Coverage of Tuesday's Election

I was watching CNN Tuesday night to receive coverage of the votes, and I was thoroughly impressed with the style of the coverage. I thought it was smart how they had a panel of 5 (I think) people who were constantly receiving new information while the others showed the states won on a map. 

I don't watch CNN often, but I really enjoyed how they took everything step by step and broke down what the Electoral votes meant, how much each candidate needed to win, and as states were won by a candidate they announced those instantaneously. I thought this was smart because to many the information given may have been a no brainer, but to many others I am sure the election-system can be very confusing. 

They made it feel very conversational and approached one another as if they were talking over dinner, and made it less formal. This made me feel comfortable. Most of the questions asked, I was wondering myself, and I didn't have to worry about asking them myself. 

Basically CNN did an outstanding job with visuals, guest speakers and explaining  the information in detailed form. I was proud of CNN. 

Palin; Good or Bad Caboose for the McCain Train

Most people agreed that John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as his Vice-Presidential nominee was completely out of left field. In some sense his choice was a wise one because he gained voter support that he might have had a tough time getting otherwise. McCain had accumulated voters such as women, certain environmentalist, and Alaskans. The majority of the media sources have portrayed her as an unintelligent, incompetent, hockey mom who has limited politcal experience. I think that the media has given her such a negative image and has exagerated her flaws. It will be interesting to see if Palins affect on the campaign will bring the McCain to the white house or back to Alaska.

Media <3's Obama

Many times over this campaign McCain has complained about biased media coverage. He has claimed that Obama is treated like a celebrity and gets significantly more coverage. This article seems to agree, stating, "during the first five months of 2007, Obama received by far the most positive coverage of any presidential candidate". Is this because there are just that many more positive things to say about Obama, or might the media be biased? It is easy to see what makes him a more interesting story. Obama is younger, attractive, funny, and happens to be America's first serious African-American candidate. It seems only natural that reporters would spend more time on him.

The article also goes on to say that a lot of the statistics on media coverage just depend on perspective. For example, Hilary Clinton had a higher percentage of "negative" stories about her campaign, but "nearly 20% of the Clinton stories were aired on conservative talk radio" and unsurprisingly "86% of these were negative". The author states that stories about Obama were positive because they dealt mostly with Obama's fundraising and his background, while only "14.5% of the stories dealt with policy or the public record".

So I guess my question is, is it up to journalists to cover each candidate evenly, or it the candidate's responsibility to be news worthy? McCain solved his media problem by adding Sarah Palin to his ticket, although the media coverage of her is not always glowing. Personally I have to say that in my perspective there has been far more positive media coverage about Obama than McCain. I don't know whether this is biased or just reflects the candidate's own strengths and weaknesses, but to be honest I'd rather read about Obama's accomplishments any day.

Forget the hastle, vote early.

Across the nation we are constantly bombarded with campaign propaganda and rising and dropping poll results, which add to the pressure of one of the most important acts of this nation, voting. Especially in circumstances where voters are undecided, every piece of information can have the slightest effect to swing them one way or another. However, for those citizens who have decided who they want for president, many have joined the trend of voting early. According to the article in the New York Times, among the 32 states that do allow early voting over a quarter of the registered citizens have cast their ballots, by mail or in person. I think it is important to promote this kind of voting opportunity so that those who avoid polling booths because of the mobs of people or long delays, are able vote early and get it out of the way. It also relieves a lot of tension in the days building up to the election and makes it easier to disregard propaganda in the media, knowing that your vote is already in.

Campbell Brown Shakes Things Up

Campbell Brown, political pundit and anchor on CNN, has been anchoring Election 2008 on CNN since February and the show was renamed after her this month: "Campbell Brown: No Bias, No Bull"--right before the election in order to ensure a smooth transition when the election is over. The show was meant to be called No Bias, No Bullshit but the network wouldn't approve. And viewers are definitely tuning in. The show is meant to be a completely objective take on politics and as Brown noted on Monday night's Daily Show, is not as liberal as “Countdown With Keith Olbermann” on MSNBC, and not as conservative as “The O’Reilly Factor” on Fox News.


Brown said of the show, "You're not going to see me ever be partisan." But that doesn't mean you won't see her take a stand. While the show presents the news objectively Brown also gives her own analysis of the news- for example, she gave a tough interview to the republican spokesperson that the campaign felt attacked the party, and is now questioning Obama's campaign finances.

The trouble is, most viewers feel that the show is definitely on the liberal side, but more importantly the analysis that Brown gives causes the show to blur the line between a hard news show and an editorial news show. Journalists are supposed to analyze the news though, and because she is critical of both parties (though Republicans may have more to criticize?) I think the show definitely gives a different opinion on politics, both during and after this election.

Upcoming Election Problems

We all obviously remember the fiasco that the polls caused in the 2004 election. It appears were in for more of the same in 2008. Not surprisingly states such as Florida and North Carolina are experiencing long lines already in the early voting. The BBC international recently covered some of the issues we are going to face next tuesday. Unfortunately the US is in the international spotlight and it appears we might be heading for another embarrasement on the 4th. 

This election has been enough of a circus as it is. 

C'mon life, cut us a break. 

In the media's defense...

During election periods, it is inevitable that a bias is going to show in the media. Saturday Night Live is going to make fun of all the candidates, magazines are going to publish unflattering pictures, and certain stories are going to be over-emphasized for all the wrong reasons. But we have to give them some credit; they're covering potentially the most revolutionary election we will ever be a part of. Of course there's going to be skepticism in who's being covered and how, but at least they're being covered. Fifty years ago it would be unheard of for a news channel to be interviewing a woman running for President. An African-American man would not get any facetime or credibility while running for the toughest job in our country. 

The media has covered the issues of this election, all be it not always directly, and has made America aware of the election. Personally I think the media is playing a huge role in the fact that record voter turn-out numbers are being predicted and many demographics who typically don't vote in elections are not only voting this November but also volunteering their time for the candidate of their choice. 

We can criticize the media for being biased or unfair, but at least for these past few months we've been saved from the celebrity rehab and divorce stories that used to dominate the headlines. At least they're reporting on things that actually matter to our country.

A Half-Hour Advert?

Obama paid 7 television networks to run a half-hour advertisement. It was shown on CBS, FOX and NBC, at a cost of $ 1 million per network BBC reports, as well as on the Spanish-language Univision, BET, MSNBC and TV One. In order to accommodate the program, FOX News didn't run its pre-game show ahead of the World Series fifth game.

While political campaigns spending large amounts of cash on advertising is not unheard of, Barack Obama's message is the first of its kind. Personally, I get bored of the political tv adverts after the first few times I catch them; and they only last for a few minutes! I cannot imagine sitting down to watch interviews of random people telling of their support for a candidate, the timing of which is the same length as a funny sitcom.

In looking at the media, it quickly becomes apparent that it seems to have some type of preference towards Obama.  This is evident on the Chicago Tribune website.  If you click on politics/election, you will find links to both a page for Obama and for McCain.  On Obama's page there are stories on how he promoting unity and change.  There was even a piece on how he visited his ailing grandmother.  When you look at McCain's page, the stories are strictly political.  In fact, a handful of the pieces are more focused on Obama than McCain.  It seems to me that the media has been doing a great deal of work to paint Obama as the family man while painting McCain as a hard political machine.

