Issue Summary
Besides the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the most closely followed story in the media is the ongoing national debate on healthcare. Thus far, it seems that the media has done a fair job of covering this highly complicated policy debate. It has interviewed many interest groups such as unions, anti-abortion organizations, and tea party members in order to enrich the national discussion.
But, I have recently learned that the media has excluded the concerns of one population in particular – “The Fat Pride” Community. According to the “Fat Pride Community,” overweight people have unfairly been targeted in the healthcare debate. In their opinion, this debate has been dominated by the idea that overweight Americans are damaging to the nation. This belief has led organizations such as the Council on Size and Weight Discrimination and the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance to take action. The “Fat Pride” community has four goals: 1) to influence the debate by disentangling healthiness and skinniness 2) to prevent lawmakers from attaching penalties to weight gain 3) to ensure that overweight Americans are not stigmatized in the healthcare debates 4) to secure a “public option from which fat people could not be excluded because of weight, and for coverage that did not consider excess weight a preexisting condition.” Many of these goals were explicated by lobbyist to legislators this past May.
So the big question is, why have we never heard of any of this in the mainstream media? To be honest, I had never heard of any of these groups in or outside of the context of the healthcare debate. While I understood that overweight Americans faced discrimination, I never knew that they had formed lobbying groups to influence the healthcare debate until I was glancing through the New York Times.
Why Does the Media Universally Exclude This Group of People From the National Debate?
There are four central reasons why these interest groups have been excluded from the debate.
First, in recent years, being overweight has become synonymous with an unhealthy state of being. Research has shown that an overweight lifestyle can expose an individual to higher risks of coronary heart disease, cancer, stroke, heart attack, hypertension, sleep apnea, and a host of other problems.
Second, this national healthcare debate has fostered the belief that thin people will have to pay for the consequences associated with an overweight lifestyle. Especially during tough economic times, Americans are opposed to paying any more than what is necessary.
Third, since the late 1990s, America has become obsessed with losing weight. This national diet craze is a billion dollar industry that has led to entrenched interests. Consequently, the business community opposes any movement that stands contrary to these interests.
It is because of the above trends and interests, that the “Fat Pride” community has not been viewed as legitimate.
Concluding Thoughts
It is the responsibility of the media to report all of the facts when it is covering a major national issue such as healthcare reform. Irrespective of one’s views toward the “Fat Pride” community, overweight Americans should still be entitled to the same opportunity to air their beliefs on cable television. We should hear the concerns of all Americans. No one wants the new healthcare system to be more discriminatory than the old one.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Post #9: "I Voted for Barack Obama Because of Lindsay Lohan"
Issue Summary
No I didn’t vote for Barack Obama because of Lindsay Lohan. But I think it highlights an important issue that has become a perennial topic of discussion in mass media– the role of celebrities in American Politics. Today I am going to explore 2 questions: 1) If celebrities should be active in politics 2) If the media should cover celebrity political activity.
My Take
During the 2008 presidential election I distinctly remember the media having a field day with political candidates receiving endorsements from people like Chuck Norris, Chris Rock, and Ric Flair.
Why do they have so much influence?
At first glance it is quite unsettling to see our favorite entertainers parlaying their entertainment popularity into political power. It seems as if these celebrities have undue influence in our society. Celebrity gossip shows such as TMZ and Extra have come to dominate evening news reporting. These shows have been successful because Americans have a cult-like following for celebrities and their personal lives. They feel as if they know and trust celebrities because they know nearly everything about them. Thus, when celebrities engage in political activity, people watch.
Nevertheless, there are two reasons why celebrity involvement is great for politics.
Reason #1: The 2nd Look
Americans don’t vote for certain candidates because of a celebrity endorsement, but they do vote for certain candidates because of a celebrity endorsement. Let me explain…I think the American electorate is smart enough (well, lets say most of the American electorate) to vote for candidates based on their own personal interests. While I don’t think the average American voter will vote for a specific candidate because their favorite celebrity endorsed that candidate, it makes them take a second look at candidates for whom they would not have normally considered voting.
Reason #2: Raise Awareness About Important Issues
Secondly, by endorsing political candidates or talking about politics, they raise awareness about important issues that would otherwise not receive appropriate attention (from career politicians or the general public). Think about how much money and awareness that Bono, the lead singer from the band U2, raised for poverty and violence in Africa. He has probably saved millions of lives as a result of leveraging his rock star power.
Concluding Thoughts
It is because of these two benefits that I fully support not only the entertainers but also the media coverage of entertainers engaging in political activity. Because, at the end of the day, it is never about the entertainers, but rather the challenges that affect our communities. So, in a very peculiar way, Lindsay Lohan’s endorsement of Barack Obama is good for our democracy and good for our society. While America does have an unhealthy obsession with celebrities, I am confident that they are smart enough not to vote for a political candidate simply because a celebrity says to do so. By raising awareness about candidates and important issues, celebrities are helping to create a more informed citizenry.
No I didn’t vote for Barack Obama because of Lindsay Lohan. But I think it highlights an important issue that has become a perennial topic of discussion in mass media– the role of celebrities in American Politics. Today I am going to explore 2 questions: 1) If celebrities should be active in politics 2) If the media should cover celebrity political activity.
My Take
During the 2008 presidential election I distinctly remember the media having a field day with political candidates receiving endorsements from people like Chuck Norris, Chris Rock, and Ric Flair.
Why do they have so much influence?
At first glance it is quite unsettling to see our favorite entertainers parlaying their entertainment popularity into political power. It seems as if these celebrities have undue influence in our society. Celebrity gossip shows such as TMZ and Extra have come to dominate evening news reporting. These shows have been successful because Americans have a cult-like following for celebrities and their personal lives. They feel as if they know and trust celebrities because they know nearly everything about them. Thus, when celebrities engage in political activity, people watch.
Nevertheless, there are two reasons why celebrity involvement is great for politics.
