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

Freedom of Speech or National Security

   VS  

There is much debate as to which is more important, freedom of speech or national security.  I think that both arguments have their own respective merits, but I can also understand their criticisms too.  Freedom of speech was guaranteed in the 1st Amendment of the Constitution and its one of the many freedoms that we enjoy today.  Like everything else it has evolved and we have found new ways to exercise it through technology.  Matters of national security have also evolved.  At the founding of our country we did not face the challenges of terrorism, cyber crime, and globalization.  So should we amend our rights to fit the times?  Should we give up something that may possibly keep us safe?  Those are interesting questions upon which I have conflicting views.

Freedom of speech is one of the foundations that this country was built on.  It was used in the Colonial papers to rally those to the cause of freedom.  It was used throughout history to keep the government in check, with examples being the Pentagon Papers and uncovering the Watergate scandal.  Most recently it was used to inform the American people of the government spying on them illegally.  On the flip side it can also be harmful.  The press is so quick to jump on a story that they forget about the ramifications of such action.  While I do agree with the release of some of Edward Snowden's information, I feel that some content may put American lives in jeopardy.

As someone who has served in the military, I feel strongly that national security should be a top priority.  Our nations defense is vital if we are to protect the liberties upon which we were founded. I agree that if a story is going to severely damage national security, then it should be censored to a certain degree.  However, since the passage of the Patriot Act I feel as though what is deemed as matters of national security may be not always be so.  I feel as though the government uses this as a carte blanche to hide information from the public and that some of this was exposed by Edward Snowden.

What are your thoughts?

For further elaboration check out this video below that discusses the debate between freedom of speech and national security since 9/11.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wr963WRYXbQ

Spinning Out of Control, Who Is to Blame?

           

I think that at this point we can all agree that the political spin cycle in this country is out of control and the image above is a good representation of how it works.  My first thought would be to blame the media for allowing themselves to be so easily misguided by politicians. Politicians who make a living on spinning the truth to further promote their own agenda's. Now, I am not so sure.  I have recently come of the opinion that we must turn the blame inwards and examine why we have not demanded more from our media.

The media is charged with being the political watchdogs, the ones that ask the tough questions, all while remaining objective.  In today's society that is a tough task.  Why is it so hard you may ask?  The answer is simple, the answer is us.  We make it so difficult for those in the media that wish do their job the right way.  We seek entertainment constantly and are a nation that doesn't like to be bored.  This has allowed for the prominent rise of news entertainment outlets such as Fox and MSNBC.  They are clearly biased and use spin to manufacture the consent of their audiences.  They mask false logic with heavy emotion, which is nothing more than a recipe for deception. There are those citizens that take everything they say as truth without question and herein lies a major problem.

It is important that the media be an effective check and balance on the government.  In order for them to be truly effective we must in turn be a check and balance on the media.  As I stated earlier we must demand more from the media.  We must question their coverage and find alternatives when they regurgitate the same content over and over.  It is important for us to break this cycle and not let ourselves continue to be sidetracked with soft news.  The media is a business and will air whatever gets them ratings.  I don't think think that will ever change, so the solution is that we must decide that hard news warrants viewership.  If we can do this then maybe one day we can break the spin cycle.

Big Media = Big Problems

As the title states, big media equals big problems.  According to the Business Insider, six corporations now control ninety percent of all media in the United States.  To put that into perspective just thirty years ago the media was controlled by over fifty corporations.  Is it really a good idea to have so few in control of something that is so vital to a democracy?  Can we trust that they have our best interests at hand?  For me the answer is simple, for me the answer is no.

There are those, like Graber, who will argue that big business can take on the rigors and the costs of research, investigation, and production much more easily than a smaller media outlet can (38).  While that is true, at the end of they are still a business and profits dictate their agenda. Just because they are able to do it, does not guarantee that they will do it.  Large media outlets are not going hemorrhage money unless they feel like they will be able to get a return on their investment.   So will they invest in a news agenda that is is diverse in content or, like Bennett suggests, will they instead use innovative marketing to disguise the lack thereof (240)?

The last thing that I want to touch on is the illusion of choice in deciding which media outlets that we follow.  It wasn't until I began studying Political Science that I found out just how consolidated the media had become.  I always felt like I had a wide variety of news to follow and while that may seem like the case today, it is a mere illusion.  Because a handful of corporations control the media, we may feel like we are getting a diverse range of perspectives, but in reality they represent the same entity.  They represent a corporate image of uniformity with a single objective.  I used to think that news was meant to inform us, now I can't help but feel as though its sole purpose is to entertain us.

http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6

Heads Above Water

Could hard news alone keep media outlets from drowning? 