Along with this, the media coverage of Sarah Palin is anything but flattering.  Her recent Newsweek cover did not undergo retouching, something that is common practice in the media.  The Republican party spoke out against this picture, saying that it emphasized her "wrinkles, blemishes, pores, and facial hair".  I have to agree with the Republican party, here.  I believe that this was a calculated move to emphasize her age and along with that, remind the readers that her running mate is just as old.

I understand that people will always choose sides in an election, but that is not the media's role.  The media is supposed to be objective and I do not believe that their current actions support this.

Media and the 2008 Election

The 2008 election has continuous coverage by the media, coming from all sides. Barack Obama is constantly the center of attention in the race. He is covered by the media regarding all aspects of his life: his religion, origins, family, and much more. The coverage of the candidates comes across as a scandal. Oh, did you know this and that about so and so. The media can affect voters in a way that gives the media a lot of power, I mean, they are the ones that give us a lot of the information known about the candidates.

John McCain did not seem to attract the kind of attention Obama does, until he picked Sarah Palin as his running mate. Palin has caused a media frenzy. In the beginning the media knew almost nothing about her, and scrambled to dig up any information they could find. She went from being a complete unknown, to the spotlight in a matter of days. 

Tina Fey plays a fabulous Sarah Palin on SNL, so good it can be hard to tell the two apart. But the skits don't portray a version a Palin the country would respect. How much do SNL skits and Youtube videos affect voters opinions? Recently I watched a video on Youtube, starring Sarah Palin, at church being "de-witchitized."A witch doctor was ridding her body of all the witch spirits. How would voters react to this if national media were to pick up on it? 

Recently, it came out that Sarah Palin's wardrobe, hair, and make-up cost a significant amount of money taken from John McCain's campaign. The media caught hold of this, and in my opinion, blew it significantly out of proportion. But something like that will affect the way voters see the republican campaign.

All in all the media has a major affect on the outcome of the election. 

Palin's Ratings

CNN.com has been reporting that Sarah Palin's campaign could be hurting her chances based on how low her ratings have been. CNN.com is reporting that "Palin's core-conservative beliefs, demonstrated political acumen, and compelling frontier biography position her to reshape the face of a party now viewed by many voters as out of touch. It's a debate, somewhat ugly at times, that is beginning to play out in public view as Republicans brace themselves for the possibility of losing the White House and a significant number of seats in Congress come Election Day." The republican party is concerned with the fact that Palin could reshape the whole view of the White House. The Republican party feels that the White House will have an "identity crisis" because Palin is out of touch with what the people want. They are afraid that Palin is working for herself rather than the actual presidency. Palin is running her own campaign

Expectations>issues

In the Chicago Tribune today, "the talk" section mentioned the social phenomenon of brands defining candidates. In effect, writer John Keilman argues that the connations associated with products (Obamaian Sam Adams vs. McCainian Budweiser) can be extended to the Dem and Reb candidates.

I would argue that is a telling definition of this election's media coverage, and my primary complaint. Journalists assigned labes to Obama and McCain, often without any mention of their stance on issues. The subhead reads "Voters link each to products," but the reality is that the media usually made these connections and pushed onto a passive citizenry. When did expectations outweigh political developments and debates?

I feel as if the media had a ready-made portrayal of each candidate this entire year. The candidates themselves were merely incidental.

2008 Election Media Coverage

This may be stating the obvious, but it seems to me that the media has been favoring Barack Obama lately. However, I don't believe this was always the case. In the beginning of the election it seemed that Obama had no chance of winning this election. He was skewed unattractively by the media, claiming he had no experience and wasn't qualified to be President. Although those arguments still exist, Obama is increasingly winning over the media.

The media almost acts as a bully on the playground: Once they find someone better to torment, they leave their original victim alone. Their new victim is of course Sarah Palin, who offers up countless stories that are too good to let go. The media has thoroughly enjoyed pouncing on her every word and action. The media is less interested in the issues and just follows the story wherever it goes. And ever since McCain chose Palin as his running mate, the story has been on her. This could have been a great publicity stunt, but lately McCain's plan has been backfiring on him. The media has shown increasing disapproval of Palin from the general public.

Even when Biden shoots his mouth off, he still barely makes the media radar. And although Obama is still in the news, he's definitely been put on the back burner to Palin. He's really only in the news when the McCain campaign camp decides to attack him about some new accusation. But Obama refuses to lash out, therefore there's no real story to tell. In this case, less media coverage on Obama is working for him. The media is not painting Sarah Palin or John McCain in an attractive light, and with the election a week away, it might be too late for the McCain camp to turn things around. I think the media's portrayal of all the candidates during this campaign will have a huge impact on the result of this election.

McCain wins?

In this article by the Chicago Tribune, an editorial writer gives us reasons why Obama might not win on Tuesday. As was mentioned in a previous blog post, this is uncharacteristic for the media to portray Obama in a bad light, usually he seems to do no wrong in the media's eyes. However, the last reason was especially surprisingly. I was surprised that a newspaper would admit that this is even a factor for fear of ridicule, but to be honest this has happened before. It is called the "Bradley Effect," named after Tom Bradley, an African American who ran for California governor twice and lost. It is defined as "a tendency of voters to tell interviewers or pollsters that they are undecided or likely to vote for an African American candidate, but then actually vote for his Caucasian opponent," according to Wikipedia. Bradley was predicted to win by a large margin, but actually lost by quite a large margin. If this happened before, could it happen again? The media perpetuates the idea that Obama will win, because they hardly ever print negative things about him, so it isn't hard to see why some people might feel like they would be alienated if they admitted to liking McCain. It makes me wonder if the media telling us that Obama is going to win will actually lull his supporters into a false sense of security. They may think the work is done and that his win will be easy, but in fact it might not. This could be blamed on the media, and it would be terrible if this false sense of security hurt him on Tuesday.

Media as "The Watch Dog" or "The Stalker"

Since the publication of news papers, the media has assumed the role of the "watch dog" on the government. Collectively it has done a good job at keeping tabs on the government, especially the motives of politicians. Several scandals have been uncovered and first scooped by the media, revealing dirty politics and even dirtier politicians. One account was when writers from the Washington Post uncovered the Water Gate scandal during President Nixon's term. Today, with the accessibility of information and the public's ever increasing desire for the whole story, the media has crossed that fine line between "watch dog" and heavy stalker. Most recently, they have averted their attention and resources to stalking the Republican nominee for Vice President, Sarah Palin. Fairly unknown on a national level, Palin and her entire family have been experiencing the full force of the media ever since they were shoved into the spotlight. I understand that some people believe it is important to know everything about a candidate in order to trust them, but why do we need photos of her playing sports in High School? Who cares that she won a beauty pageant in Alaska? These minute details have no effect in the way I am going to vote, and if they have influence over others then I am concerned with the criteria on which these individuals base their votes. The Huffington Post has done an extraordinarily CREEPY job at digging up old Palin photos for one of their articles. When we are delving in to someone's past this way, or hacking into personal e-mail accounts, does anyone stop to ask whether or not this is morally expectable? I  don't think I like the way it looks like the media is handling their "watch dog" approach to politics. The public's need for information is getting out of hand, and is most likely only going to get worst. How can we stop this massive snowball from getting any bigger and destroying what government we have left? Or are we doomed to dealing with whatever scummy politicians are dumb enough to throw themselves into such a dirty game?

