Media and Politics: An Epilogue

Well, it's over. Another semester gone, finals and papers to look forward to. We definitely had an interesting semester in Media & Politics. From media bias to presidential campaign ads and the polarization/politicization of the media, we've learned a lot about the media. Its been an educational and fun experience. I think that there are a few things that we can take from the experience: media bias does exist (though to different degrees depending on the topic and one reporting it), the media can be an effective tool or enemy, over the last century the media has become somewhat commercialized (with infotainment type news and cable tv), and the media has become polarized (perhaps reflecting the political environment). I think that from now on we will all be wiser when dealing with media matters and will be more objective and open minded than we were before, and might even try to use more than one source for our news in order to diversify and increase our knowledge (of both sides).

Osama and the Media

By now the whole world is aware of the death of Osama bin Laden. Ignoring for a second all the political ramifications of his death, I'd like to bring up the numerous media references to his execution. From Saturday Night Live to Facebook, there have been many mentions of it.

I don't know about anyone else, but I first heard about his death while on facebook. I was working on some assignment, and was up later than usual with facebook on in a separate window. I occassionally glanced at my facebook news feed to see what my friends were doing in order to distract myself from the assignment every 10 or 15 minutes. I don't remember the exact time, but I started to see posts saying things like "We got him!" and stuff like that. Eventually, people began posting more details, and I realized what had happened.

The next episode of Saturday Night Live, with Tina Fey as the host, featured several references to the event, including a skit called "Mermaid" which was a parody of The Little Mermaid movie in which Osama's body floated down to the characters, who didn't want that kind of sea trash around. Bin Laden was also a main component of the following weeks' cold open, where Fred Armisen played a triumphant Obama who couldn't stop talking about how he killed Osama during a speech that was supposed to be about an entirely different topic. While amusing, this does bring up the real possibility of this event being a factor in Obama's favor during the next election.

Media Bias: An Epilogue

We have recently been listening to (and giving) presentations about media bias when certain media sources discuss specific issues. A wide variety of issues have been brought up, from the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as other Middle-East issues to health care reform and the global warming issue. Many of us actually used the same sources, perhaps even the same articles and videos. It is therefore surprising that a few people who worked on the same issue had different or at least slightly different conclusions.

Despite the discrepancies, it seems (to me at least) that most of us found at least a slight leaning if not bias toward one side or another. As one would expect, certain sources tended to have more of this bias or leaning than others. Surprisingly enough though, those same, customarily biased or at least non-objective, sources seemed to be more objective about certain topics, such as global warming. Perhaps this shows us something about the nature of bias: it definitely exists, though its extent depends on the topic at hand and can therefore vary from minimal to fully prevalent in media coverage.

This observation is somewhat understandable, if we think about it for a minute we would realize that all of us feel strongly (in positive or negative ways) about at least a couple of issues and would likely discuss them in a way that supports our own views. Based on this observation, I believe most of us can agree that media bias, however prevalent it is, tends to be found more often when reporters, journalists, and anchors are writing or discussing issues that that they feel emotionally attached to. Not only should we try to read or view as many sources as are reasonable in order to get the whole picture, but we should keep in mind the possibility that the author or anchor's reporting may be influenced by his or her personal opinions, particularly in regard to controversial or debated topics.

Entertainment Journalism: Good or Bad?

We recently learned about the effect that media personalities such as Jon Stewart can potentially have on legislation. The nature of such influence is understandably indirect. Stewart is hardly a politician, and his audience is primarily composed of people who already have a tendency to agree with his views. His influence is felt through such mediums as the internet and main stream media, which in turn have an effect on public awareness and politicians. Putting aside the debate over whether or not professionals in the "entertainment journalism" industry have such an effect, one might wonder whether such an effect is a good or bad thing.

Granted, in the case we discussed Stewart's efforts seem noble and he did get positive results. However, that may not always be. What if Stewart or another "journalist" like him supports an issue or legislation that is to the detriment of the American government or people? After all, the industry is most likely not based on objectivity and non-partisanship. One day, such "journalists" might let their partisanship get the better of them, or perhaps they might be misguided and cause the people and politicians to make a mistake.

Entertainment journalism is indeed entertainment. It is entertaining. But, when members of the field use their position to influence the people and government, it probably won't end well. Then again, if their influence is as intangible and irrelevent as some suggest, this isn't an issue at all. I would suggest that viewers observe the industry and keep tabs on the extent and variety of such influence.