Reason #1: The 2nd Look
Americans don’t vote for certain candidates because of a celebrity endorsement, but they do vote for certain candidates because of a celebrity endorsement. Let me explain…I think the American electorate is smart enough (well, lets say most of the American electorate) to vote for candidates based on their own personal interests. While I don’t think the average American voter will vote for a specific candidate because their favorite celebrity endorsed that candidate, it makes them take a second look at candidates for whom they would not have normally considered voting.
Reason #2: Raise Awareness About Important Issues
Secondly, by endorsing political candidates or talking about politics, they raise awareness about important issues that would otherwise not receive appropriate attention (from career politicians or the general public). Think about how much money and awareness that Bono, the lead singer from the band U2, raised for poverty and violence in Africa. He has probably saved millions of lives as a result of leveraging his rock star power.
Concluding Thoughts
It is because of these two benefits that I fully support not only the entertainers but also the media coverage of entertainers engaging in political activity. Because, at the end of the day, it is never about the entertainers, but rather the challenges that affect our communities. So, in a very peculiar way, Lindsay Lohan’s endorsement of Barack Obama is good for our democracy and good for our society. While America does have an unhealthy obsession with celebrities, I am confident that they are smart enough not to vote for a political candidate simply because a celebrity says to do so. By raising awareness about candidates and important issues, celebrities are helping to create a more informed citizenry.
Post #8 - The 2008 Presidential Election: Race, Gender, and Politics
Issue Summary
The 2008 presidential election was a very contentious race both in the primaries and in the general election. It differed from past elections because of the unprecedented minute-by-minute coverage of twenty-four hour news networks. CNN, in particular, provided multiple levels of analysis that enhanced its viewers understanding of the political process. Two of these levels of analysis were race and gender. But, with regard to these levels of analysis, CNN went too far.
Before the South Carolina Democratic Primary, it ran a segment that reduced Black women’s voting decisions to a so-called dilemma over whether they should vote for a woman (Hilary Clinton) or a Black man (Barack Obama). This story was a part of a consistent current of stories that projected that Obama would win the state of South Carolina because there were many Black voters. This coverage was so controversial that it made one of the hot topics on ABC’s hit show The View.
My Take
The Assumptions
It disturbed me because it represented a brand of hyper-racialized politics that are an insult to African American voters across the country. To make electoral projections based on identity politics is ridiculous. This line of thinking is based on three fault premises. First, it assumes that African Americans are a simple, monolithic, community. Secondly, it assumes that there is no variation in their interests. Lastly, it presupposes that Blacks will put their race before their economic and social interests. This is dangerous and inaccurate reporting.
The fact that Michael Steele leads the Republican National Committee indicates that Blacks are not nearly as monolithic as CNN might think. I am aware of numerous instances in which Black voters voted against Black candidates in favor of White candidates. I can think of three recent examples in which this is the case. First, early in the presidential primaries, Blacks overwhelmingly supported Hilary Clinton over Barack Obama. While Obama would end up garnering over 90% of the Black vote, like other candidates, he had to earn it. Another recent example is the Tennessee Congressional election of Steve Cohen. Cohen (a White Jewish man) defeated Nikki Tinker (a Black woman) in a congressional district that was more than 60 percent Black. Moreover, before Michael Steele became the chair of the Republican National Committee, he ran for Senate in Maryland where he lost to Benjamin L, Cardin (a White candidate). In this race, Blacks overwhelmingly voted for Cardin.
Concluding Thoughts
So, to reduce Black voting patterns to race and gender is irresponsible and inaccurate. No group would vote against their own interests simply to elect someone with whom they share an identity. CNN should act more responsibly.
The 2008 presidential election was a very contentious race both in the primaries and in the general election. It differed from past elections because of the unprecedented minute-by-minute coverage of twenty-four hour news networks. CNN, in particular, provided multiple levels of analysis that enhanced its viewers understanding of the political process. Two of these levels of analysis were race and gender. But, with regard to these levels of analysis, CNN went too far.
Before the South Carolina Democratic Primary, it ran a segment that reduced Black women’s voting decisions to a so-called dilemma over whether they should vote for a woman (Hilary Clinton) or a Black man (Barack Obama). This story was a part of a consistent current of stories that projected that Obama would win the state of South Carolina because there were many Black voters. This coverage was so controversial that it made one of the hot topics on ABC’s hit show The View.
My Take
The Assumptions
It disturbed me because it represented a brand of hyper-racialized politics that are an insult to African American voters across the country. To make electoral projections based on identity politics is ridiculous. This line of thinking is based on three fault premises. First, it assumes that African Americans are a simple, monolithic, community. Secondly, it assumes that there is no variation in their interests. Lastly, it presupposes that Blacks will put their race before their economic and social interests. This is dangerous and inaccurate reporting.
The fact that Michael Steele leads the Republican National Committee indicates that Blacks are not nearly as monolithic as CNN might think. I am aware of numerous instances in which Black voters voted against Black candidates in favor of White candidates. I can think of three recent examples in which this is the case. First, early in the presidential primaries, Blacks overwhelmingly supported Hilary Clinton over Barack Obama. While Obama would end up garnering over 90% of the Black vote, like other candidates, he had to earn it. Another recent example is the Tennessee Congressional election of Steve Cohen. Cohen (a White Jewish man) defeated Nikki Tinker (a Black woman) in a congressional district that was more than 60 percent Black. Moreover, before Michael Steele became the chair of the Republican National Committee, he ran for Senate in Maryland where he lost to Benjamin L, Cardin (a White candidate). In this race, Blacks overwhelmingly voted for Cardin.
Concluding Thoughts
So, to reduce Black voting patterns to race and gender is irresponsible and inaccurate. No group would vote against their own interests simply to elect someone with whom they share an identity. CNN should act more responsibly.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Post # 7 - 9/11 Conspirators Face Federal Civilian Courts: The Right Decision?
The Issue
On Friday, November 13, 2009, United States Attorney General Eric Holder held a press conference during which he stated that five masterminds of the 9/11 terrorists attacks will face prosecution in a New York City federal civilian court. While the decision has already made, a fierce debate has ensued as to if trying these individuals in civilian court is the best course of action.
