the problems with media coverage in this past election. Major stations were so concerned with offending someone either outside their company or higher up in their company that they avoided the real issues in favor of just covering horse race and talking about numbers in a fluid electorate.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
The Death of Captain America
The United States of America has changed drastically in the last twenty years. What was once a country of hope and dreams following the end of the Cold War has once again become a nation of fear and mistrust like it was during the heights of the Red Scare. We see people who are threats and people who are different around every corner. What was once “the melting pot” and “the land of opportunity” is now starkly divided and the land of fearing the other. Cynicism and intolerance are running unchecked through the country, overrunning tolerance and hope. You can see it everywhere; in the frightened glances of people at the airport, the reactions of school administrations to the slightest thing out of the norm and even inside our own classrooms where it seems students have been taught that the United States can do no right. I think the perfect metaphor for the situation is oddly enough, found in a comic book.
If you never read comic books like I did as a child, you may not be familiar with Steve Rodgers a.k.a. Captain America (trust me, this will make sense, just bear with me). In the early days of World War Two, Marvel Comics introduced the world to Steve Rodgers. Rodgers was a frail, 18-year-old kid who wanted desperately to serve his country in the war. Unfortunately, he was deemed physically unfit for service, and told he could not join. But then, he was given the chance to take part in an experiment that would make him the ultimate in human performance, the very best that a human could ever be. Thus was born Captain America. Cap was the ultimate American symbol. He fought the Nazis and wore a costume that was almost an exact replica of an American flag. At the end of the war, Captain America seemingly died, killed in an explosion over the North Atlantic.
Twenty years later in the 1960s, Cap was found, revived, and turned into a symbol for the entire world. In late 2006, the entire superhero world in which Marvel Comics exists was engulfed in a civil war over a piece of legislation not unlike the Patriot Act. The superhero community was split down the middle with Captain America leading the anti-legislation side. At the end of all of this, Cap surrendered when he determined he was doing more harm than good. He was arrested and put on trial. As he walked in handcuffs to the courthouse, he was assassinated. After forty years of being the ultimate symbol for the world, and indeed for multiple generations of readers, Captain America was dead.
But the part of all of this that I feel makes it relevant is that Cap was not killed by any super-villain or anything like that. A sniper killed Captain America; just a normal person equipped with a rifle. It was just an everyday person; motivated by the culture of fear created by the government who destroyed one of the greatest symbols America has ever known. I read this whole story arc just a few days ago, and it struck me as extremely relevant. While most people may dismiss the relevance of such an event because it occurs in such a trivial medium like a comic book, I happen to think it is strong social commentary.
Captain America stood for the ideas of America, for tolerance and hope, but was undone by the forces of intolerance, cynicism, and basic fear created by a national tragedy, spurred forward by the government and seized upon by the media and people looking to make a profit. I can think of no better metaphor for the struggle between tolerance and intolerance, and hope and cynicism in our country right now. Captain America is a metaphor for tolerance and hope, cut down in the wake of a national tragedy by the forces of intolerance and cynicism.
But at last, hope has risen again. The election of Obama has shown us that we don't have to be a nation of fear and cynicism. We can come out of this most recent age of darkness back into the light. But Obama won't be able to do it on his own, we have to help. We have to demand more accountability in the news we consume on a daily basis. It needs to be actual coverage and refereeing of a political process, not just poll numbers and sex scandals. It won't happen overnight, and it won't be easy, but it is a responsibility we as a nation must assume.
If you never read comic books like I did as a child, you may not be familiar with Steve Rodgers a.k.a. Captain America (trust me, this will make sense, just bear with me). In the early days of World War Two, Marvel Comics introduced the world to Steve Rodgers. Rodgers was a frail, 18-year-old kid who wanted desperately to serve his country in the war. Unfortunately, he was deemed physically unfit for service, and told he could not join. But then, he was given the chance to take part in an experiment that would make him the ultimate in human performance, the very best that a human could ever be. Thus was born Captain America. Cap was the ultimate American symbol. He fought the Nazis and wore a costume that was almost an exact replica of an American flag. At the end of the war, Captain America seemingly died, killed in an explosion over the North Atlantic.