The caption above poses a very loaded question. Before we get into answering it I think it is important to understand the difference between hard news and soft news.  According to Thomas Patterson's article "hard news refers to coverage of breaking events involving top leaders, major issues, or significant disruptions in the routines of daily life"(3).  In contrast, soft news refers to "news that is typically more sensational, more personality-centered, less time- bound, more practical, and more incident-based than other news" (4).

Now lets look at this multi-faceted question,  Could media outlets keep their heads above the water if they only reported on hard news? Or is it our desire to be entertained that determines what news outlets we follow?  If so, what would be some possible consequences of that? At first thought I quickly came to the conclusion that they could survive, but then realized that the answer wouldn't be so simple.

Some news that we may discern as hard new is actually soft news. A good example of this would be the media coverage of the 13th anniversary of the 9/11 tragedy.  While no one could argue that 9/11 media coverage in 2001 was hard news, the majority of 9/11 remembrance stories that I have read this week would be categorized as soft news.  The front pages were filled with stories about recovering lost wedding photos from ground zero or stories of reunion between the survivors and their rescuer's.  They were emotionally engaging, made me feel good, and at first, captured my attention over the hard news of the day. 

 As a political science major, and concerned citizen, I place greater value in in the hard news, However, upon critical review I do not feel as though media outlets could survive on it alone. If media outlets only reported on stories such as the crisis in the Ukraine, the fighting in the Middle East, or the spread of Ebola in Africa, the media would be associated strictly with doom and gloom.  I believe there would be a drastic reduction in news consumers. It takes those sensational, personality-centered pieces like the ones about 9/11 remembrance to make us feel good and to give us that false illusion that world isn't such a turbulent place.  By providing this the media outlets are able to entertain us, and in America, those that can entertain the masses are the ones that hold the power.  In closing I ask you all,  if soft news continues to take major precedence in this country, how long will our heads stay above water?

Obama on ISIL: A Tale of Two Networks

Today's blog is going to focus on Fox News and CNN's online coverage of President Obama's strategy for combating ISIL.  As I began to read each networks article I was at first surprised by the similarities in the two.  However, as I continued to read the reality of a continual bias began to surface.  Each side claimed that President Obama had bipartisan support from various members of Congress, but if one fact checks them it shows that their statements were taken out of context.  In regards to Syria the Fox News article made it seem as though President Obama didn't have a firm strategy, but the CNN article outlined it in detail.  Fox News repeatedly made an effort to point out GOP opposition to Obama's not gaining congressional approval for military action, all while making sure that everyone knew that it was the 2016 GOP hopefuls that served as the oppositions primary voice.  CNN portrayed it as though the president had little to no opposition in ordering further military action.  They made it seem as though 2016 GOP hopeful, Sen. Ted Cruz, was the only opposition and that his fellow republicans in congress sided with the president.  The only quoted member of congress was Rep. Peter King, R-New York, who just last year threatened to switch parties.  Finally the end of each article paints a different picture.  Fox news makes it a point to mention that the president was vacationing again in Martha's Vineyard when James Foley was beheaded. They stated the fact that he decided to play golf immediately after his phone call to Foley's parents and his statement to the public.  In my opinion they mentioned this in order to portray President Obama as unsympathetic.  On the flip side CNN closed out with strong words from President Obama.  They ended with his solemn promise that the U.S. would systematically degrade ISIL's capabilities and ultimately defeat them.  So while there are few similarities between the two, the bias in each cannot be denied.

Hello everyone!  My name is Christopher Long and the purpose of my blog is to explore the relationship between mass media and politics.  I will be employing a variety of resources to help us better understand how the two intersect and in doing so will examine exactly what that means for the American public.  I have long been cynical of the relationship as I feel that it is a detriment to the country and its people.  However, I still have some hope that it may change, but am a firm believer that it will take an effort from all of us.
The design of my blog stems from a hope that the media will take a more neutral stance in regards to politics.  The fire in the background represents the media asking the tough questions that will put the politicians feet on the fire.  My news feed is from Real News which presents all sides of the argument.  The weekly polls will gather opinion on various changes in media and politics from participants with various political beliefs.  They are not limited to just people on one side of the divide like those of Fox News or CNN.  I look forward to the evolution of my blog and welcome any educated feedback, comments or criticisms.