Analysis of the Media Coverage
While the preponderance of my blog posts have been critical of the media, today, I commend the media (for the most part) for surprisingly good coverage of this debate. From MSNBC (considered a left leaning news organizations) to CNN (a centrist news organization) it seemed as if the coverage of this issue was fair and balanced. These news organizations presented both sides of the debate so that readers and viewers could form their own opinions.
However, the Right, comprised of Fox News and the Wall Street Journal, was clearly less objective. Their coverage not only suggested that the terrorists would not receive the justice that they deserved, but also that the case would descend into a circus act.
My Take
I believe we should hold these five individuals accountable in New York federal court. While there are risks associated with the decision, it is the strongest signal that the United States can send to the terrorists and to the international community. It will demonstrate our unwavering confidence in the American judicial system, as well as our dedication to our values and way of life. In the remainder of this post, I will dismiss charges that have been levied by opponents of the Attorney General’s decision.
Charge: Federal Courts Have No Experience
Those who oppose the AG’s (Attorney General) decision approach the issue as if U.S. federal courts have no experience in prosecuting terrorists. This is not the case. In fact, the 1993 WTC bombers were convicted in federal courts; and over 100 terrorists have been tried since 9/11 in civilian courts. So to argue that the federal courts are not equipped to handle this type of situation is simply inaccurate.
Charge: Civilian Courts Impede Justice
There is no basis for this claim. According to a report by the nonprofit human rights organization Human Rights First, they could find no instances in which the Classified Information Procedures Act, the Miranda Requirements, or others precluded either side from receiving a fair legal process. Further, there is no evidence that convicted terrorists receive looser sentences under the civilian judicial system.
Charge: Trial Will Be a Circus
While some have said that terrorists will use the judicial process as a platform to promote their cause, one need only look to the case of convicted terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui to recognize that this assumption is not necessarily valid.
Secondly, according to the previously referenced report by Human Rights First, The Federal Bureau of Prisons has housed high value criminals and terrorists without damage to the adjacent communities.
Concluding Thoughts
While I can understand that holding trials to convict terrorists that plotted to carry out an attack that occurred just a few blocks away from the proposed courtroom location will elicit emotion, we must not submit to temptation. It is imperative that this country remains strong by adhering to its core values and beliefs. This is the lifeblood of our country. This is what distinguishes us from the terrorists.
On Friday, November 13, 2009, United States Attorney General Eric Holder held a press conference during which he stated that five masterminds of the 9/11 terrorists attacks will face prosecution in a New York City federal civilian court. While the decision has already made, a fierce debate has ensued as to if trying these individuals in civilian court is the best course of action.
Analysis of the Media Coverage
While the preponderance of my blog posts have been critical of the media, today, I commend the media (for the most part) for surprisingly good coverage of this debate. From MSNBC (considered a left leaning news organizations) to CNN (a centrist news organization) it seemed as if the coverage of this issue was fair and balanced. These news organizations presented both sides of the debate so that readers and viewers could form their own opinions.
However, the Right, comprised of Fox News and the Wall Street Journal, was clearly less objective. Their coverage not only suggested that the terrorists would not receive the justice that they deserved, but also that the case would descend into a circus act.
My Take
I believe we should hold these five individuals accountable in New York federal court. While there are risks associated with the decision, it is the strongest signal that the United States can send to the terrorists and to the international community. It will demonstrate our unwavering confidence in the American judicial system, as well as our dedication to our values and way of life. In the remainder of this post, I will dismiss charges that have been levied by opponents of the Attorney General’s decision.
Charge: Federal Courts Have No Experience
Those who oppose the AG’s (Attorney General) decision approach the issue as if U.S. federal courts have no experience in prosecuting terrorists. This is not the case. In fact, the 1993 WTC bombers were convicted in federal courts; and over 100 terrorists have been tried since 9/11 in civilian courts. So to argue that the federal courts are not equipped to handle this type of situation is simply inaccurate.
Charge: Civilian Courts Impede Justice
There is no basis for this claim. According to a report by the nonprofit human rights organization Human Rights First, they could find no instances in which the Classified Information Procedures Act, the Miranda Requirements, or others precluded either side from receiving a fair legal process. Further, there is no evidence that convicted terrorists receive looser sentences under the civilian judicial system.
Charge: Trial Will Be a Circus
While some have said that terrorists will use the judicial process as a platform to promote their cause, one need only look to the case of convicted terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui to recognize that this assumption is not necessarily valid.
Secondly, according to the previously referenced report by Human Rights First, The Federal Bureau of Prisons has housed high value criminals and terrorists without damage to the adjacent communities.
Concluding Thoughts
While I can understand that holding trials to convict terrorists that plotted to carry out an attack that occurred just a few blocks away from the proposed courtroom location will elicit emotion, we must not submit to temptation. It is imperative that this country remains strong by adhering to its core values and beliefs. This is the lifeblood of our country. This is what distinguishes us from the terrorists.
Post #6: Polioptics and The Florida Senate Race
Issue Summary and Coverage Analysis
Former Governor Charlie Crist is running for Senate in Florida’s 2010 election. Given his state popularity and track record as a moderate republican, most thought that the former Governor would be a shoo-in for the Senate seat. However, since the Republican Party has lost significant national power, it has become severely fragmented. In most recent months, the party has tried to unify itself by ousting all those who hold moderate positions. As a result, this senatorial race is proving to be more difficult than the Crist campaign initially expected. The latest so-called blow to the campaign is this picture with President Obama. In fact, Crist has been criticized for this picture (by his fellow republicans) to the point that he is now lying to the press about his contact with the White House.
Before I give my thoughts, I would like to commend the media for doing its job on this issue. This is one of the rare instances that the media has not used a story as an opportunity to increase its own ratings. In this case, for some strange reason, MSNBC, CNN, and Fox have simply reported the facts.