Does the Media Want Obama to Win?

According to an article on the Pew Research Center, voters believe that journalists want Obama to win this years election. They say that every year voters feel that the media favors the Democratic Party over the Republican, but this year it's by a margin of 70%-9%. This is a rather large difference from previous elections.

Keeping this thought in mind, another article from the Pew Research Center says that John McCain has been getting rather negative coverage from the media as opposed to Obama who seems to receive more positive coverage than negative.

Are these two articles really true, that the media is clearly favoring Obama in this election? Or could they just be fairly one sided? Who knows.

We would like to believe that journalists keep their political views out of their writing, especially when it comes to hard news. The notion of objectivity is not always as easy as it sounds, but journalists have an obligation to give people the facts, not opinions, when it comes to news.

It is very interesting, however, that every year since at least 1992, the public voters believe that the media favors the Democratic candidate over the Republican. Obviously if voters believe that journalists are not doing their job when it comes to giving people the hard facts, sans opinion.

The Historical 2008 Election

This year's election has been a great moment in history. It first started with the first woman to run for presidency, the first African-American man to run for presidency, and now a woman who has the chance to become president by becoming vice president. The media has made a big emphasis on covering all kinds of aspects of the elections. Some information has been helpful, but some has been for scandal.
The one thing I have noticed, along with other news watchers, that the media has made a huge emphasis on Barack Obama and little is seen or heard of John McCain. Barack Obama has been discussed over and over again in the news, in regards of his religion, his church, his beliefs. It seems what has happened in his life is so much more interesting to cover, or this is at least what the media has portrayed. McCain has been covered a little bit more now because the elections are near, but also because of his choice for vice president, Sarah Palin, who has made a big splash in the media. With all her controversy in her life, McCain and Palin have made big headlines.
It seems like the media portrays the candidates in a way that seems to be scandalous. They want the news to be like gossip more than information. An example can be Sarah Palin and her lifestyle. I do not see how that is more important to know than her policies for this country. On Obama's case, the fact of how he was raised and what goes on in his church, seemed to be a really big deal. I can see how these issues can be important in knowing the candidate, but I did not see many stories on what Obama plans to do for our country. Another reason why these two candidates have been in the news is because of their images. Both are considered good looking and young, while McCain is portrayed as being old and grumpy. This has happened before in history when JFK ran for presidency. The media covered him a lot because he was handsome and had a movie star presence. It seems that the presence of a candidate will affect how the media and public perceive him/her.
It has also been such a big election because of the issues that are current. Many people are worried about the economy, oil, war, and personal issues that they may be facing. These topics will be greatly affected based on who will be voted in to make changes in our country. Because of this, it seems that people seem to lean towards Obama because he represents different beliefs. It seems that the media is looking for someone who will be different from other candidates to attract people.
I have to admit that it may not be all the media portraying the elections this way, but the majority have made this impression on me as well as other people.
The one thing that I have recognized and appreciate (maybe because I am older) is the fact that the media has been making a big deal about the elections. It is something very important and it should be covered intensely to get people to vote and voice their beliefs. It should also be covered to educate people and this year it is really great that it has been covered so much because it is such a great moment in history. It seems that this year, so many young people want to voice their opinions by voting and the media has played a big role in this. This is something that I feel is extremely good because it allows the youth to learn about making important decisions.

"Swinginess"

No one should have an excuse for voting uninformed because there are so many outlets of information that it is impossible not to know what is going on in the 2008 election. But, deciding which candidate to choose can pose a bigger problem for some voters who are torn between the two candidates. I think it’s really cool how the media (i.e. the internet) has created things such as the Swing Vote Calculator to show how affective people in certain states with no allegiance can be. For example, with my demographics (IL, white, female, some college education, 18-29, Protestant), my “swinginess” is a 27 out of 100 but if I lived one state over in Indiana, my “swinginess” would be 100 out of 100. Since it’s not possible to know what either candidate will or will not do in his time in the White House, any vote is fair game but it is more effective in different states due to different demographics. How much influence do swing voters have in the election though? According to an article from Boston Globe and a study done by a Democratic Council , swing voters sway the vote by 6.7 percentage points between elections that Democrats win and lose. For the presidential candidates, influencing these “supervoters” as Reader’s Digest calls them is very crucial for the success of a candidate because they have the potential to determine the winner next Tuesday!

Media Coverage of the 2008 Election

In regards to the news coverage of the 2008 election I think they have done their job: those who rarely watched campaigns, debates, polls in the past are now tuning in almost religiously. The media have covered all angles of the campaign race and have used all mediums to broadcast their findings. Regardless of “media favoritism” during election-time, or how ethically they go about their job, I truly think good journalism has been seen at many times throughout this election. I have my personal frustrations with the election and the media, but I put this aside to look objectively into what is being produced to the world. 

Journalist have a loyalty to the citizens first and fore most, and I think they have done a great job at catering to liberals, republicans, independents, men, women of all ages and all ethnic backgrounds. I would never want to be a political reporter because of all the stress involved, but I give them much credit for following the campaign and reporting the FACTS as they find them best to their knowledge. 

I know this is the first time in my 22 years of life I have ever cared so much about an election, and been able to get basic facts, in depth facts, and gossip on any one of the candidates. I appreciate that, and in turn it makes me rely on the news media, and gives me hope that they will continue to do their job as they are doing now. 

Presidential Assassination Scare

I'm sure it has crossed some peoples' minds...as much as we don't want to think or talk about it, and as much as many of us are praying nothing like this would happen. I'm talking about the possibility of a presidential assassination.
Some of you have probably heard about the neo-Nazi skinheads who were planning on assassinating Barack Obama. The story broke on major news outlets last night. The federal government has broken up the plan and all is hunky dory now.
But, should this story have even been broadcasted? It was absolutely newsworthy. It was major national news. But did the public really have to know this? No. Was it worth a small public scare? No. Might this create copy-cat scares? It's possible.
The media has the power to control what the public knows. Was this socially responsible of the media to broadcast this story? I don't think so.

Unethical Journalism at Its Finest

There is no doubt that this election has been one of the most important elections in United States history, but has the media taken this election too far? A new controversy over the recent issue of Newsweek magazine, which has an untouched photo of Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin on the cover, represents how unethical and bitter the media has been with this election. The photo shows all of Palin’s imperfections and Newsweek attempts to use this photo to represent her “average American” identity. I just don't understand why the media is consistently focusing on issues in the election that are irrelevant to our country. Showing Sarah Palin's wrinkles and pores doesn't make her a better or worse candidate. Either does constantly speaking about Barack Obama's race. There have been so many controversies and issues in this campaign that focus a great deal of attention to physical attributes, causing our society to be less and less informed about the real issues within our country. I think journalists are doing this intentionally to promote their ideas and opinions about this election to sway voters in a specific direction. Instead of getting people excited about this election, I feel like they are ruining it with their biased opinions and it is a huge shame. It is a shame not only because it is unethical and unfair, but also because they are causing society to be less informed which will dig us into a deeper hole than we already are in.