Twenty years later in the 1960s, Cap was found, revived, and turned into a symbol for the entire world. In late 2006, the entire superhero world in which Marvel Comics exists was engulfed in a civil war over a piece of legislation not unlike the Patriot Act. The superhero community was split down the middle with Captain America leading the anti-legislation side. At the end of all of this, Cap surrendered when he determined he was doing more harm than good. He was arrested and put on trial. As he walked in handcuffs to the courthouse, he was assassinated. After forty years of being the ultimate symbol for the world, and indeed for multiple generations of readers, Captain America was dead.
But the part of all of this that I feel makes it relevant is that Cap was not killed by any super-villain or anything like that. A sniper killed Captain America; just a normal person equipped with a rifle. It was just an everyday person; motivated by the culture of fear created by the government who destroyed one of the greatest symbols America has ever known. I read this whole story arc just a few days ago, and it struck me as extremely relevant. While most people may dismiss the relevance of such an event because it occurs in such a trivial medium like a comic book, I happen to think it is strong social commentary.
Captain America stood for the ideas of America, for tolerance and hope, but was undone by the forces of intolerance, cynicism, and basic fear created by a national tragedy, spurred forward by the government and seized upon by the media and people looking to make a profit. I can think of no better metaphor for the struggle between tolerance and intolerance, and hope and cynicism in our country right now. Captain America is a metaphor for tolerance and hope, cut down in the wake of a national tragedy by the forces of intolerance and cynicism.
But at last, hope has risen again. The election of Obama has shown us that we don't have to be a nation of fear and cynicism. We can come out of this most recent age of darkness back into the light. But Obama won't be able to do it on his own, we have to help. We have to demand more accountability in the news we consume on a daily basis. It needs to be actual coverage and refereeing of a political process, not just poll numbers and sex scandals. It won't happen overnight, and it won't be easy, but it is a responsibility we as a nation must assume.
Political Correctness
Political Correctness. The concept of political correctness has enveloped our country. People are almost afraid to utter anything controversial or make any statements that may be considered unkind or offensive to any one particular group of people. It seems like every five minutes some kind of public figure, be it a politician or a celebrity, is in front of their respective press corps making an apology for a comment that seemed innocuous at the time, but after hearing it over and over again, has been deemed offensive.
Now don’t get me wrong, people should watch what they say. Making broad generalizations about any particular group of people is often misguided and insulting. Labeling one particular group of people responsible for ills is irresponsible and wrong. People like Don Imus and Mel Gibson who make racially insensitive comments and blame whole races of people for the world’s ills are vilified in the court of popular public opinion, and rightly so. So in cases like this, our obsession with political correctness is a good thing.
However, political correctness is also detrimental to the solving of a problem, or even just discussion of a particular issue. Very little debate on any major issue gets anywhere in this country because everyone is always so worried about offending someone else. Discussions of poverty and race (not just African-American, but any minority group) in this country often either get de-railed or don’t even happen because to suggest that people’s problems are even in the slightest bit their own doing is considered insulting. Of course that question is a multi-faceted one, and poverty is certainly not entirely someone’s own doing, but the suggestion that that could even be a part of it at all draws vehement opposition from people like Revs. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, and results in whoever said such having to apologize for what they said and it shuts down any kind of discussion that might have taken place.
Hopefully, the election of Barack Obama helps us move past the day of taboo subjects and unspoken topics and actually focus on things that are really wrong with not just the country, but the world as a whole.
Now don’t get me wrong, people should watch what they say. Making broad generalizations about any particular group of people is often misguided and insulting. Labeling one particular group of people responsible for ills is irresponsible and wrong. People like Don Imus and Mel Gibson who make racially insensitive comments and blame whole races of people for the world’s ills are vilified in the court of popular public opinion, and rightly so. So in cases like this, our obsession with political correctness is a good thing.
However, political correctness is also detrimental to the solving of a problem, or even just discussion of a particular issue. Very little debate on any major issue gets anywhere in this country because everyone is always so worried about offending someone else. Discussions of poverty and race (not just African-American, but any minority group) in this country often either get de-railed or don’t even happen because to suggest that people’s problems are even in the slightest bit their own doing is considered insulting. Of course that question is a multi-faceted one, and poverty is certainly not entirely someone’s own doing, but the suggestion that that could even be a part of it at all draws vehement opposition from people like Revs. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, and results in whoever said such having to apologize for what they said and it shuts down any kind of discussion that might have taken place.