My Take
Frist’s opponent released this ad to remind republicans that the former Governor supported Obama’s stimulus package; and to suggest that Frist is fully supportive of the President’s policies. But, more broadly, it demonstrates the importance of pictures and imagery to American political campaigns.
Irrespective of the importance of these images, I resent the fact that the President has been demonized to the extent that taking a picture with him is discouraged by the opposing party. It seems that the President is being treated as if he is an enemy of the state. This is almost the same criticism that President Obama received when he shook hands with Hugo Chavez. Or, to cite another example, the same treatment that American government officials are supposed to give to pictures with leaders of hostile nations.
Secondly, I don’t understand why Crist is being rebuked for his support of the stimulus package. The stimulus issue should be “water under the bridge” for republicans because it actually worked. It has rescued our economy from the brink of collapse, and it has saved or created over 640,000 jobs. To suggest that the former Governor Crist is acquiescent to all of the President’s policies as a result of his support for the stimulus package is gross distortion.
Conclusion
Yet again, we have been shown that optics have weight and gravity in our political process. I can only hope that in the future, it will be used for the right reasons. This is certainly not one of them. Barring a hypothetical situation in which the President commits a heinous crime, taking a picture with the President of the United States should not be a sin. The President is the leader of our country. He is not a criminal or leader of a hostile nation.
Former Governor Charlie Crist is running for Senate in Florida’s 2010 election. Given his state popularity and track record as a moderate republican, most thought that the former Governor would be a shoo-in for the Senate seat. However, since the Republican Party has lost significant national power, it has become severely fragmented. In most recent months, the party has tried to unify itself by ousting all those who hold moderate positions. As a result, this senatorial race is proving to be more difficult than the Crist campaign initially expected. The latest so-called blow to the campaign is this picture with President Obama. In fact, Crist has been criticized for this picture (by his fellow republicans) to the point that he is now lying to the press about his contact with the White House.
Before I give my thoughts, I would like to commend the media for doing its job on this issue. This is one of the rare instances that the media has not used a story as an opportunity to increase its own ratings. In this case, for some strange reason, MSNBC, CNN, and Fox have simply reported the facts.
My Take
Frist’s opponent released this ad to remind republicans that the former Governor supported Obama’s stimulus package; and to suggest that Frist is fully supportive of the President’s policies. But, more broadly, it demonstrates the importance of pictures and imagery to American political campaigns.
Irrespective of the importance of these images, I resent the fact that the President has been demonized to the extent that taking a picture with him is discouraged by the opposing party. It seems that the President is being treated as if he is an enemy of the state. This is almost the same criticism that President Obama received when he shook hands with Hugo Chavez. Or, to cite another example, the same treatment that American government officials are supposed to give to pictures with leaders of hostile nations.
Secondly, I don’t understand why Crist is being rebuked for his support of the stimulus package. The stimulus issue should be “water under the bridge” for republicans because it actually worked. It has rescued our economy from the brink of collapse, and it has saved or created over 640,000 jobs. To suggest that the former Governor Crist is acquiescent to all of the President’s policies as a result of his support for the stimulus package is gross distortion.
Conclusion
Yet again, we have been shown that optics have weight and gravity in our political process. I can only hope that in the future, it will be used for the right reasons. This is certainly not one of them. Barring a hypothetical situation in which the President commits a heinous crime, taking a picture with the President of the United States should not be a sin. The President is the leader of our country. He is not a criminal or leader of a hostile nation.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Post #5: The Ethics of Polioptics
What is Polioptics?
A few months ago, our class had the pleasure of hearing a guest lecture from distinguished “Beltway insider” Josh King. King is an accomplished political consultant that served multiple presidents, and is currently Senior Vice President for Penn, Schoen, & Berland Associates in New York City. His lecture introduced the class to a field called “poli-optics.” Defined as the “the art or science concerned with influencing public policy, polioptics is the marriage of politics and optics. It is prepackaged political persuasion designed to control the image fed to journalists and voters.
This is not a topic that I can dissect using the Right and Left media because both sides are equally susceptible to it. However, I will address the ethical questions and implications associated with the practice of polioptics.
Should Presidential Candidates Use Polioptics?
It seems that use of politioptics has brought American politics further away from important issues. As we have seen in the last election, presidential politics have become more about money, celebrity status, and sound bites than substantive issues such as healthcare and national security. If imagery becomes the metric by which we judge a political candidate’s ability to effectively execute the responsibilities of the President of the United States, there is no doubt that this country will be predestined for failure. In the 2008 presidential election the American people were fortunate that the winner who knew the issues the best also ran the best polioptics campaign. But it is only a matter of time before an inferior candidate (a candidate that doesn’t have full grasp of the issues) beats a superior candidate (candidate that has an excellent command of the issues) because he/she ran a better polioptics campaign. This is downright scary.
Polioptics and the Presidency
Even if you favor the use of polioptics during a presidential campaign, you have to admit that the issue is transformed once that candidate is elected to the presidency. While I am not entirely convinced that a presidential candidate should be allowed to use polioptics during a campaign, I think it is unethical for a sitting president to engage in this activity. When a sitting president uses this strategy, it blurs the line between political imagery and propaganda.
Where Does Polioptics End?
I have no qualms with a politician making a speech with a small American flag in the background. But how far is too far? As polioptics is becoming used more frequently in political campaigns, some fear that the use of this strategy could lead us down a slippery slope. This slippery slope could lead the American political process to the point where there will be no limits on the technologies that are utilized by political campaigns to manipulate voters. This type of manipulation and deception could prevent the media and the public from holding the United States government and its officials accountable.
Concluding Remarks
In contrast with the other issues that I have analyzed in this blog, this is probably one of the few issues on which I am ambivalent. While I understand that marketing strategies have become increasingly important for political campaigns, I am still skeptical about the idea because of the potential negative implications that could result.
