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.