Hopefully, the election of Barack Obama helps us move past the day of taboo subjects and unspoken topics and actually focus on things that are really wrong with not just the country, but the world as a whole.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
History
It happened. It actually happened. There are moments in time. Moments when you can feel something. Points in time where you know that something is happening. Something historic. There are days in your life when you can feel that the world will be different when you wake up the next morning. This is one of those times.
I will never forget that at 11:01 p.m. on November 4th 2008, Barack Hussein Obama, the son of a black man from Kenya and a woman from Kansas, was declared the President of the
United States.
It's one of those moments that transcends time and space and moves in to the realm of history to be recorded for all time. I have never been more proud to be a citizen of the United States then on the day a black man was elected president.
It is a time to move forward into the future. To move down the path of righteousness into the mysterious light that is the time ahead of us. Roads? Where we're going we don't need no roads...we have hope.
I will never forget that at 11:01 p.m. on November 4th 2008, Barack Hussein Obama, the son of a black man from Kenya and a woman from Kansas, was declared the President of the
United States.
It's one of those moments that transcends time and space and moves in to the realm of history to be recorded for all time. I have never been more proud to be a citizen of the United States then on the day a black man was elected president.
It is a time to move forward into the future. To move down the path of righteousness into the mysterious light that is the time ahead of us. Roads? Where we're going we don't need no roads...we have hope.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Lies, Lies, and more Lies
So, I'm sitting here listening to John McCain talk (he's on CNN), I'm hearing him talk on and on giving the usual stump speech, and I have to say, the man looks desprate. First off, he said he was glad to be in Virginia. There happens to be a problem with that though, he wasn't there. He was close to Virginia, but he was in Tennessee. Last time I looked at a map, they were seprate states.
While that's a little nit-picky, his attacks on Obama were not. He refered to Obama's policy as "spreading the wealth". Never mind that under the conservative messiah Reagan, taxes were almost twice as high on the wealthiest class as they are now, and while he slashed them, they were still higher. McCain constantly refers to Obama as being untested in the White House with respect to foreign problems. But last time I checked, neither of the two major candidates have been in the White House before.
McCain likes to talk about how Obama's refundable tax credits are "welfare", but that same tax credit is a central part of McCain's healthcare policy. McCain also has continued to say and broadcast that Obama wants to raise taxes on everybody making more than $42,000 a year. Once again, thats just simply not true. His policy clearly says taxes will raise only on individuals making more than $200,000, or couples/families making more than $250,000.
The thing that makes me the most mad though, is that immideately after the speech was over, was that there was no mention about the validity of the arguments on CNN. They went straight to commercial and when they came back, said not a word about it. Why do they continue to ignore the responsibility of the media to referee the campaign, and point out when people lie?
Obviously though, it's a political campaign, and both sides have been spewing false information like it's their jobs (which it is). Obama continues to proclaim that McCain opposes stem cell reaserch. This is only kind of true. Yes, McCain opposed stem cell reaserch, but only up until 2001, when he switched, saying he thought its benefits outweighed its risks.
While in a presidential election, it borders on stupidity to believe that a campaign will be run cleanly, I don't think it's too much to ask for major news outlets to look at the validity of what people are saying. At least I hope it's not.
While that's a little nit-picky, his attacks on Obama were not. He refered to Obama's policy as "spreading the wealth". Never mind that under the conservative messiah Reagan, taxes were almost twice as high on the wealthiest class as they are now, and while he slashed them, they were still higher. McCain constantly refers to Obama as being untested in the White House with respect to foreign problems. But last time I checked, neither of the two major candidates have been in the White House before.
McCain likes to talk about how Obama's refundable tax credits are "welfare", but that same tax credit is a central part of McCain's healthcare policy. McCain also has continued to say and broadcast that Obama wants to raise taxes on everybody making more than $42,000 a year. Once again, thats just simply not true. His policy clearly says taxes will raise only on individuals making more than $200,000, or couples/families making more than $250,000.
The thing that makes me the most mad though, is that immideately after the speech was over, was that there was no mention about the validity of the arguments on CNN. They went straight to commercial and when they came back, said not a word about it. Why do they continue to ignore the responsibility of the media to referee the campaign, and point out when people lie?