Post #4: Cable News Media Coverage of the November 2009 Elections
What Happened
On November 3, 2009, the American people were drawn to the polls to fulfill their civic obligations – the right to elect their representatives. As this electoral cycle came to its end, cable news networks of the political Left and Right drew different conclusions on the election results. While the Left advanced the idea that this election was of no real national significance, the Right, in contrast, underscored the national significance of the election as a referendum on the President.
My Take
Irrespective of the way in which this election is viewed, it is clear the coverage of this event was problematic. It was simply too focused. The media seemed arbitrarily interested in only five or six elections, and (New Jersey Gubernatorial Election, Virginia gubernatorial Election, New York’s 23rd Congressional Election, New York City Mayoral Election, and the Texas State Constitutional Amendment) it never provided any explanation as to why these elections were more important than the others. I do not understand why the cable news networks did not focus on the mayoral Elections in Atlanta (particularly CNN, which is headquartered in Atlanta) Houston, Boston, Detroit, and Pittsburg. I am equally interested in the media’s choice to downplay and exclude ballot initiatives in places like Maine and Washington.
Significant?
I am not sure that this cycle of elections was truly significant. As I mentioned before, there are many who view this cycle as a virtual referendum on President Obama. However, I respectfully disagree with this assertion for three reasons. Lets take the New Jersey Gubernatorial elections as an example. While many conservatives chose to view Chris Christie’s win over Jon Corzine as a vote against President Obama, I believe it was more of a reflection of the dissatisfaction of New Jerseyans with Governor Corzine’s policies. In fact, according to a CNN Research Poll, six out of every ten New Jersey voters said that the President had no effect on the their vote in the Gubernatorial election. So, in reality, it seems that Corzine was voted out of office because of issues such as taxes. For example, in New Jersey, property taxes have increased by fifty percent since 2000, and remain among the highest in the country.
Even if these election results were indicative of the public’s dissatisfaction with the President, it is very important to view these election results in context. There has always been a history of temporary “buyers remorse” in the year following the election of a new president. People always want the president to fix more problems. This is normal.
While it is perfectly normal for the American public to want the President to fix more problems in the administration’s first year, I believe that it has been particularly unrealistic as far as what this President can accomplish in such a short time. Given the enormity and difficulty of the problems that the current President faces, I do not think that we can expect him to bring about sweeping change in 10 months.
With that said, I am happy with what the President has achieved thus far. Among other accomplishments, he has saved the economy from the brink of collapse; restored a sense of optimism and faith in America both domestically and internationally; negotiated the release of American hostages from North Korea; demonstrated a firm commitment to international cooperation; opened a new chapter in relations with the Russian Federation; and is currently making significant progress on nuclear nonproliferation.
I do not think that we should play down any election, as all elections are important. But at the same time, these results should not be exaggerated. This exaggeration (both of those downplay and underscoring the significance election results) has led different media outlets to come to diametrically opposed conclusions. This type of media coverage is unacceptable. In the end, our democracy atrophies as a result of the manipulation of the American people by cable media networks.
On November 3, 2009, the American people were drawn to the polls to fulfill their civic obligations – the right to elect their representatives. As this electoral cycle came to its end, cable news networks of the political Left and Right drew different conclusions on the election results. While the Left advanced the idea that this election was of no real national significance, the Right, in contrast, underscored the national significance of the election as a referendum on the President.
My Take
Irrespective of the way in which this election is viewed, it is clear the coverage of this event was problematic. It was simply too focused. The media seemed arbitrarily interested in only five or six elections, and (New Jersey Gubernatorial Election, Virginia gubernatorial Election, New York’s 23rd Congressional Election, New York City Mayoral Election, and the Texas State Constitutional Amendment) it never provided any explanation as to why these elections were more important than the others. I do not understand why the cable news networks did not focus on the mayoral Elections in Atlanta (particularly CNN, which is headquartered in Atlanta) Houston, Boston, Detroit, and Pittsburg. I am equally interested in the media’s choice to downplay and exclude ballot initiatives in places like Maine and Washington.
Significant?
I am not sure that this cycle of elections was truly significant. As I mentioned before, there are many who view this cycle as a virtual referendum on President Obama. However, I respectfully disagree with this assertion for three reasons. Lets take the New Jersey Gubernatorial elections as an example. While many conservatives chose to view Chris Christie’s win over Jon Corzine as a vote against President Obama, I believe it was more of a reflection of the dissatisfaction of New Jerseyans with Governor Corzine’s policies. In fact, according to a CNN Research Poll, six out of every ten New Jersey voters said that the President had no effect on the their vote in the Gubernatorial election. So, in reality, it seems that Corzine was voted out of office because of issues such as taxes. For example, in New Jersey, property taxes have increased by fifty percent since 2000, and remain among the highest in the country.
Even if these election results were indicative of the public’s dissatisfaction with the President, it is very important to view these election results in context. There has always been a history of temporary “buyers remorse” in the year following the election of a new president. People always want the president to fix more problems. This is normal.
While it is perfectly normal for the American public to want the President to fix more problems in the administration’s first year, I believe that it has been particularly unrealistic as far as what this President can accomplish in such a short time. Given the enormity and difficulty of the problems that the current President faces, I do not think that we can expect him to bring about sweeping change in 10 months.
With that said, I am happy with what the President has achieved thus far. Among other accomplishments, he has saved the economy from the brink of collapse; restored a sense of optimism and faith in America both domestically and internationally; negotiated the release of American hostages from North Korea; demonstrated a firm commitment to international cooperation; opened a new chapter in relations with the Russian Federation; and is currently making significant progress on nuclear nonproliferation.
I do not think that we should play down any election, as all elections are important. But at the same time, these results should not be exaggerated. This exaggeration (both of those downplay and underscoring the significance election results) has led different media outlets to come to diametrically opposed conclusions. This type of media coverage is unacceptable. In the end, our democracy atrophies as a result of the manipulation of the American people by cable media networks.
Post #3: The Media & Terrorism
“We are in a battle, and…more than half of this battle is taking place in the battlefield of the media.”