Polarization?

We have recently discussed in class the phenomenon of polarization. The perceived polarization of American politics and media is not only an important topic for our class, but for anyone who is even slightly interested in recent political events. The recent possibility of a government shutdown is particularly illustrative of the type of politics that would seem to suggest that American politics are increasingly polarized. However, most studies and research has shown that polarization, despite what almost all of us might think, does not exist.

I personally believe at times that there is significant polarization in this country. However, there is no evidence to support such a belief. Despite what some, such as Abramovitz, might say, the majority opinion is that polarization does not exist, and that even if it does it is confined to a minority segment of the population. As Fiorina put it in conjunction with the "median voter theorem", the majority of the population is in the middle and only a few extremists are polarized. This accounts for the tendency of politicians (particularly presidential candidates) to be more to the right or left during primaries and to move toward the center during general elections. Also supporting this theory are studies which suggest that most people's ideologies are influenced by people whose opinion they trust and absorb, called cue givers, who may be influenced by (if not members of) the elite or extremist segments of the population, and they are the kinds of people who are becoming more polarized.

Whether you believe that polarization exists or not, or if it is a significant problem or not, you may have observed the rising trend among politicians and the media in recent years to be increasingly contemptuous toward their opponents, particularly after certain events that they believe support the truth of their own ideology. Whether politicians and the American people are polarized or not, there definitely seems to be more animosity between the two major political parties, and less enthusiasm for bipartisan endeavors. This goes to show that extremism is not limited to our enemies abroad. However, while I do not like such fanaticism, from what we have learned it seems that such elements are necessary in order to maintain a balance and to ensure decisive action by whomever is in charge. As with many topics discussed this semester, polarization (if it exists) seems to be a necessary evil (much like Facebook, the media, and the internet in general).

A New Age (Again)?

Our recent readings have been primarily about the revolutionary innovations in information technology and how they have affected presidential campaigns. This "revolution" was evident during the in-class group project about candidate strategies and overall campaigns. Every group had numerous ideas about how their candidate could most effectively utilize recent technological developments such as online social networking, blogging, and video posting/chatting sites. There were far fewer options proposed on how to best incorporate older campaign methods such as mass-mailings, door-to-door campaigning, along with radio and tv (even newspaper) commercials. Some of these older methods were not even mentioned. It's probably safe to say that we are indeed entering a new age, as Samuel Greengard's article mentioned, though I don't believe that this is such a surprising, or even original, transformation.

The creation of the radio and then its' widespread distribution during the early 20th century among the American populace produced a similar impact on American politics. Franklin Delano Roosevelt's "Fireside Chats" during his years as president can be seen as just as revolutionary as Barack Obama's effective use of the internet during his 2008 campaign. Roosevelt's radio addresses to the nation during the 1930s and 1940s were an unprecedented political tactic. Never before had a politician been able to interact with the American people on such a personal and far-reaching level. His inspired use of what was then the latest technological innovation to be available on a national and multi-class level contributed to his popularity and support among the people. So too, Barack Obama's creative use of the internet contributed to his widespread popularity (particularly among younger generations).

Greengard's article mentions that a previous candidate during the 2004 election had also used the internet as part of his campaign strategy. Greengard implies that Barack Obama took what this previous candidate had done through the internet and took it to the next level for the first time in the political arena. I am in no way attempting to downplay Greengard's (probably true) description of Obama's innovative use of the internet by mentioning Roosevelt and his fireside chats. What I am proposing is that such "revolutions" are a natural by-product of technological innovations, that savvy politicians who keep track of such developments are more likely to win elections, and that such information revolutions will likely occur in ever increasing intervals in the future.

Political Advertising: The Pros And Cons

This past week we spent a considerable amount of time discussing political advertising campaigns, and even had the pleasure of watching a considerable number of presidential campaign ads in class. We learned about negative ads and content free ads, among others. Since then I've been wondering, why do we bother to watch them? Before anyone who reads this starts criticizing me (perhaps as a result of the reflexive emotional response such a strong statement is capable of eliciting, the type of reaction political ads tend seek), I will admit that campaign ads do have legitimate purposes. However, after our recent lectures and readings on the subject I don't believe that those purposes are beneficial to the viewer (theoretically the average American).