Obviously though, it's a political campaign, and both sides have been spewing false information like it's their jobs (which it is). Obama continues to proclaim that McCain opposes stem cell reaserch. This is only kind of true. Yes, McCain opposed stem cell reaserch, but only up until 2001, when he switched, saying he thought its benefits outweighed its risks.
While in a presidential election, it borders on stupidity to believe that a campaign will be run cleanly, I don't think it's too much to ask for major news outlets to look at the validity of what people are saying. At least I hope it's not.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
"real" america
A few days ago, Sarah Palin was on the campaign trail, giving her usual stump speech about how Obama likes to talk to people who have done things wrong in their past and served their time. During the course of her speech, she said that she liked being in small towns, where people worked in factories, fought for their country and grew small businesses. Now that's perfectly fine, I have absolutely nothing against small towns, small towns are great. I grew up in what was a small town, but while I was growing up, transformed into sub-urban sprawl.
Later on in the speech though, is when the real fun started. Later on is when Palin said that she liked being in small town because they are what she calls "Real America". As if the rest of America other than these "small towns" is the fake America. As if it doesn't really exist or is a part of an entirely different country. Or if like John Stewart said last night, "If you're from a big city and have gone to war in the War on Terror and have died, I guess it doesn't count."
What is it with the notion that if you live in a city or in suburbia, you're not really an American. Never mind that the top-ten most populous cities in the country combine to account for more than 33 million people. Never mind that just because some people who live in cities have ideas that are different than people who live in places that aren't cities, they are still American citizens and have fought and died for their country.
Just because large cities tend to vote Democrat doesn't mean that they aren't "real" Americans. Sarah Palin and the rest of the Republican campaign need to realize that every citizen of this country is a "real" American, and their disagreement with other peoples ideas is the most American thing of all.
Later on in the speech though, is when the real fun started. Later on is when Palin said that she liked being in small town because they are what she calls "Real America". As if the rest of America other than these "small towns" is the fake America. As if it doesn't really exist or is a part of an entirely different country. Or if like John Stewart said last night, "If you're from a big city and have gone to war in the War on Terror and have died, I guess it doesn't count."
What is it with the notion that if you live in a city or in suburbia, you're not really an American. Never mind that the top-ten most populous cities in the country combine to account for more than 33 million people. Never mind that just because some people who live in cities have ideas that are different than people who live in places that aren't cities, they are still American citizens and have fought and died for their country.
Just because large cities tend to vote Democrat doesn't mean that they aren't "real" Americans. Sarah Palin and the rest of the Republican campaign need to realize that every citizen of this country is a "real" American, and their disagreement with other peoples ideas is the most American thing of all.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
The Daily Show/Apology
This first part is mostly for my professor: Professor Cohen, i'm sorry I haven't been blogging very much, I just got done with writing two ten-page papers, and my life has kind of been consumed by them. They're done now, so I'm back to blogging.
I'm constantly amazed at how the best reporting on national events, the best let's-get-to-the-bottom-of-this reporting comes out of Comedy Central. Why is it that John Stewart, on a comedy show, has the ability to show the contradictions and hypocrisy that plague politics on a consistent basis. Why can't anyone else do this?
It's because as a comedy show, Stewart doesn't have to worry about being too politically correct, or worry about asking people questions that are too hard so they won't have to come back. Because his biting social commentary come in the guise of comedy, he can do essentially whatever he wants, have whoever he wants as a guest, and ask whatever he chooses. He also just flat-out has more courage than most people in the news industry because he knows that no matter what he does, Comedy Central won't come down on him and people will continue to watch his show.
In short, he can do what he does because he doesn't have to deal with corporate pressure, and he has a dedicated fan base. If only people who did "real news" had the freedom he enjoys, then we might actually really be able to see some worthwhile reporting.
I'm constantly amazed at how the best reporting on national events, the best let's-get-to-the-bottom-of-this reporting comes out of Comedy Central. Why is it that John Stewart, on a comedy show, has the ability to show the contradictions and hypocrisy that plague politics on a consistent basis. Why can't anyone else do this?