- Ayman Al-Zawahiri, 2005 letter from Al-Zawahiri to Al- Zarqawi
“Terrorism is theatre…Terrorism attacks are often carefully choreographed to attract the attention of the electronic media and the international press.”
- Brian Jenkins
What Is Terrorism?
According to terrorism expert Boaz Ganor, “Terrorism is the intentional use of or threat to use violence against civilians or against civilian targets, in order to attain political aims.”
So What Does This Mean?
It means that the effectiveness of a terrorist campaign is based on the ability of a terrorist organization to convey a message and to provoke a response from a target. If these two conditions are met, the terrorist campaign is considered a success, which in turn, will result in the target forcing its government to comply with specific political demands. So, it follows, that the best way to prevent terrorists from realizing their goals is to deny them these two conditions.
The Media in The Past
While the strategy underpinning terrorism has been understood for centuries, the media has continued to play a critical role in facilitating the realization of terrorist objectives. In my Global security class, our professor points to two specific cases that support this assertion. The first occurred in 1893, when anarchists bombed the Barcelona Opera House. In this instance, the New York newspaper, World, published many articles on the attacks and consequently sold more copies than ever. Secondly, in 1968, terrorists gained unprecedented global coverage because the media made use of the first television satellite during the 1972 Olympics.
The Media Today: Has Anything Changed?
Unfortunately, the media is no different today. While it is clear that today’s publicly traded media companies are principally concerned with using controversy to increase their bottom lines, their profit motives are contrary to the national security interests of this country. The American media does a number of things that allow terrorists to achieve their objectives. As I have talked about in my last blog post, the mainstream cable news networks (both CNN and Fox) use ignorant reporting on Muslims in the United States and abroad. This type of reporting only serves to strengthen their resolve to strike against the United States by underscoring the demarcation of “us vs. them.”
The media also emboldens terrorists by the sheer number of stories it runs on specific terrorists. Because we live in the age of the 24-hour news cycle, images of terrorists are popularized unlike ever before in order for the cable networks to fill airtime. But perhaps the most disturbing thing about the media is that it airs unauthenticated tapes from terrorist organizations. I do not understand why news networks do this. It is not as if the terrorists are going to deviate from the traditional “death to America” rhetoric. By showing these tapes, they are not only publicizing the enemy, but it is quite possible that they are instructing other terrorists through secret messages embedded in these tapes.
Concluding Thoughts
I am not saying that the media should not report news on terrorism, terrorists, or terrorist activity. The media’s job is to keep the public well informed on all issues related to their safety and security. However, the it must understand the terrorists’ strategy and the critical role they play in achieving that strategy. I do not believe that there is a clear solution for how to combat this problem. While some have suggested that the government regulate news activities that threaten national security, I disagree. Our government should not be allowed to regulate what the media reports because it could lead to less government accountability. The American people and its government can only recommend that the media exercise greater caution as it relates to the issue of terrorism.
- Ayman Al-Zawahiri, 2005 letter from Al-Zawahiri to Al- Zarqawi
“Terrorism is theatre…Terrorism attacks are often carefully choreographed to attract the attention of the electronic media and the international press.”
- Brian Jenkins
What Is Terrorism?
According to terrorism expert Boaz Ganor, “Terrorism is the intentional use of or threat to use violence against civilians or against civilian targets, in order to attain political aims.”
So What Does This Mean?
It means that the effectiveness of a terrorist campaign is based on the ability of a terrorist organization to convey a message and to provoke a response from a target. If these two conditions are met, the terrorist campaign is considered a success, which in turn, will result in the target forcing its government to comply with specific political demands. So, it follows, that the best way to prevent terrorists from realizing their goals is to deny them these two conditions.
The Media in The Past
While the strategy underpinning terrorism has been understood for centuries, the media has continued to play a critical role in facilitating the realization of terrorist objectives. In my Global security class, our professor points to two specific cases that support this assertion. The first occurred in 1893, when anarchists bombed the Barcelona Opera House. In this instance, the New York newspaper, World, published many articles on the attacks and consequently sold more copies than ever. Secondly, in 1968, terrorists gained unprecedented global coverage because the media made use of the first television satellite during the 1972 Olympics.
The Media Today: Has Anything Changed?
Unfortunately, the media is no different today. While it is clear that today’s publicly traded media companies are principally concerned with using controversy to increase their bottom lines, their profit motives are contrary to the national security interests of this country. The American media does a number of things that allow terrorists to achieve their objectives. As I have talked about in my last blog post, the mainstream cable news networks (both CNN and Fox) use ignorant reporting on Muslims in the United States and abroad. This type of reporting only serves to strengthen their resolve to strike against the United States by underscoring the demarcation of “us vs. them.”
The media also emboldens terrorists by the sheer number of stories it runs on specific terrorists. Because we live in the age of the 24-hour news cycle, images of terrorists are popularized unlike ever before in order for the cable networks to fill airtime. But perhaps the most disturbing thing about the media is that it airs unauthenticated tapes from terrorist organizations. I do not understand why news networks do this. It is not as if the terrorists are going to deviate from the traditional “death to America” rhetoric. By showing these tapes, they are not only publicizing the enemy, but it is quite possible that they are instructing other terrorists through secret messages embedded in these tapes.
Concluding Thoughts
I am not saying that the media should not report news on terrorism, terrorists, or terrorist activity. The media’s job is to keep the public well informed on all issues related to their safety and security. However, the it must understand the terrorists’ strategy and the critical role they play in achieving that strategy. I do not believe that there is a clear solution for how to combat this problem. While some have suggested that the government regulate news activities that threaten national security, I disagree. Our government should not be allowed to regulate what the media reports because it could lead to less government accountability. The American people and its government can only recommend that the media exercise greater caution as it relates to the issue of terrorism.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Post #2: The Media, Ft. Hood, and Muslims
On Thursday, November 5, 2008 a gunman went on a shooting spree in Texas at the Soldier Readiness Center of Ft. Hood. Before he was incapacitated, the gunman, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, killed thirteen people and wounded thirty others. This heinous act spawned a period of mourning for both the military community and the nation.
