Ukrainian Sovereignty

For my last blog I decided to take a step back from domestic politics and focus on some international news.  We live in a world characterized by globalization, so I feel that it is of great necessity that we understand what is going on around the globe.  What happens in one part of the world no longer stays isolated, instead it produces a ripple effect throughout the world's political landscape. I would like to take some time to discuss something that I believe will have major implications on the globalized world. Thus, the focus of this blog centers upon the ongoing military conflict in the Ukraine, and the media's coverage of it.

As we mark the one year anniversary of the ousting of  the corrupt former president, Viktor Yanukovych, there isn't very much for the Ukrainians to celebrate.  Their sovereignty is being clearly violated by Putin and the Russians, while the West imposes sanctions and does various other forms of chest pounding in response.  Many Ukrainians, as those pictured to the left, have repeatedly compared Vladimir Putin to Adolph Hitler and former Russian leader, Joseph Stalin.  Many around the globe have even went so far to say that Putin is attempting to resurrect the old glory days of the U.S.S.R, an opinion that I admittedly share.

One would expect that with such a world war inducing conflict, the media would be all over this.  I shared this opinion until I decided to scan various media outlets over the past few days, and in fact found that only BBC had any mention of the Ukraine on its front page.  Even Al-Jazeera's American website, a site that I deem to be credible,  made no mention of it.  Some of the other primary news sources that I checked were: Fox News, CNN, NY Times, AJC, and even the LA Times.  What does that say about America, that our media outlets feel that such story should be excluded from the front pages?  Is it not newsworthy enough?  I think that the one year anniversary of a nations people standing up to corruption, as well as their current ongoing struggle, deserves some media attention.

 As I browsed the stories that did make make the front page, I guess I can understand why it didn't make it on there.  I mean, who wouldn't want to know about how well the new "Hunger Games"movie did and why exactly Kenny Chesney thinks that country music needs to change. The media gets a lot of criticism for what they cover and how they cover it, but they are just simply giving the people what they want.  I am not saying that the media doesn't warrant some of the criticism given, but if the people didn't crave pure entertainment, the media may choose to focus on stories that actually matter.

Political Knowledge

In class this week we took a public knowledge quiz that was comprised of various domestic and international political knowledge questions.  I scored a 10 out of 12 which, according to the results, was higher than 92 percent of the participants.  The results also showed a further breakdown of the results in the form of three categories, with each also containing sub-categories. I was curious to see how those outside of the political science realm would score so I decided to give the quiz to sixteen individuals that I work with at AT&T and a few willing customers.  

I feel that the sample size was adequately represented, as it contained at least four participants from each sub-category. The results were quite different from my own and from my classmates who posted their scores in the discussion forum.  Only one participant, a 52 year old male, answered at least 8 out of 12 correct.  Three participants answered 7 out of 12 correct, seven answered 6 out of 12 correct, four answered 5 out of 12 correct, and one participant answered only 3 out of 12 correctly.  The results were consistent with the sub-categories breakdown of correct answers by gender, education and age.  There were two questions that revolved around international affairs that none of the participants answered correctly, while on the domestic side, there was only one.

While I didn't have as much time as I wanted to further analyze the results, they were eye-opening nonetheless.  None of the participants were students of political science, and many answered that they weren't very politically involved unless it was an election year.  When asked where they get their political information, most of them said they just watch the news.  Over half said that that their main media outlet was Fox News, which given our location, wasn't that surprising.  Only one participant, the one that scored 8 out of 12, said that he watches news from outlets such as BBC and Al Jazeera.

I recognize that my sample was purely from one geographical area and that it most certainly isn't reflective of the United States as a whole, but in terms of political knowledge, I think that it is safe to say that we are lacking.  Take the knowledge quiz below and feel free to share your results as well as anything else:

http://www.pewresearch.org/quiz/the-news-iq-quiz/

Loretta Lynch

After the overwhelming midterm victories by the Republican Party, the first major decision by Congress will be the appointment of Loretta Lynch as the new United States Attorney General.  Several prominent Republicans, such as Marco Rubio from Texas, feel as though the vetting process should be postponed until the beginning of the new session of Congress, which is in January.  Like many, Rubio feels as though a lame duck session of Congress, in which many senators will be no longer answerable to their constituents, is not a good idea.  On the contrary, many Democrats are in a hurry to begin the process because as of right now, they still control the senate.  Either way, the confirmation process seems to like its going to be a battle with neither side willing to give an inch.