It's because as a comedy show, Stewart doesn't have to worry about being too politically correct, or worry about asking people questions that are too hard so they won't have to come back. Because his biting social commentary come in the guise of comedy, he can do essentially whatever he wants, have whoever he wants as a guest, and ask whatever he chooses. He also just flat-out has more courage than most people in the news industry because he knows that no matter what he does, Comedy Central won't come down on him and people will continue to watch his show.
In short, he can do what he does because he doesn't have to deal with corporate pressure, and he has a dedicated fan base. If only people who did "real news" had the freedom he enjoys, then we might actually really be able to see some worthwhile reporting.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
I love the fact-check
Let's talk about how much I am in love with the Annenberg Political Fact Check. No where else can I get such a comprehensive debunking of so many different myths and falsehoods on the campaign trail. The site hits both political parties equally, caring not for party affiliation, but the truthfulness of what is being said.
The site hammerd Obama on his distortion of McCain's social security plan, calling his ad an attempt to scare senior citizens. It calls out McCain-Palin on an ad that distorts Obama's remarks on Afghanistan and his support for troop-funding bills. I have also seen it cited on Yahoo! News as their source for fact-checking the presidential and vice-presidential debates.
If only major news outlets could take such action and actually call out candidates when they lie about opponents. The role of the news isto referee the political discourse and inform people about issues that affect them. But then, if they actually did their job, no one would want to be interviewed now would they?
The site hammerd Obama on his distortion of McCain's social security plan, calling his ad an attempt to scare senior citizens. It calls out McCain-Palin on an ad that distorts Obama's remarks on Afghanistan and his support for troop-funding bills. I have also seen it cited on Yahoo! News as their source for fact-checking the presidential and vice-presidential debates.
If only major news outlets could take such action and actually call out candidates when they lie about opponents. The role of the news isto referee the political discourse and inform people about issues that affect them. But then, if they actually did their job, no one would want to be interviewed now would they?
Cambell Brown
I saw something the other day on CNN that gave me great hope that the media may have reached a turning point in this election. while anchoring CNN's Election Center, Brown issued a plea on behalf of the American people, calling for both campaigns to stop slinging mud about associations either candidate had multiple decades ago, and focus on the economy. I say good job Cambell Brown.
Instead of covering the horse race of presidential elections, networks have shifted their focus to covering the most pressing issue on the American table, the economy. While some major networks have still covered slime like the Keating Five or Obama's association with Bill Ayers, they are more focused on the country's economic woes.
While some on-air networks like CNN have mostly stopped focusing exclusively on low-brow character attacks, such stories still show up on their websites. On ABCnews.com's political section, the majority of major headlines focus on campaign attacks, and how much one candidate has been spending over the other. Out of twenty stories, only four stories speak on the economy and the other 16 focus on who out-spent who, who "won" the debate and who is attacking who.
Why must major news outlets that are responsible for giving the American people relevant information on things that affect their lives be so focused on things that won't change how their health care works or whether they can send their kid to college.
It's a shame, and it needs to stop.
Instead of covering the horse race of presidential elections, networks have shifted their focus to covering the most pressing issue on the American table, the economy. While some major networks have still covered slime like the Keating Five or Obama's association with Bill Ayers, they are more focused on the country's economic woes.
While some on-air networks like CNN have mostly stopped focusing exclusively on low-brow character attacks, such stories still show up on their websites. On ABCnews.com's political section, the majority of major headlines focus on campaign attacks, and how much one candidate has been spending over the other. Out of twenty stories, only four stories speak on the economy and the other 16 focus on who out-spent who, who "won" the debate and who is attacking who.
Why must major news outlets that are responsible for giving the American people relevant information on things that affect their lives be so focused on things that won't change how their health care works or whether they can send their kid to college.
It's a shame, and it needs to stop.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Lipstick and the Dodo (among other things)
LIPSTICK AND THE DODO
What do lipstick and the Dodo have in common? They're both dead, gone, extinct, kaput. For weeks, all the news was was lipstick and exotic foods (arugula is indeed, grown in Iowa). But now, the real world has come crashing down onto the election coverage. Now, the economic woes on Wall Street and multiple crisis brewing in Pakistan over possible U.S. incursions have forced the campaigns and the outlets that cover them to actually look at the issues. While some of the major outlets were already beginning to come around, it's kind of sad (but not necessarily surprising) that it's taking something with the force of a sledgehammer like this to force the news to look at each candidate's stance on the issues. ABCnews.com ran an article that took a great look at this, urging people to watch for the paradigm shift coming from the mainstream media. All I can say is, it's about time.