While I was horrified by the murders, I was unsettled by the unprofessional and unabashedly prejudice coverage of the massacre. In the initial hours and days after the shooting, when the media had no additional information related to the Ft. Hood incident, it began to paint its own portrait of Hasan and his motives. Despite the fact that there are at least 1.8 million Muslims in the United States, 3572 Muslims actively serving in the armed forces, (while many in the military would say that the number could be as high as 20,000) and unprecedented mental health problems in the military, the media decided that it would portray this individual as a terrorist – simply because of his name.
I am convinced that this is not merely a one hiccup in a larger context of good reporting. It is rather an incident that represents a consistent trend of unwarranted hostility against Muslims. Cable newsmen such as Bill O’Reilly would quickly reject this assertion by contending that “85 percent of network news stories on Ft. Hood did not mention the word terrorism.” Does Bill O’Reilly want a cookie? This is no accomplishment unless one is operating under the assumption that a news agency is incapable of conveying ideas through subtlety and innuendo…and we all know that this is not true. In fact, this is precisely what the media did in the Ft. Hood incident. CNN, “the worldwide leader in news,” wrote stories with titles like “Fort Hood suspect Nidal Malik Hasan seemed cool, calm, religious,” and it published videos of the gunman wearing a shalwar kameez. In addition, CNN ran stories citing bystanders who added no value to the investigation besides indicating that “‘[Hassan and his roommate] had some Arabic signs [outside of their apartment]’.” But if you are not yet convinced, lets go to Fox News. This new organization utilized the Ft. Hood shooting to advance the idea that the American military should conduct special screenings of Muslim officers. All of this reporting was cryptic language that only fans the flames of hate and intolerance.
But, in order to strengthen my argument, it is important that other instances of media bias against Muslims be mentioned in this posting. Perhaps the best example is the 2008 presidential election. During this election, the media was complicit in the rumor that then Senator Obama was Muslim. Instead of rejecting the idea that there was nothing wrong with being Muslim, the media validated the accusation (which obviously had the undercurrent that Islam is synonymous with terrorism.) by attempting to prove or disprove the charge. Additionally, the media showed its intentions when it perpetuated the controversy over the right of Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, to be sworn in on a Qur’an.
In my concluding remarks I want to make it absolutely clear that I do not believe that Hasan is not a terrorist. In fact, it is entirely possible that the Ft. Hood shooting could ultimately be a terrorist incident. But to make an accusation that influences public opinion before there is any sufficient evidence to support it is unwarranted, unethical, unprofessional, and flat-out dangerous. This kind of reporting is deleterious to the American image abroad, and is detrimental to the President’s strategy of reengaging the Muslim world. However, some would say that the media’s responsibility is not to assist the President in the realization of his political goals. I disagree. Reengaging the Arab and Muslim communities is not a political goal. While it might have political implications, this is an apolitical task that is designed to promote mutual respect between two communities and the United States.
On another level, this brand of reporting is a domestic embarrassment. It is a direct affront not only to the dignity and sacrifice of Muslim Americans who serve in the American military, but also their proud legacy of contributions to this society. The media needs to grow up.
While I was horrified by the murders, I was unsettled by the unprofessional and unabashedly prejudice coverage of the massacre. In the initial hours and days after the shooting, when the media had no additional information related to the Ft. Hood incident, it began to paint its own portrait of Hasan and his motives. Despite the fact that there are at least 1.8 million Muslims in the United States, 3572 Muslims actively serving in the armed forces, (while many in the military would say that the number could be as high as 20,000) and unprecedented mental health problems in the military, the media decided that it would portray this individual as a terrorist – simply because of his name.
I am convinced that this is not merely a one hiccup in a larger context of good reporting. It is rather an incident that represents a consistent trend of unwarranted hostility against Muslims. Cable newsmen such as Bill O’Reilly would quickly reject this assertion by contending that “85 percent of network news stories on Ft. Hood did not mention the word terrorism.” Does Bill O’Reilly want a cookie? This is no accomplishment unless one is operating under the assumption that a news agency is incapable of conveying ideas through subtlety and innuendo…and we all know that this is not true. In fact, this is precisely what the media did in the Ft. Hood incident. CNN, “the worldwide leader in news,” wrote stories with titles like “Fort Hood suspect Nidal Malik Hasan seemed cool, calm, religious,” and it published videos of the gunman wearing a shalwar kameez. In addition, CNN ran stories citing bystanders who added no value to the investigation besides indicating that “‘[Hassan and his roommate] had some Arabic signs [outside of their apartment]’.” But if you are not yet convinced, lets go to Fox News. This new organization utilized the Ft. Hood shooting to advance the idea that the American military should conduct special screenings of Muslim officers. All of this reporting was cryptic language that only fans the flames of hate and intolerance.
But, in order to strengthen my argument, it is important that other instances of media bias against Muslims be mentioned in this posting. Perhaps the best example is the 2008 presidential election. During this election, the media was complicit in the rumor that then Senator Obama was Muslim. Instead of rejecting the idea that there was nothing wrong with being Muslim, the media validated the accusation (which obviously had the undercurrent that Islam is synonymous with terrorism.) by attempting to prove or disprove the charge. Additionally, the media showed its intentions when it perpetuated the controversy over the right of Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, to be sworn in on a Qur’an.
In my concluding remarks I want to make it absolutely clear that I do not believe that Hasan is not a terrorist. In fact, it is entirely possible that the Ft. Hood shooting could ultimately be a terrorist incident. But to make an accusation that influences public opinion before there is any sufficient evidence to support it is unwarranted, unethical, unprofessional, and flat-out dangerous. This kind of reporting is deleterious to the American image abroad, and is detrimental to the President’s strategy of reengaging the Muslim world. However, some would say that the media’s responsibility is not to assist the President in the realization of his political goals. I disagree. Reengaging the Arab and Muslim communities is not a political goal. While it might have political implications, this is an apolitical task that is designed to promote mutual respect between two communities and the United States.