Print Jounalism is Dying

We've been hearing it for a while now- print journalism is dying. At the Christian Science Monitor print journalism is dead. The paper has stopped publishing its print edition and is now online only, because of cost issues. As an aspiring journalist this makes me question- by the time I'm in the field will there ONLY be online newspapers? And if so how bad will that be? I'll still get to write, it just won't be tangible. Does that make a difference?

I read an editorial article in Vanity Fair this month titled "The News Blues" that takes a look at the state of the world now in comparison to many other times in history but specifically how the media is contributing to the downfall. He goes onto discuss how the media contributes to the anxiety disorders that plague our nation, and he truly believes that the media is making everything much more negative than it actually is. 

Personally, I agree with some statements, but not all of them. Yes, the media does tend to report on negative incidents more often than everyday heart-warming stories, but that's because the information from them pertains to us everyday. Yes, it's nice to hear about someone saving a puppy, but information on a child abduction is actually something we could potentially contribute to. 

One quote really stuck out at me: "To watch archive footage of TV reporters from the black-and-white era with their measured intonations and ashen visages—before everybody burst into Michael Kors orange—is to crack open the crypt on a more responsible, somber, and, yes, duller era, when journalists still conducted themselves as a priestly caste serving the needs of an informed citizenry, as opposed to catering to cud-chewing dolts. (p.1)"

As we evaluate the news for its flaws, we should keep in mind that the media is there to inform us - it may not be what tugs at our heart strings, but then again is it really supposed to?

Newspaper endorsement

Last week, the Chicago Tribune endorsed Barack Obama. A historical endorsement, because it was the first time ever that the paper had endorsed a Democratic candidate for the presidency. Some have argued that newspapers should no longer endorse political candidates. I, for one agree with the Time magazine managing editor when he says:

"Sure, I know the history and the tradition, the fact that newspapers in the 18th and 19th centuries were often affiliated with political parties, but why do they do it now? Why do it at a time when the credibility and viability of the press are at all-time lows? More important, why do it at a time when readers, especially young readers, question the objectivity of newspapers in particular and the media in general?"

Editor and Publisher editor Greg Mitchell defended the practice however on In The Media. I did not find his argument very convincing though, as he mainly seemed to argue (based on anecdotal evidence) that endorsements make a difference, not that these endorsements are necessary.

Palin's Strong Influence

With Halloween right around the corner, many people are questioning what their costume will be and while many have the freedom to choose, people in West Hollywood, California might not be so lucky. The city officials are discussing a potential limitation for the public by creating a ban for drag queens and other “party goers” to dress up as Republican V.P. candidate, Sarah Palin. The McCain campaign does not approve of this ban, referring to it as a deliberate attempt to decrease the Republican vote. Even though there are probably many more issues that deserve greater attention, this story was just too amusing to pass up. The Republican Party wants people to start taking Palin more seriously, so wouldn’t it be rational not to endorse drag queens and other “party goers” to dress up as her for Halloween? Especially since the polls are showing that she is having such a huge influence on voters. Was this a joke intended just to get a reaction out of the Republican Party? If so, this is really taking the elections to a whole new level, which isn't surprising.

Power to the People!

How about this blog-stone? This story, about a blogger who became a go-to source for aviation experts, shows how easy getting some information is these days. Working on a laptop out of his Boston living room, the guy (with neither journalism nor aviation training) has "significantly altered how aerospace is covered." A business such as Boeing was forced to adapt its media relations to HIM. Might this be the start of something, in terms of industry scoops being forwarded to one central blog?

the "unbiased" news

The Chicago Tribune's editorial board announced today that they endorse Barack Obama for President of the United States. I understand that this newspaper is in Chicago, where Obama is from, and that based on the rights to free speech these members are allowed to express their beliefs and views. But is this really appropriate? In a time where the media is continuously accused of having a liberal bias when they're supposed to report unbiased news, is this the right thing to do? Should they really openly admit to endorsing the democratic candidate? I think this potentially could present a dilemma for some readers who are either republican or undecided; maybe now they won't trust the stories presented because they know the paper favors Obama.

Breast Cancer Awareness Month

Since October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month, I want to share some information about breast cancer to help give women and men a better understanding of it's prevention in hopes to prevent many from attaining the disease. Notice how I included men? Although it is seldomly discussed, men are at risk for breast cancer even though it is more commonly diagnosed in women. The cause of breast cancer is not quite known for sure, but many researchers believe that like many other forms of cancer, it is a result of an intherited gene mutation. Lorie Parch, author of "What Causes Breast Cancer?", states scientists know for a fact that "mutations to the BRCA-1 and BRCA-2 (Breast Cancer 1 and 2) genes, which normally help prevent cancer by regulating cell growth, are linked to an increased risk for breast and ovarian cancer." A person is at a greater risk for breast cancer if, for example, they have a family history of the disease or the gene mutation. Some common warning signs of the disease include "a change in the look or feel of the breast," pain or discomfort in the breast area, as well as, "a change in the look or feel of the nipple and nipple discharge." The best way to test for breast cancer, however, is to see your nearest physician and ask for a mammography, which is a process of x-rays that examine the breast for lumps or masses. Medicine Plus suggests that it is necessary to get a mammogram if you are a woman older than 40 or if you have a history of the disease, no matter what age you are.

And the best informed audience members are....

Last year, a study by the PEW research center found that by and large, Jon Stewart's audience is the best informed on current events. However, in a more recent study the Jon Stewart Show and the Colbert report came in in the middle of the pack when it comes to political knowledge, well behind the likes of NPR, The New Yorker, Hannity and Colmes and...Rush Limbaugh, but ahead of O'Reilly, C-span and Leno. Also interesting, people who watch the Colbert report seem to be better informed than those who watch the Jon Stewart show. To measure their level of knowledge of political events, participants were asked to name the controlling party of the U.S. House of Representatives, the U.S. secretary of state and Great Britain's prime minister.

Keep on rockin'

Rolling Stone magazine, famous (or notorious, depending on whom you ask) for its oversized physical format, has just changed its size to match other magazines. This on the heels of The Atlantic's redesign and the Chicago Tribune redesign already mentioned in this blog.

Almost universally, the motive has been to "adapt to the times." Sure, that makes sense. But when that translates more pictures and less text, what does that say about society? Just by glancing at our media styles can we see the true meaning of "tuning out." What's next?

The Presidential Debate, of course

I watched the Presidential debate tonight, as I'm sure everyone else did. But then I watched the Fox News post-debate show H & C. I thought the coverage was completely biased and ridiculous. I happened to see the show yesterday and the guest was McCain's daughter. The Republican host did all the talking and bashed Obama with her, the one Democrat representative was basically hushed in the background. Tonight Fox polled their viewers and at the bottom it showed the results. It said that 87% of viewers thought McCain won and 11% thought that Obama won. I thought that was ridiculous, and completely showed how biased Fox is that only conservatives seem to watch it. Their guest tonight was Geraldine Ferraro, a Democrat, but she made some comment that the viewers texting in their responses were all youngsters using their cell phones. It seems to me that Fox viewers are mostly Republican...