THIS IS YOUR NATION ON WHITE PRIVILEGE
Recently, I was made aware of an article by anti-racism activist Tim Wise entitled: "This Is Your Nation On White Privilege" . Wise takes a brutal critique of the double standards that exist for whites and blacks, not only in the realm of politics, but in most aspects of daily life. It's pretty shameful that these things continue to happen, especially because when you read the article, it's pretty clear the media is responsible for the points in this article that can be related to the political realm for not recognizing this, critiquing it, and then changing it and making sure it ceases to happen. I think this is one of the most biting and insightful articles I have read in a long time, and it deserves to be disseminated as far as it can go into mainstream society. Please click the above link and take a read.
HOORAY FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES
I love when mainstream journalists take in upon themselves to criticize the media. On September 20, NYT writer Nicholas Kristof wrote an article about how people still believe Obama is Muslim, and therefore distrust him. It's a sad state of things that 13 percent of people still believe that against all evidence, that Obama is a Muslim. But the best part is the last paragraph where he says, "Journalists need to do more than call the play-by-play this election cycle. We also need to blow the whistle on such egregious fouls calculated to undermine the political process and magnify the ugliest prejudices that our nation has done so much to overcome." I couldn't agree more. Finally, someone gets it.
What do lipstick and the Dodo have in common? They're both dead, gone, extinct, kaput. For weeks, all the news was was lipstick and exotic foods (arugula is indeed, grown in Iowa). But now, the real world has come crashing down onto the election coverage. Now, the economic woes on Wall Street and multiple crisis brewing in Pakistan over possible U.S. incursions have forced the campaigns and the outlets that cover them to actually look at the issues. While some of the major outlets were already beginning to come around, it's kind of sad (but not necessarily surprising) that it's taking something with the force of a sledgehammer like this to force the news to look at each candidate's stance on the issues. ABCnews.com ran an article that took a great look at this, urging people to watch for the paradigm shift coming from the mainstream media. All I can say is, it's about time.
THIS IS YOUR NATION ON WHITE PRIVILEGE
Recently, I was made aware of an article by anti-racism activist Tim Wise entitled: "This Is Your Nation On White Privilege" . Wise takes a brutal critique of the double standards that exist for whites and blacks, not only in the realm of politics, but in most aspects of daily life. It's pretty shameful that these things continue to happen, especially because when you read the article, it's pretty clear the media is responsible for the points in this article that can be related to the political realm for not recognizing this, critiquing it, and then changing it and making sure it ceases to happen. I think this is one of the most biting and insightful articles I have read in a long time, and it deserves to be disseminated as far as it can go into mainstream society. Please click the above link and take a read.
HOORAY FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES
I love when mainstream journalists take in upon themselves to criticize the media. On September 20, NYT writer Nicholas Kristof wrote an article about how people still believe Obama is Muslim, and therefore distrust him. It's a sad state of things that 13 percent of people still believe that against all evidence, that Obama is a Muslim. But the best part is the last paragraph where he says, "Journalists need to do more than call the play-by-play this election cycle. We also need to blow the whistle on such egregious fouls calculated to undermine the political process and magnify the ugliest prejudices that our nation has done so much to overcome." I couldn't agree more. Finally, someone gets it.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Tip 'O The Cap (to quote Colbert)
Thank God for the Annenberg Political Fact check. It's so refreshing to be able to go to a well-known political website and see the debunking of both candidates that goes on there. Thank God at least someone remembers that there is a responsibility to referee the political discourse, instead of just be led along by the nose like most other news outlets.
Every day I click on the site, I am rewarded with numerous articles telling me where the candidates got it wrong on the trail, and actually backing it up. For example: a September 12 article explains how Sarah Palin's recent claims that the state of Alaska supplies 20 percent of U.S. energy is utterly false. In fact, Alaska produces 3.5 percent of U.S. domestic energy. I don't know about you, but the last time I checked 20 and 3.5 are not the same number. I don't know, they could have changed it on me.