On another level, this brand of reporting is a domestic embarrassment. It is a direct affront not only to the dignity and sacrifice of Muslim Americans who serve in the American military, but also their proud legacy of contributions to this society. The media needs to grow up.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Post #1: Politician vs. Political Science
POLITICIAN VS. POLTICAL SCIENCE
Okay, so I have heard of United States legislators declaring opposition to war, the public option, cap and trade, etc. But POLITICAL SCIENCE?It has recently come to my attention that social and economic conservative Republican Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma has proposed an amendment to H.R. 2847: Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 that would cut National Science Foundation funding for Political Science Research.
What Is He Saying?
His amendment states that “None of the funds appropriated under this Act may be used to carry out the functions of the Political Science Program in the Division of Social and Economic Sciences of the Directorate for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Science of the National Science Foundation.” Senator Coburn believes Americans should cancel all NSF Political Science funding because of his belief that the allocation of $9.1 million per year (over ten years) to research constitutes wasteful spending.Why Do I disagree with him?
In the interest of full disclosure I think it is important that I reveal that I am currently finishing up my undergraduate degree in Political Science. Irrespective of my formal affiliation with the field, or the fact that Senator Coburn regularly references the very programs that he seeks to cut, I do not understand how anyone could advance this amendment on such untenable grounds.Arbitrary? – Senator Coburn seeks to cut Political Science funding to allocate more funds to fields like biology, geology and physics. In his explanation he contends that funds should be concentrated in these fields because they are “real fields of science in which new discoveries can yield real improvements in the lives of everyone.” Okay, lets pretend for a moment that there are such things as “real fields of science” (by which I suppose he means physical sciences). If this was actually the case, why is he not calling for finding cuts for all social sciences? To me it seems arbitrary that the Senator would choose to single out Political Science while ignoring other Social Science subfields. But, then again, this is how the Washington political game is played– shrewd political calculation involving the art of making cosmetic changes without taking a real stand on anything. Think about it – if he wanted to take a legitimate position, he would have called for funding cuts for all Social Sciences. But, then again, this would have been a lot more controversial. And with controversy, he would have received negative publicity…which no politician wants.
NSF Political Science programs relevant? –Corburn believes that research on campaigns and elections, electoral choice and systems, democratization, regime change, international conflict, and international political economy are particularly irrelevant to real world problems. He asserts that “this research, while interesting to some, stands in stark contrast to other NSF research that has yielded transformative results in a number of important areas” So I guess the metric by which the Senator determines the necessity of publicly funded research programs is based on the level of popular interest shown in that field. Nevertheless, the last time I checked, campaign finance reform was a major issue in the 2008 presidential election. Additionally, democratization, regime change, international conflict, and political economy continue to be critical elements of American foreign policy. These Political Science issues (interesting or not) are crucial to the safety and security of the United States, its interests (domestic and foreign), and its allies.
Is Political Science a Science? In perhaps one of the most blatantly ridiculous justifications for cutting funding for Political Science research, Senator Coburn contends that Political Science is not really a science. To substantiate his claim he references a $5.4 million award (largest grant awarded in the last ten years to political scientists) given to researchers at the University Michigan for the study of American national elections. Senator Coburn believes that this research is unnecessary because one should simply “turn to [the major cable networks] the print media, and…the internet” for definitive answers.” Where does he think they get their information?
Drumroll…So what’s the most important reason for cutting finding? Paul Krugman….yea…world renowned Princeton University Professor Paul Krugman. Senator Coburn believes that the funding for all Political Science related research should be cut because of one Nobel Prize-winning economist with whom he happens to disagree. Need I say more?
Closing Thoughts After 8 years of collective amnesia, fiscal responsibility has returned to the Republican Party’s national agenda. If this is indeed the case, I do not understand why the war on wasteful spending should begin with national security-relevant academic research (that costs 9 million dollars per year). Aren’t there bigger fish to fry? While I have addressed only a few of the many unfounded justifications for the proposed cessation of funding for Political Science research, I encourage you to read a transcript of the Senate floor debate and explore the public reaction to this amendment.
Until next time…
NSF Political Science programs relevant? –Corburn believes that research on campaigns and elections, electoral choice and systems, democratization, regime change, international conflict, and international political economy are particularly irrelevant to real world problems. He asserts that “this research, while interesting to some, stands in stark contrast to other NSF research that has yielded transformative results in a number of important areas” So I guess the metric by which the Senator determines the necessity of publicly funded research programs is based on the level of popular interest shown in that field. Nevertheless, the last time I checked, campaign finance reform was a major issue in the 2008 presidential election. Additionally, democratization, regime change, international conflict, and political economy continue to be critical elements of American foreign policy. These Political Science issues (interesting or not) are crucial to the safety and security of the United States, its interests (domestic and foreign), and its allies.
Is Political Science a Science? In perhaps one of the most blatantly ridiculous justifications for cutting funding for Political Science research, Senator Coburn contends that Political Science is not really a science. To substantiate his claim he references a $5.4 million award (largest grant awarded in the last ten years to political scientists) given to researchers at the University Michigan for the study of American national elections. Senator Coburn believes that this research is unnecessary because one should simply “turn to [the major cable networks] the print media, and…the internet” for definitive answers.” Where does he think they get their information?
Drumroll…So what’s the most important reason for cutting finding? Paul Krugman….yea…world renowned Princeton University Professor Paul Krugman. Senator Coburn believes that the funding for all Political Science related research should be cut because of one Nobel Prize-winning economist with whom he happens to disagree. Need I say more?
Closing Thoughts After 8 years of collective amnesia, fiscal responsibility has returned to the Republican Party’s national agenda. If this is indeed the case, I do not understand why the war on wasteful spending should begin with national security-relevant academic research (that costs 9 million dollars per year). Aren’t there bigger fish to fry? While I have addressed only a few of the many unfounded justifications for the proposed cessation of funding for Political Science research, I encourage you to read a transcript of the Senate floor debate and explore the public reaction to this amendment.
Until next time…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)