Standing Versus Sitting

Today I decided to keep the news on in the background whenever I could because tonight is debate night, they are going on right now, but im studying in the library and I will get to hear exactly what I want to when I turn on Fox News in the morning.

The subject of the candidates sitting at a table instead of standing came up a few times. Analysists mentioned how a speaker sitting comes off as less of a leader, not as influential, and less combative.

Maybe McCain will not get winded?

I do not see the point in the sitting or even discussing it on the news.

Like a boy...

Lately it seems in the media that there has been a lot of women empowerment. From Hilary Clinton and Sarah Palin to music videos like Beyonce’s Like a Boy and Britney’s Womanizer, women are becoming more involved in society/politics and speaking up about what they see as inequalities. I think that today more than ever there is more equality in the workplace and such but are women’s’ sexuality hindering or helping? In Britney’s video she’s singing about a guy because he is a “womanizer” but she is dancing around in a provocative way and is barely clothed and some parts naked. I think that she is in some ways contradicting herself and just confusing young girls who see the video to have bad ideas towards men. I’m glad Britney is back (sorry to everyone who just rolled their eyes!) but is her image empowering women to want to be equals in relationships or are they just setting themselves up ? Beyonce’s video can be paralleled to Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s short story“If I were a Man”, and is in a man’s shoes for a day and to have a different view of how society views men and women differently. It’s not fair to generalize the entire male population to be “womanizers” just because the actions of a few men. But, are women making themselves empowered in a positive way or are they simply hating on guys like in Beyonce’s and Britney’s videos?

Blogging about blogs.

I have started to realize people blog about anything and everything. I had some spare time just to research this. By research, I sat on my couch with a buddy of mine and we googled various topics that we thought no one could want to ramble about. Yet, the internet is perfect for people such as I who require ample stimuli. That and the combination of weird stuff out there, its a match made in heaven. 

For example, there is a sport called wife carrying,

grand prize is your wives weight in beer....awesome. 

Back to the issue at hand. There are hamster blogs that also have links to dog blogs. There are adult content blogs....I will not share a link, you can do that on your own time, perverts. 

What it comes down is that there are people out there in the world, my guess mostly residing in east LA, who think people care about anything in their tired lives. The fact that my research increased the hits on these blogs I am not proud of. 

Theres a blog, that people blog about the blogosphere. 

The most common type of blog out there according to blogdirectory.com, is the humor genre.

This includes categories such as observational humor and social commentary. 

There are roughly 4990 people who think they are a walking seinfeld episode basically and 10 funny ones. 

There are people who are fighting back. One such case was a recent attack on social commentators in the hipster world. Sidenote, buying your outfits exclusively from urban outfitters is not legit. Stop it. 

So, this guy textually assaults one of the hipster figureheads Sarah Morrison. Shes tight with Katy Perry...Nuff said.She blogs for a couple of the hipster sites such as Missbehave magazine and DJ Skeetskeets private blog. I will give them credit for repping DJ'S like Justice, Flosstradamus, and Girltalk like three years ago. But we still have beef over the goofy colorful sunglasses worn indoors. 

Here is the Email sent to Sarah. 

The one sent to people in the hipster community. 

It made me think, is blogging just a trendy tool that will fade because it could get played out by the wrong people or is it legitimate and here to stay?

I feel like people like blogging about politics for the same reason they have their own go green shopping bag. Not to help the enviroment but to say "Look how progressive I am!!!"

I realize this was a somewhat of a long diatribe, but I was on a roll.

Any thoughts??

"Does the campaign trail still matter much in an age of digital warfare? " asks Howard Kurtz, columnist for the Washington Post. In his article he talks about because of new technology people are finding out what happens on the campaign trail before it even gets published in the news. Does that make a difference on how the campaign is promoted? I think that the campaign trail is still really important because a lot of people want to be shown that their candidate cares about them. They want to see their candidate talk to them at functions and other events not just on TV. Because of the new technology some newspapers can't afford to keep journalists on the campaign trail but have them blog which some people say is just as effective. So, are journalists' advantages of following the campaign trail so closely dwindling or is following the campaign trail as effective as it ever was?

Media Moguls Discuss Blogging & Journalism

Rick Stengel, editor of Time magazine, offered his views on blogging and how it's affecting media today at a panel this afternoon at the Time Warner Politics Summit 2008. The panel also garnered comments from Politico co-founder Jim Vandehei and Jon Klein, president of CNN.

Stengel said this about blogging: "The thing I like about blogging is it's democratic with a small 'd.' It allows people to be involved who wouldn't otherwise be involved. At the same time it doesn't have the rigor we would have traditionally....On the one hand I like the idea of no gatekeepers. On the other hand it means a lot of information gets out there that's absolutely not correct."

Vanity Fair editor Graydon Carter took the oppostie viewpoint, telling all who gathered he doesn't want the journalists working for him trying to compete with the kids in the blogosphere.

The discussion, moderated by CNN's Campbell Brown, focused on what blogs are doing to journalism and whether it's good or bad.

Reality Television- the decline

Today was a sad day for me. While at my friend's apartment flipping through channels, we came across what has to be the worst idea for a reality television show of all time. Paris Hilton has a show on MTV called "Paris Hilton: My New BFF". 

And I thought that "the Real World" was a joke. 

This show is entirely dedicated to women (and one guy) degrading themselves to the childish wishes of a self proclaimed star. I was only able to watch about ten minutes of it before I had to change the channel. What is with these cheesy shows that depict people as attention hungry crazies? Why are they so popular? There is no substance, no point, and no gain from shows such as this.

Watch the trailer for Paris Hilton: My New BFF

Sports Announcers

I have a question for all you sports fans out there that listen to sports broadcasting on the radio and/or on TV. Do you ever get annoyed when a sports announcer shares his/her enthusiasm or frustration with the peformance of the team they are broadcasting?

For example, if you are watching the CUBS, and Theriot strikes out...does it bother you when the announcer will say something like"Oh, no! What a bad call". Or if "D. Lee" hits a routine fly ball to the outfield and the announcers proclaim "It's outta there...it's outta there...oh no, its not, they caught it...ugh."

These may be slight exaggerations; however it happens often with many broadcasters and I find it completely unprofessional. I feel that although someone may only broadcast for the Sox, Cubs, Dodgers, Bulls, or Dolphins... their emotions should be in check. I know this may be difficult in games such as the World Series but I don't like it when broadcasters act as though they are both FANS and ANNOUNCERS during the broadcast.

I may just be very nit-picky but come on-just tell me what is happening (2 balls 1 strike, man on 3rd, touchdown...and so on). When they add agression or excitement it makes me question their credibility a little bit.

Just my thoughts, but during this past baseball season, it really began to bug me and my boyfriend and we turned off broadcasts in protest. Do you find it unprofessional? Or does this not bother anyone much??

Troopergate

The verdict is in!

BBC News reported that Sarah Palin was found guilty of abusing her power. CNN reports that Mrs Palin abused her power, but broke no law. The state legislature investigated the issue, commonly dubbed 'Troopergate', compiling a 1000 page report as people outside the courthouse dressed in clown suits & decried the probe as a 'three-ring circus'.