For further information about Lynch's appointment I decided to examine two different news stories, with one leaning right (Fox News) and the other leaning left (CNN).  While there were some similarities, as I have come to expect, there were also sharp differences in the reporting. The Fox News article portrayed Lynch as someone who seems qualified, but was quick to quote Sen. Chuck Grassley, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, who said that "U.S. Attorney's are rarely elevated directly to this position".  They also mentioned her recent filing of tax evasion charges against Republican Michael Grimm.  They made it a point to throw in the fact that he recently won re-election despite this.  In my view this was a way of discrediting Lynch's capabilities.

The CNN article was favorable to the president's nomination as they spoke extensively about her qualifications. They use quotes to affirm that she is not a partisan lawyer and that her experience will be paramount in handling the high profile civil rights cases, such as the Michael Brown murder.  They also use quotes from other highly prominent lawyers to support the presidents nomination, as well as her non-opposed confirmations by the senate in the past, saying that the "Republicans did not view her as controversial".  The article also quotes prominent Republican Senator, Lindsey Graham, who said that "Lynch seems to be a solid choice and is qualified". Graham also expressed no opposition to vetting Lynch during the current session of Congress.

Read the full articles below and tell me what you think.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/08/politics/attorney-general-nominee-loretta-lynch/index.html?iref=allsearch

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/09/obama-urging-senate-to-confirm-attorney-general-nominee-loretta-lynch-quickly/

Fact Checking Political Ads

As the midterm elections are upon us, we have seen an increasing number of political ads.  As someone who is a student of politics, I feel confident that I am able to see past the rhetoric and the lies.  But can the same be said for your everyday citizen?  Or, are they simply taking what they see on television and hearing on the radio as the truth?  I must admit that some of the ads are quite convincing, and that the fact that nearly one billion dollars has been spent on them should tell us something.  They effectively use all of the production components that West discusses in order to make us believe that what they say is the truth.  So what happens when these ads are put to the test by way of a thorough fact check?  

Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post wrote an article discussing the top ten fact checked ads of the 2014 midterm elections.  Four of the top ten ads came from the senatorial race in Louisiana between Sen. Mary Landrieu and Rep. Bill Cassidy, both of whom are pictured above.  Each of the candidates and their supporting pacs have put forth ads that have proven to be nothing more than a pack of lies.  They range from lies about immigration, veterans rights, tax cuts for outsourcing jobs and tragedies brought on by not supporting the second amendment.  After reading this I couldn't help but think, how do these candidates have any credibility with their voters?  

My home state of Georgia was not immune to the false ads either.  Anyone who has watched television in Georgia in recent months is surely aware of David Perdue's ad that linked Michelle Nunn with terrorist groups.  This was proven to be utterly false.  The claim's only evidence was from a Nunn campaign plan that stated that the Republicans would use that as a bogus attack.  The Points of Light Foundation was simply a pass through for donations by E-Bay users to charitable organizations , one of which was a well respected group that had the word "Islamic" in their name.

There were five other ads that were fact checked from midterms around the nation.  Each one of them proved to be egregiously false and misleading.  It is up to each of us to be informed and not take these political ads at face value.  We shouldn't let these steer us in the wrong direction, which includes away from the voting booth all together.  If we don't do anything about, then we have no right to complain about it.

Read the full article below:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/10/31/the-most-fact-challenged-ads-of-the-2014-midterm-elections/

Enough with the Negativity!!

As we are getting closer and closer to the midterm elections, the negative political ads are airing more and more.  This week we are learning about the principles that are used in political advertising, which are stereotyping, association, demonetization and code words .  The one that has been most prevalent in Georgia has been association.  The association principle links a candidate to an unpopular cause or other person.

 As the image above portrays, the majority of the attack ads have been aimed at associating Michelle Nunn with President Obama and the Affordable Healthcare Act.  This has been the main ammunition used by the Perdue campaign and even more so with ads sponsored by Pacs.  Recently I was at the gym, and decided to count the number of times that ads such these were aired.  In a span of one hour on CBS, there were a total of  attacks ran that associated Nunn with President Obama and the Affordable Healthcare Act.  Each ad ran for about 30 seconds, which meant that a total of nine and a half minutes of a one hour newscast featured negative ads.  