Political ads are usually intended to spread publicity about a specific candidate, policy, issue, or party and/or to swing public opinion in favor of said candidate, policy, issue, or party. This objective is usually of no help to the viewer. For example, what do ads showing candidates kissing babies, standing with the American flag, shaking hands, and so forth truly reveal about that candidate? Since the first campaign ads were introduced they have informed the viewer about very few facts, instead publicizing the candidate's name and describing (what some would say are) irrelevant moral and familial values. Negative ads do tend to provide more information, though they are equally as harmful.

Negative ads have the potential to spread not only harmful, but false information as well, leaving the viewer misinformed and voting for the wrong reasons. On the other hand, content free ads are next to useless in their lack of relevant information. I suppose what I'm asking is: What's the point? Personally, I don't pay too much attention to political advertisements. When I do, I often review what the ad said or was about and question its' honesty. Maybe I'm over thinking this, but I believe that we should try to analyze what ads don't say and question what they do.

Media Bias?

We recently discussed media bias in class. In particular we discussed the Grosclose & Milyo article and what they observed about media bias. In their article they looked at scores given to Congress members by the ADA. The scores were also based on which sources (or rather think tanks) the congressional representatives used. They basically concluded that bias equals preference, and that there is a (mostly) liberal preference in the media.

There is an article by William Eveland and Dhavan Shah which also analyzes the existence of media bias. Within their article they include statistics, experiments, and meta-analyses on the subject. They come to slightly different conclusions that Grosclose & Milyo. Eveland and Shah essentially conclude that bias does exist, though to a minimal extent, and that it is the result of many factors, from social communications networks to ideological inclinations. However, they believe that there is actually a conservative bias in the media.

What I think we can all draw from this is that in a way, both articles are right. While a significant amount of media bias may be an exaggeration of the situation, there is indisputably a slight amount. This minimal bias is quite possible the result of preference (also known as ideological inclination) on the part of the individual as well as members of his/her social communications network.

Solutions such as the nationalization of the media or the establishment of a government run media outlet is extreme and not viable. Until the day that everyone realizes that they should try to be more partial and objective, I think that at least a minimal level of bias should be expected by viewers/consumers who should compensate for it.

PR Strategy

This week we discussed in class the Obama healthcare plan, compared it to the Clinton plan, and attempted to determine why the Obama plan worked and the Clinton plan did not. Many plausible reasons were suggested as to why Obama was able to get his plan passed and Clinton wasn't. Suggestions included differences between the two plans: Clinton's was intended for all Americans versus Obama's being intended for uninsured Americans, and Clinton's having significantly more effects on the insurance companies as a whole than Obama's, among other differences. Another aspect to the comparison that was one of the primary topics during the lecture was the Republican Party's strategy during both health care plan events.

The strategy used by Republicans during the Clinton health care plan situation was suggested by Republican strategist Frank Luntz. Luntz's advice called for Republicans to denounce the Clinton health care plan for the overbroad expansion of bureaucracy it would necessitate and its' growth of "big government". The chart showing in graphic terms this governmental expansion through committees and other means was used effectively by Republicans to prevent the Clinton plan from even coming up for a vote. Unfortunately for Republicans, similar tactics were of no use in preventing the passing of the Obama health care plan. We came up with many reasons in class, but I have considered a few other explanations.

The Republicans once again tried to deride the proposed health care plan for being a step toward big government. However, this time they went a step further and labeled the plan "socialist" and claimed that it would create "death panels". I suggest that one of the reasons that this strategy didn't work a second time is that it came across as being somewhat ridiculous, particularly the use of the term "death panels", which was an obvious exaggeration. It is my opinion that the use of such inflammatory vocabulary was unnecessary, and alienated many who therefore saw the attack on the plan as blatantly partisan and elitist in nature. Sarah Palin's involvement in the debate certainly didn't help, and might have reinforced the perception that the Republican attack was ridiculous and incorrect. I further suggest that the Republican strategy didn't work the second time because the American people and legislators were fed up with the previous policy and were willing to try something new, perhaps a sign of a short attention span amongst Americans when it comes to politics.

