Saturday, April 16, 2011

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.

Saturday, April 9, 2011

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).

Saturday, April 2, 2011

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.