What is the issue? Apparently while governor, Sarah Palin urged Walter Monegan, Alaska's Public Safety Commissioner, to fire a particular trooper, Mike Wooten. As governor, she is within her rights to request that. Monegan refused, sensing that the real reason behind the attempted firing was because State Trooper Wooten was at the time in brutal divorce proceedings with Mrs Palin's sister. As a result of resisting pressure, Mr Monegan was fired over budgetary disputes in July.

I think this outcome will affect & change at least a few voters' minds. If the Republicans win the nomination for the White House, how would Sarah Palin wield her power then?

And So the Fireside Chats Return

This is about my post "Obama Reminiscent of FDR" published on September 29, 2008. The 2 minute ad is now being played on the OBAMA CHANNEL- channel 73 on the Dish Network. The channel is playing the ad on a loop over and over 24 HOURS A DAY. The Obama campaign is hoping the cable channel will reach viewers and inevitably advertise Obama's views.
I just did the math and it comes out to a total of 720 ad runs per day. Maybe it's just me but that seems a tad repetitive and little 1984ish (George Orwell's)--burning the message into the viewers brain.

ESPN Overload

Have you checked out the ESPN website lately? If you have, maybe you've experienced the same shock when the automatic news reel and advertisements start playing. As soon as the website uploads, the videos start playing on the right side of the screen. First, there is usually an ad from the sponsor, followed by a shortened version of Sports Center. These clips give you a few highlights and sound bites, probably trying to lure the viewer in for the whole story. It is a good tactic for publicity and probably will increase viewership, but it is really annoying.  Is it right that these videos should pop up instantly without the users approval? I had my volume on the highest setting, and when this video came up it really made me jump. I think it also distracted everyone else in the Terry Food Court (Baumhart's dining hall). How far does ESPN or any other news station for that matter need to go to get attention? Does this mean that ratings or viewers are down and they're trying to reach out the the online crowd? Whatever it is, it bugs me. Does this bother anyone else or am I just being picky?

The Underdogs Advance!!!

The Boston Red Sox beat the Los Angeles Angels 3-2 in the bottom of the ninth inning to advance to American League Championship Series for the fourth time in six seasons. Of course the media interviewed the starter Jon Lester, cancer survivor, because he started the game, but that was not the real hero of the game. The media forgot to the mention that Jed Lowrie, Red Sox shortstop, became the fourth rookie in major league history to have the game-winning hit in a series-clinching division game. Jed Lowrie accomplished a major feat and helped the Red Sox advance. It was a team effort and when Terry Francona, the manager of the Red Sox was being interviewed by the media, he eluded to the fact it was a very special night for the Boston Red Sox as a team and he was proud of them for what they did on the field and what they have done all year.

Amy Winehouse-potential scientologist??

As disgusted I am by Amy Winehouse, I also feel really bad for her. She has a lot of problems and needs to stay in rehab. But, I think that all the attentions the media gives her is just magnifying her situation. I don't think that the media should be portraying peoples' drug abuse and other issues especially since it is such a private matter. She knows how bad her problem is and now scientologists are trying to convert her and Tom Cruise is claiming that he's helped hundreds of drug abusers. The word "scientology" just makes the media go crazy because of Tom Cruise and other followers. I think the media should just leave her alone to be with her family and let her sort out her life.

Saturday Night Live

Tina Fey portrayed Palin on Saturday Night Live. Tina Fey retired from Saturday Night Live several years ago to make and star in movies with her partner in crime, Amy Poehler. Every now and then she will come back to do a mockery of "Weekly Update" which is a skit that shows real news, but she makes the news hysterical. Tina Fey looked and spoke exactly like Palin. At one point, they put their pictures side by side and you really could not tell them apart. For years, Saturday Night Live has made fun of politics especially around election time because it gives them the best stuff to work with. Once again, Saturday Night Live did a great job making politics humorous.

BOSTON RED SOX!!!!

The media coverage was all over game 1 of the Red Sox v. the Angels. Game 1 starter, Jon Lester, was not only a young pitcher to be starting the playoffs, but he also battled through cancer. Last season he close the World Series with a victory and he did the same this year in the playoffs as well. The media did not care about the win or Jon Lester's talent from the Red Sox, but they focused on how he overcame cancer and won the 1st game of the playoffs away in Los Angeles. In my opinion, the media could not have done anything better with comments on the 24 year old cancer survivor.

VP Style

In one of my classes today we were talking about whether Gwen Ifill should be allowed or not allowed to be the moderator tonight. She may or may not have a bias in her book coming out but I don’t think that she is going to have that much of an impact whether the viewers think which candidate does better. In this article it talks about the style and presentation of the candidates is going to influence how the viewers perceive them. Allan Louden, a communications professor at Wake Forest University, said about presentation, “Does this matter? Yes, because we judge these things by our own personal life experience and we judge by how they treat each other. It provides an insight into character.” People can either base their opinions solely on what the candidates say or a combination of their answers and how the candidates present themselves. If the debate was not broadcasted by the media on television and was only on the radio, would it make a difference how the candidates are perceived? Looking at the first debate ever televised Nixon/Kennedy 1960 and due to Nixon’s sickly demeanor from being injured and 20 pounds under weight, Kennedy looked fantastic in comparison and the viewers focused on what they saw and what they heard. For tonight's debate, neither candidate is ill but how they present themselves is going to influence voters opinions.

Long Live A Legend

Actor, sports and racing fanatic Paul Newman lost his battle with cancer and died at the age of 83. He rocked the movie industry with spots in The Color of Money and The Hustler, but the first movie that the media showed to grab everyone's attention was his wise - cracking role in one of the greatest hockey movies of all time, SLAPSHOT. He played a player - coach who had a rag bunch hockey team who were led by the Hanson brothers. The media remembered him as one of the greatest actors who gave back to the community as well as being a huge sports fan. It was the only way he should be remembered.

Rupert Murdoch, a man to watch out for

Over the weekend I was reading the October 2008 issue of Vanity Fair and I really enjoyed an article by Michael Wolff about Rupert Murdoch, the owner of the Wall Street Journal. First of all, the journalist was very persistent in his interviews with Murdoch, and even though he went in with preconceived notions about Murdoch, he still delivered. I was also intrigued by their discussions on newspapers and how much political controversy really surrounds every aspect of Murdoch's decisions. He already is one of the most powerful people in the media, owning one of the most famous papers in the world, and he doesn't plan to stop anytime soon. They continued to discuss the impact he would have on acquiring other newspapers and outlets, and properly ended the story stating, "It continues to all depend on him." Is it possible that one man could truly have the power to control and potentially change the media as we know it? 

Burning Down the House

Because of the recent failure to vote for the bailout plan, the media is going to be finding many causes for the problem. Also, because of the election many people are going to be putting democrats against republicans in an effort to cast blame away from themselves. For example “Burning Down The House” blames the democrats even though it is a problem the entire country has to deal with. This video shows lots of charts, graphs and has a soundtrack which sort of distracted me from what it was trying to explain. I think its a good idea to create something simple for those who didn't follow closely the economic decline of our country but I also feel like the media should try to produce an un-biased account of what really happened so the country can know all the facts instead of hearing news stories here and there about the bailout plan all of the sudden.