That is not to say that the attack ads were one sided.  The Nunn campaign and supporting Pacs also bought airtime to run their negative ads.  In that same one hour span, there were a total of 9.  So in total, in a one hour newscast, a total of fourteen minutes was dedicated to negative ads.  Personally, I think that enough is enough! This a prime example of how politics has become so polarizing.  Like many, I am tired of all the negativity that has plagued every election that I have been eligible to vote in.  It decreases my motivation to even get out and vote.  I am confident that I am not alone in this, and strongly feel that going forward this aspect of campaigning has to change in order to avoid further citizen alienation.

Check out the ads below:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKVTXXqk_LQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTHlO7HSkLU

Facebook Says Stop!!

The Drug Enforcement Agency is getting creative in finding ways to investigate and capture suspects.  A new means of investigation is through the use of social media. Agents are setting up false Facebook pages in order to initiate contact with suspected criminals.  They are using the names and images of those who have been captured in order to make further arrests and keep the cycle going.  The question is, "is this legal"?  According to Facebook's Chief Security Officer, Joe Sullivan, this is a direct breach of Facebook's user terms and condition, which state that a user agrees to be truthful about their identity.  Facebook claims that there have been several occurrences but that federal agencies have simply ignored their complaints.

Now there is ongoing litigation in the courts because of one such use.  Sondra Arquiett is suing the DEA and its agent, Timothy Sinnigen.  In 2010, Arquiett was arrested by a joint task force comprised of the DEA and DHS.  Her personal property, which included a cell phone containing several photos were seized.  Agent Sinnigen used those photos and other seized property to then set up a fake Facebook profile.  He used the profile for over three months in which time he made contact with several dangerous individuals involved in the trafficking of narcotics and other drugs.  The act was initially defended by the Justice Department who claimed that although Arquiett didn't give direct consent, she gave "implied consent".  However recently, the Justice Department said they would review the agents use of Facebook to see if it went too far.

The agent was very successful at making connections with other suspected criminals.  Social media is meant to be a place where one can make connections, but it is evident that this isn't what Facebook had in mind.  I question the legality of the DEA's action and the fact that it has not been dismissed by the courts backs that up.  The DEA not only used racy photos of Arquiett, some of which showed her in nothing but her underwear, but they also used photos of her children and other minor relatives.  This action puts those minors pictured in harms way.  Another aspect that I question is their broad interpretation of her agreement for them to use her information.  This should not be sufficient justification for a misuse of power.  To this I say:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/10/18/facebook-demands-dea-stop-using-fake-profile-pages-to-conduct-investigations/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/justice-dept-will-review-practice-of-creating-fake-facebook-profiles/2014/10/07/3f9a2fe8-4e57-11e4-aa5e-7153e466a02d_story.html

Our Next President???

For those of you that may not know, the man above is Martin O'Malley.  He is currently serving his second term as Governor of Maryland and a recent article on CNN dubbed him the "hardest working man in the Democratic Party".  He is so name because  he is well ahead of Hillary Clinton in terms of events planned and states visited.  His poll numbers are low now, but with strong support of issues such as same-sex marriage, repealing the death penalty, and firm anti-gun laws, O'Malley's stock is expected to rise.  

This week in class we looked at the four components that make up the core of a campaigns strategic communication process.  According to Bennett, the four components are message shaping, message salience, message credibility, and message framing (124).  For the purpose of this blog I am going to focus on message shaping and discuss if Martin O'Malley's message fits the description.  

According to Bennett, message shaping is "composing a simple theme or message for the audience to use in thinking about the matter at hand" (124).  O'Malley's initial message doesn't seem to fit the criteria as it involves several complex issues,  The only similarity is that it does have a specific target audience, which is the democratic primary voters. His message points to his successes in the legalization of same-sex marriage, in-state tuition tax breaks for young illegal-immigrants, having top rated schools, enforcing strict anti-gun laws, and repealing the death penalty.  These are all issues that will win him support but I question if it will be enough to make him electable.  Later on in the interview he goes on to say that "The twin themes he encounters most, are frustration with Washington and a palpable sense of economic anxiety".  It is my opinion that his message should focus on combating these two issues if he is to stand any chance of winning the primaries, much less the general election.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/08/politics/martin-omalley-2016/indlex.htm