The Clinton-Lewinsky Scandal & Other Political Gossip

By now I realize the truth to the principle that "It's all about the cover-up". Many polticians involved in scandals wouldn't be news-worthy if they hadn't tried to cover up their actions, since many of those actions involve minimal (if any) possibility of criminal charges. Had Clinton not tried to cover up his affair, if he hadn't stated publicly that "I did not have sex with that woman", and if he hadn't tried to discourage Lewinsky and others from revealing the truth then it's very likely that the media coverage of that story wouldn't have lasted nearly as long as it did, and Clinton wouldn't have been in as much trouble toward the end of his final term. It seems to me as though politicians should realize that if they simply acknowledge what they did, apologize, and get on with their careers, then they have a chance of avoiding bad press and significant consequences. This conclusion is based on the growing trend over the last couple of decades among the media to report (perhaps over-report) scandals and similar political gossip much in the same manner that they report on celebrities. Take for example the recent Charlie Sheen situation. It began about a week or two ago, and it's only now starting to regress from front-page news status. The John Edwards scandal was in the headlines for at least that length of time. What has the media become, where scandals and similar stories receive more attention than news that's actually important such as, I don't know, maybe the collapse of Middle-Eastern governments? Rising food and fuel prices? Actual governmental business and legislation?

Embedded Journalism & War

I think that I speak for many of us when I say that the clip we watched last class with a British journalist was at certain points both amusing and surprising. The practice of embedding journalists among troops appears to have mixed results. On the one hand, it does provide an on-the-ground perspective on a war which makes the events being reported more dramatic, attention-grabbing, and likely to inspire empathy along with other emotions among viewers, all of which increases the likelihood of maintaining viewer interest (and network profits). The downside is that wars usually consist of more than just the few events and viewpoints that embedded journalism can provide, an example being the exaggerated effectiveness of the anti-scud missile STARS system which we learned in class can be attributed to not only the trend among CNN during the course of the war but to the limited perspective and information available to the journalists on site. In addition, the idiosyncratic reporting methods of journalists results in the surprising and occasionally amusing random transition between topics (as seen in the in-class video) which can be confusing. I suppose what I'm getting at is: How can viewers get a better picture of the full scope of a war than this somewhat inconclusive and unreliable (not to mention dangerous for reporters) method, and how should viewers perceive what they learn from embedded journalism?

The Legality of Leaks

The Pentagon Papers: a series of Department of Defense papers discussing the Vietnam War in negative terms. As we discussed this week they were leaked by Daniel Ellsberg to the media, eventually leading to a Supreme Court case and contributing to Nixon's downfall. The Watergate scandal: tapes and investigative findings leaked to Woodward and Bernstein by an FBI agent, an incident that led to Nixon's resignation. We also heard about the Supreme Court case involving Watergate which essentially reduced, if not ended, the ability of the White House to prevent the publication of controversial or secret material. These two examples of a leak are in a way positive examples of the practice. However, there are no doubt certain times when a leak could damage the reputation of an administration at a critical moment, leading to chaos and/or depriving the country of leadership. Another worst case scenario could be the release of classified information that informs our enemies what we are doing and how. Essentially, leaks are not always a good thing, and in my opinion they should be illegal under certain circumstances. After all, if someone steals something like a car for example, and then gives it to a dealer who is aware that it was stolen, both the dealer and the one who stole the car would be liable for criminal charges. I realize that information is not a physical object and is therefore different, but it seems to me that it isn't so different that people who leak government secrets shouldn't be liable in some way.

The Nature of Political Scandals

This week in class we discussed scandals. Some famous (and more often than not infamous) political scandals were mentioned, from Watergate to the more recent scandal involving a Congressman sending inappropriate pictures to a woman on Craigslist. We learned that in most cases it is the cover up that really matters, that the cover up can bring down any politician, even a president. It was also implied that politicians who admit their wrongdoings can avoid or at least mitigate the public backlash, negative press, and other attacks that generally occur in the aftermath of such situations. While this is all understandable, at the same time I can't help but wonder why we are so ready to forgive politicians who admit what they did and even re-elect them. I realize that the private lives of politicians are of no importance to citizens of other countries, the fact is that the American people do seem to care a great deal about such things. Given this higher than average concern, why is it that when a politician admits to doing something, no matter how immoral, he/she is able to maintain his/her reputation? If I recall correctly, admitting to doing something wrong is only the first step in the Jewish process of repentance. How are we to know if the politician has completed the other necessary steps? Perhaps we should be more like other countries and disregard what politicians do in their private lives, especially since I suspect that this relatively recent interest is a sign of the growing trend in journalism to pay more attention to sensationalist and celebrity news. If we instead choose to maintain our concern for the morals of our politicians then I suggest that we don't do it in a half-hearted manner, and remember their actions come election time.