"Sexy Puritan" or "rightwing-Christian anti-choice extremist"

I've always though labels are the lazy journalist's best friend. Skip the complexities, because it's SO much easier to label him as "conservative" or her as "activist." This article from Slate comments on media attempts to label Palin in a comedic tone; I find it a bit alarming that media actually tries to categorize someone, especially an interesting individual such as Sarah Palin! "Hockey mom" does not do her justice! Plus, are we getting the full story if we marginalize someone like this?

Obama Reminiscent of FDR

Obama is using a method FDR used to use to fight back against the ads the McCain campaign is producing. FDR used to do "fireside chats" over the radio to create a sense of familiarity with the people. One of Obama's newest ads has done just that. Usually campaign ads are thirty seconds long, filled with dramatic music, a serious voice-over, and bad pictures of the opposing candidate attacking his stance. Obama's campaign though has put out an ad that is an entire two minutes long, has no music in the background, and the only person's voice is Obama's who speaks directly to the viewer about what he plans to do, without attacking McCain once. The ad is meant to run in swing states and its popularity gives way that this isn't going to be the only "fireside chat" with Barack Obama.

Entertainment Weekly Knows Where It's At

I'm sure most of you remember The New Yorker's cover of the Obamas seen through Republicans eyes. Barack is dressed in "typical" Muslim garb, while Michelle dons full combat gear. The New Yorker cover was meant to critique the Republican view of the Obamas but the Obama campaign did not think it was funny. Now Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert (who else?) grace the cover of Entertainment Weekly in tribute to The New Yorker. Entertainment Weekly also did an interview with Stewart and Colbert and both do an excellent job of critiquing the candidates, their campaigns, and the media. Evidently with this issue, Entertainment Weekly definitely knows that they're doing when it comes to selling magazines.

What you could learn in a minute.

I was looking through the BBC new website today and found that I could receive what BBC considers the most important news headlines in less than a minute. BBC has a link on their website BBC One-Minute World News that highlights major headlines in the media. It is updated 24 hours and the one I watched noted President Bush's meeting with congressional members and presidential candidates about the financial rescue plan, then it moved on to report the swearing in of the new South African President, US troops engaging in open fire with Afghanistan after a US helicopter was shot down, and finally the launching of the third Chinese space craft...devoting less than 20 seconds to each topic. I understand the fast-past culture of our society, and maybe BBC One-Minute World News was aimed to keep up. Or perhaps, BBC news hoped that people would watch the clips and do further investigation on their own, but is this really likely. Considering the importance of these events and the affect they could have on our nation and even the world, is it to much to ask for more than 20 seconds each?

The Chicago Tribune's Gets a Makeover

Come Monday, September 29, you may hardly recognize the paper that you have known and been reading for years. The Chicago Tribune is going under some major plastic surgery in hopes to bring in more of the younger generation. They are responding to the decline in newspaper sales by making their paper more reader-friendly and more intriguing for young readers.

They are even changing their head logo, which has been the same for well over a hundred years. Instead of having the words 'Chicago Tribune' next to each other, they will be stacked on top of one another. This will leave space for pictures from the top stories inside the newspaper.

I also heard that the newspaper considered changing their name to 'The Trib'
the nickname many of us have come to associate with them. I read an article about this change that may take place, but they have decided against it.

In one of my classes we talked about this and some students said that if they did change their name to The Trib, it would make them not want to read the Tribune. They said they would not take them seriously anymore.

I think that the Tribune is doing whatever it takes to save their paper in these hard times, and they're making a smart move but I don't think it will do any good. It may cause some buzz and initially people may be interested in their new look, but I don't see it lasting. Newspapers need to face that times are changing. The internet is the new direction to go when it comes to news and media. I think newspapers need to follow that path and see where it takes them.

Will Yahoo! fall short?

I came across an article in the Chicago Tribune announcing Yahoo!'s new campaign to better target the ads on their webpages to the customers viewing them. Their main focus this time around is on newspaper companies who are "hoping for relief from the decline in their industry," specifically, the fact that ads are not generating as much revenue as they could be. But I wonder how much these ads will really help them out. Yes, we all see the ads as we're clicking through webpages, whether it's news on Yahoo! or our friend's profile on Facebook, but how often does anyone actually click on them, and then make a purchase from the company?

We talk about wanting to just get the news online, being able to search for specific types of articles, or just read about a few topics here and there. Is this investment worth it, playing on the fact that we are a very ADHD nation and will probably divert to an advertisement's page because we become "bored" so quickly? Or is this just another aim to improve the news industry that will fall short because it's not what people want to see or care to look at when they're reading about the latest news?

Media is Raisin' (or lowering) McCain

I was watching Fox News this morning and they had a guest appearance, John Rich, who wrote a song to support the McCain campaign. After watching the clip on Fox News I went to Youtube and found the clip of the "Raisin' McCain" music video. John Rich played the song on Aug. 1, 2008 in Panama City, Florida at a rally for the GOP presumptive nominee on the Florida Panhandle, however the song is starting to pick up more coverage, as it was aired on Fox News today. It must be stated that the McCain campaign DID NOT ask Rich to write this song. Rich stated, the song was inspired by John McCain's "true heroism." Rich said that people were saying stated that not many younger people supported McCain, and therefore he wanted to show his enthusiasm while encouraging others to do the same. After looking up the clip on Youtube, and watching it again, I felt disgusted. Is this really what American politics has come to, music videos to dazzle the voters? Whether one prefers Obama or McCain as their candidate of choice, I believe the matter here lies within the media's role as a gatekeeper in communications. Music videos of little value, such as this one, should not be a deciding factor in choosing a president and therefore should not be promoted by the media. If someone wants to write a song about a presidential candidate, that's great, but leave the music videos to MTV and out of the news.

What is Newsworthy?

In our last class someone (I forget who, sorry) suggested that the paper news should focus less on entertainment and the arts and etc, and focus more on just the world and local news. When I first heard this suggestion I thought it was terrible (as those are my favorite parts of the paper) but it got me thinking about what is newsworthy. For as long as I can remember the news has tried to be a little bit of everything. World news, local news, weather, sports, fluff pieces, comics, fashion, you name it, the paper covers it. But do articles about new recipes or finding your perfect jeans really belong in the New York Times? After all, if you are really interested in these things, wouldn't you be more likely to buy a magazine devoted entirely to the subject? I personally would miss the comics and the advice sections if they were gone, but maybe the news having something for everyone is no longer practical.

Skinny Minny

So I was in line at the grocery store and saw an article about the new '90210' girls being uber skinny. I didn't read it at the time and didn't think too much about it but then I just saw the article again on MSN. I just think it's sad how the media praises women for achieving a certain weight but then attacks these girls for being so skinny. Obviously there is a weight loss/gain issue in society because when they are not talking about how skinny someone is they are talking about how much weight someone gained and that they look bad. If a person feels comfortable in their body, then good for them. The media is so nit-picky about weight that if they stopped portraying super skinny women or harassing larger women there most likely would not be so many problems with eating disorders and women (and some men) feeling like they have to look, dress, and be a certain size to be celebrity like.