The most refreshing thing though is that they don't just hammer away at McCain-Palin, they give it to Obama-Biden as well. Just yesterday, an article was published detailing how a new Obama-Biden ad describing McCain as wanting to cut Social Security benefits in half is extremely false. He in fact supported a Bush measure in 2005 wanting to hold down the growth of benefits, something affecting future seniors, not the current group it is aimed at.
Like I said, thank God for the Annenberg Fact Check. My only question is, why can't this information be displayed loud and proud in mainstream news sources? Why can't the people who get paid the big bucks to be trusted and respected journalists do this themselves? It is extremely irresponsible for not one news network to be reporting any of this stuff and refereeing the discourse.
But of course, if they did that, then they wouldn't be able to interview the candidates and toss them nice soft questions aimed at getting them back on the show instead of explaining anything. Wouldn't that be a shame.
Every day I click on the site, I am rewarded with numerous articles telling me where the candidates got it wrong on the trail, and actually backing it up. For example: a September 12 article explains how Sarah Palin's recent claims that the state of Alaska supplies 20 percent of U.S. energy is utterly false. In fact, Alaska produces 3.5 percent of U.S. domestic energy. I don't know about you, but the last time I checked 20 and 3.5 are not the same number. I don't know, they could have changed it on me.
The most refreshing thing though is that they don't just hammer away at McCain-Palin, they give it to Obama-Biden as well. Just yesterday, an article was published detailing how a new Obama-Biden ad describing McCain as wanting to cut Social Security benefits in half is extremely false. He in fact supported a Bush measure in 2005 wanting to hold down the growth of benefits, something affecting future seniors, not the current group it is aimed at.
Like I said, thank God for the Annenberg Fact Check. My only question is, why can't this information be displayed loud and proud in mainstream news sources? Why can't the people who get paid the big bucks to be trusted and respected journalists do this themselves? It is extremely irresponsible for not one news network to be reporting any of this stuff and refereeing the discourse.
But of course, if they did that, then they wouldn't be able to interview the candidates and toss them nice soft questions aimed at getting them back on the show instead of explaining anything. Wouldn't that be a shame.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Good Job CNN.com, shame on you ABCnews.com
Good job CNN.com, and I mean that literally. On the front page of the network's website, there are three different stories detailing how sleezy and incorrect the information coming out of the McCain campaign is. It has since come out the Sarah Palin was for her "bridge to no where" before it became a national embarrassment and then she was against it (of course, she still kept the federal money). Good job CNN for putting this on the front page of their website.
Another article gives voice to the Obama campaign's claim that McCain is running one of the dirtiest campaigns in history, higlighting the campaing's new spanish-language ad blaming Obama and the Democratic party for the lack of immigration reform in the last two years. Never mind the fact that both McCain and Obama cast the same vote in almost all of the legislation concerning immigration.
But the pennultimate article is one that begins by refuting Governor Palin's claims that she visited Iraq while governor. In fact, the Boston Globe first reported that Governor Palin never actually crossed the Kuwait-Iraq border, and that her supposed stop in Ireland on the same trip was merely one for refueling purposes, not an actual visit. Perhaps the best part of this article though, is the section that details the grilling about Palin that McCain recieved on "The View". Now, "The View" may not inspire visions of hard-hitting questions, but let's not forget that host Barbra Walters is a veteran of ABC News and a pioneer of women in journalism. She grilled McCain, asking him why there was no talk about the housing markets or the economy, and pointing out that she sold the private plane of the Alaska Governor's office at a loss to taxpayers. For actually putting these articles on their front page I say congrats CNN.
On the other hand, ABCnews.com has absolutely nothing about the falsehoods being put out by the McCain campaign, nor anything about Palin's record, only a short video of the Charlie Gibson interview. For not even putting anything remotely critiquing either campagin's conduct on the path to the election, I say shame on you ABCnews.com, way to fail at your job of informing voters of anything constructive that could affect their lives. Why even bother putting up the facade of being a news outlet if you're not going to do your job?
Another article gives voice to the Obama campaign's claim that McCain is running one of the dirtiest campaigns in history, higlighting the campaing's new spanish-language ad blaming Obama and the Democratic party for the lack of immigration reform in the last two years. Never mind the fact that both McCain and Obama cast the same vote in almost all of the legislation concerning immigration.