Watchdog Journalism: A Necessary Evil? Or Just.... Evil?

As we discussed in class (and on the recent quiz) watchdog journalism refers to the independent scrutiny of government and business by the media. This type of journalism is based on the tenet that "the people have a right to know". I don't know about most people, but sometimes I don't think that "the people have a right to know". For example, the recent Wikileaks controversy. Something about a supposedly loyal government employee or soldier handing over secrets and classified information to the media and posting it online seems wrong to me. What if the release of such information causes the death of Americans or our allies? What if such information hampers the efforts of our government in apprehending terrorists or criminals? Whenever I watch a news story or read an article about classified information I worry that such information could be used by our enemies in the ways I just mentioned. In class we learned that the release by the media of information about an international government system of tracking and monitoring banks caused the complete shutdown of that program. That program was used to track the flow of money through terrorist networks, thereby aiding their capture or elimination. While this program had the potential to be used in immoral and illegal ways, it was an invaluable tool in the war on terror. In my opinion, sometimes the American media does a better job protecting our enemies than our enemies could otherwise do on their own.
I am in no way claiming that the people don't have at least some right to know what their government is up to, after all, some measure of transparency is needed if we are to remain a democratic nation. However, in some cases this may become a weakness our enemies could exploit. There has to be a better way of letting the people know, a way that reveals what we actually  need to know as opposed to everything. Information on the lack of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, illegal governmental monitoring of citizen communications, and whether our government is acting in a moral manner in general is information that I feel we need to know, but more sensitive data such as how we track and kill terrorists should be and usually is kept classified and on a need to know basis. Until the day that war and hostility between nations and individuals no longer exists there will always be a need for secrecy and keeping certain information classified. Until that day, watchdog journalism should be more limited than it has been in recent years as the apparent decline of the practice has not been enough to prevent what some would call disloyal and unpatriotic releases of classified information.

Hosni Mubarak on SNL

http://www.hulu.com/watch/211074/saturday-night-live-weekend-update-hosni-mubarak
http://www.hulu.com/watch/215176/saturday-night-live-weekend-update-hosni-mubarak
So, Jedi mindtricks and time warner jokes aside, I did not think that these clips were that amusing. Is (or rather was) Mubarak a corrupt dictator who quite possibly took advantage of his position and failed to improve the situation of his people and therefore does not deserve our sympathy and support? Yes.  Should we all be rejoicing at his fall and the uncertain future of Egypt? In my opinion, definitely not. I admit that I do not know a lot about Mubarak's reign, but I do know that there has been a truce if not peace between Israel and Egypt since he took over after Anwar el Sadat's assasination in 1981. Mubarak has, according to what little information I have accessed, been generally supportive of Israel, and during his time as president Egypt has been involved in negotions between Israel and the Palestinians. This is not surprising considering that Mubarak supported Sadat's pro-peace efforts and continued the disengagement and peace process with Israel after Sadat's death.
In recent years the economic recession has had a serious negative effect on the United States and other countries such as Egypt. Mubarak attempted to deal with Egypt's economic situation over the last several years, but he did not provide an entirely effective solution. Combined with the corruption of his regime it's no wonder that the Egyptian people don't exactly like him and the "revolution" that led to his fall is hardly surprising. Despite all of that, his fall is not good for Jews, Israelis, Americans, and the West in my opinion. It cannot be said for certain that whatever form of government takes his place will be as pro-Israel as he was nor as close to the United States. Though we have yet to find out what these dramatic developments will bring, I have a bad feeling about the situation. After all, similar revolutions and unstable regime changes have ocurred in the past, specifically 1979, and we all know how well that worked out for Israel and the west. What I'm trying to say is that Mubarak, while a bad president, was good for us and Israel, and that the contempt many Americans have for him and the joy they feel at his fall (as expressed in the SNL clips) is premature, if not misplaced (better the devil you know than the one you don't as the saying goes).