But the pennultimate article is one that begins by refuting Governor Palin's claims that she visited Iraq while governor. In fact, the Boston Globe first reported that Governor Palin never actually crossed the Kuwait-Iraq border, and that her supposed stop in Ireland on the same trip was merely one for refueling purposes, not an actual visit. Perhaps the best part of this article though, is the section that details the grilling about Palin that McCain recieved on "The View". Now, "The View" may not inspire visions of hard-hitting questions, but let's not forget that host Barbra Walters is a veteran of ABC News and a pioneer of women in journalism. She grilled McCain, asking him why there was no talk about the housing markets or the economy, and pointing out that she sold the private plane of the Alaska Governor's office at a loss to taxpayers. For actually putting these articles on their front page I say congrats CNN.
On the other hand, ABCnews.com has absolutely nothing about the falsehoods being put out by the McCain campaign, nor anything about Palin's record, only a short video of the Charlie Gibson interview. For not even putting anything remotely critiquing either campagin's conduct on the path to the election, I say shame on you ABCnews.com, way to fail at your job of informing voters of anything constructive that could affect their lives. Why even bother putting up the facade of being a news outlet if you're not going to do your job?
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Lipstick on a Pig
Lipstick on pigs...the new lows to which our reporting on politics has sunk. it makes me sad to think of the giants that went before, names like Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite, and look at what our media has sunk to when discussing elections. It seems that news anchors on both cable and network news think that the only way they can get people to watch their shows is to report on the most trivial and inconsequential things they can find. Instead of holding an actual discourse on issue that affect people, things like war, the economy, health care and education, they are more focused on looking for the gaffes either real or conceived, that they can take and run with for days. I guess it's easier to talk about stupid things like that than actually do their job and referee what the candidates are saying, and getting them to talk about things that actually matter to people's lives.
The phrase "You can put lipstick on pig, but it's still a pig" is not a new political phrase. Indeed, it was first used in 2004 in a speech where Dick Cheney was referring to then presidential candidate John Kerry. It was used even more recently by John McCain earlier this year in a speech where he was talking about Hillary Clinton's health care plan. But no one is reporting that facet of the story, because to do so would require people in the news to actually have to sit down and do some reporting for a change. Instead, the comment is just pasted across headlines all over the country, with such awful reporting that no one knows it's a common phrase, they're just led to believe that it was a sexist remark.
Even then, I'm still really confused as to how it can be sexist. Did Barack Obama even refer to Sarah Palin at all in the speech he was giving? Had he said her name even once while he was talking? No. But once again, you won't find that on CNN, MSNBC or FOX (if you choose to watch that crap). Last time I checked, his whole speech had been about John McCain, and how his proposed policies are the same as President Bush's. No where did the name Sarah Palin come up. And, journalists, if you still really really want to call Obama sexist because of it, at least be fair and call out McCain too; after all, he did say it about Hillary...and he said it first.
Remember that time when journalists were supposed to report on the issues and tell you how your life would be different if so and so got elected? I sure do, because that time is now. Remember that time when they actually did such a thing? No? I didn't think so.
The phrase "You can put lipstick on pig, but it's still a pig" is not a new political phrase. Indeed, it was first used in 2004 in a speech where Dick Cheney was referring to then presidential candidate John Kerry. It was used even more recently by John McCain earlier this year in a speech where he was talking about Hillary Clinton's health care plan. But no one is reporting that facet of the story, because to do so would require people in the news to actually have to sit down and do some reporting for a change. Instead, the comment is just pasted across headlines all over the country, with such awful reporting that no one knows it's a common phrase, they're just led to believe that it was a sexist remark.
Even then, I'm still really confused as to how it can be sexist. Did Barack Obama even refer to Sarah Palin at all in the speech he was giving? Had he said her name even once while he was talking? No. But once again, you won't find that on CNN, MSNBC or FOX (if you choose to watch that crap). Last time I checked, his whole speech had been about John McCain, and how his proposed policies are the same as President Bush's. No where did the name Sarah Palin come up. And, journalists, if you still really really want to call Obama sexist because of it, at least be fair and call out McCain too; after all, he did say it about Hillary...and he said it first.
Remember that time when journalists were supposed to report on the issues and tell you how your life would be different if so and so got elected? I sure do, because that time is now. Remember that time when they actually did such a thing? No? I didn't think so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