Do you Want the Palin Look?

I was checking my e-mail when I came across a video on Sara Palin. I posted the link here, but I am sorry if it will not come up on another page since it is really long. I just thought it was interesting how Fox News covered the story of Palin's hair stylist. It seems like a really big deal where she gets her hair done. I just do not understand why this is so important. It seems like the media is trying to make her more approachable, more like a person. I can understand why they do these kinds of stories. They are trying to make the public see that the candidates are real people and that they do the same things we do. These stories put them on our level, in a sense. It just amazed me how important it seems to Fox News where Palin gets her hair done. I think they should be covering more important things.

The media's hand in the financial fall outs

I came across this article in the NY Times regarding the way journalists have been covering the recent financial fall outs occurring in our country. I thought it was interesting that these journalists have been self-sensoring themselves in order to avoid a national panic. One of the most critical issues in journalism from the past and today is the issue of censorship, whether it's from government, corporations, etc. In this case, the journalists are utilizing this very thing in order to protect the citizens of the nation and their own reputations after much blame has been placed on them in the past regarding other Wall Street scandals/fall outs.

Britney Spears' Comeback

Lots of people are starting to see a much healthier looking Britney Spears.  Good for her.

But sadly and naturally, the media is looking the other way.  Even when many media outlets, blogs, and websites claimed that they were interested in Britney when she was in and out of hospitals and rehab clinics because they cared.  Well, if they cared, why aren't they interested now that she is looking better? 

Am I the only one that thinks that newsworthiness shouldn't be based on how badly someone is doing?

Subliminal bias?

Picking up the New York Times today, watching CNN and MSNBC, and glancing at the Sun-Times in 7-11, I noticed one thing: news outlets almost always mention Obama first when recapping the news. The blue candidate's name appears first, or his story is run closer to the top of the page, or there are simply more pictures of him. Its uncanny--look for it. While, granted, Obama's candidacy has set the larger precedent, and McCain has been grabbing a few more headlines because of his running mate (this could all change in a few weeks) it is a bit telling. Is the media just more excited to spotlight Obama? The better question: is that fair?

Have Your Say

We have been talking in class about the ways in which the media is trying to interact with the public more so when I noticed this section on BBC news I was really excited. Although I have heard about the recent financial crisis I've found it hard to really follow. I don't have any stocks or bonds, I don't have a mortgage, and I don't know anything about Wall Street. For me, BBC's "Have Your Say" page has been far more informative than any in-depth article on exactly what went wrong. Yes, some posters may be way off-base but at least one can usually find a variety of opinions. As much as I love the paper news, it cannot compete with the internet for mass interaction.

JonBenet Ramsey

I was watching Oprah a few days ago--the topic of the show was 'child abduction, molestation, and child pornography in the United States.' 

One of her guests was JonBenet Ramsey's father, John Ramsey--who was recently found not guilty for the murder of his daughter by new evidence.  What he said about the case and the media was very interesting.  He said that the media gave a very unreal image of JonBenet and the entire family.  Here were his main points:

-The media portrayed JonBenet's mother, Patty, as 'one of those mothers' who forces their daughter to enter beauty pageants.  This, John claims, is not true.  Patty was a supportive mom who knew pageantry and helped JonBenet do them.

-JonBenet was only a beauty princess.   This wasn't true either, John said.  She was involved in a lot of other activities and genuinely had her mother's spirit (who was also did pageants) and enjoyed being in pageants.  She played sports and took dance classes and did other things that 6-year-olds do.

I think I believe John Ramsey, even though anyone would defend their family against the media.  If John Ramsey is telling the truth about his family, the media really dropped the ball on this one.

   

Sexy Baristas

At first glance I just thought this article about scantily clad coffee girls was pretty funny, but once I got into it it really troubled me. I hate to be yet another person in media crying sexism, but I certainly don't see any sexed up male baristas in the pictures. Also it raises some disturbing questions about consumers. Steve McDaniel, owner of Java Girls said in the article that "we stimulate the sexual imagination to drive our coffee sales". Does your sexual imagination really need to be stimulated while buying coffee? And while I know that good latte making abilities and hotness are not mutually exclusive, I can't help but think that these girls are probably not hired for how well they make coffee. The author of the article seems to have a bemused tone, and I guess I shouldn't take it so seriously, but I must admit that it bothers me that the people of Seattle are willing to wait in line for inferior coffee just so they can ogle their latte girl's garters.

Is the News RELIABLE?

I just had a very interesting conversation with my good friend Ruben, who is a student at the University of Chicago studying political science. I told him that my roomate and I were watching the nightly news, just as we always do. I told him that we are interested in knowing what is going on in the world. He gets pretty passionate about things and he gave me a big lecture.
He told me that he does not like to watch the news because he feels that they only give you the news that is important to them. They can distract the public from big events going on in the world; things that the public should be knowing about besides the cute little stories the news shows. But I was wondering, then where else could we get our news unless we become reporters ourselves? Is there any reliable source?

Sexism in SNL?

To go along with this whole Tina Fey impersonation of Sarah Palin on Saturday Night Live (see post below)...

Politicians are saying that that entire skit was sexist and unfair because they were poking fun at what Palin couldn't do while making Senator Hillary Clinton look like she was much more knowledgeable.  

How is this sexist? Can someone explain this?

Or is this just the media trying to stir up more controversy with the Presidential campaign?

Dancing Together, But Individually

Besides the fact that hosting a silent rave is totally awesome, this article brings up some very good points about isolationism that we discussed in class. The article references philosopher Allan Bloom's prediction that the Walkman "would contribute to a decline in civility". In a world where no one would dare go anywhere without their ipod, is a silent rave really just celebrating isolationism? If instead of reading your local news, you just get your world news online, are you isolating yourself from your community? Why go out and talk to someone when you have the whole world right at your fingertips?

Mexico's Independence

Well, this may be very different from typical things we are writing about, but I decided to write about Mexico's Independence day, which is tomorrow, the 16th. I am currently watching the ceremony in Mexico City, where the President, Calderon, recieves the Mexican flag and shows it to the millions of people surrounded by him. It is a ceremony that is portrayed very carefully and with great national pride. It is interesting to see how the cameras portray the president in a really special way. When he made his speech, the cameras were right under him to make him seem bigger than he is. The program shows people screaming with their flags and people getting emotional over this special ceremony.
I think the way the media covers specials stories really makes a difference on the impact of the event. The hosts and what the cameras show make the event stand out. It brings out all these emotions from the public. I feel like that is one of the goals of the media; they want the public to feel or think a certain way.

Anti-Islamic Media

Would you ever expect an internationally respected newspaper like the New York Times to promote anti-Islamic propaganda? Neither would I. Believe it or not the New York Times and other national newspapers like the Charlotte Observer are doing just that. The newspapers are being delivered with a free DVD called "Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West”. Would they ever deliver a newspaper with a DVD about the Irish Republican Army? Simply put, No. I've never even heard of a newspaper doing anything like that- sending a free DVD out to its readers. There is definitely something going on that we're not being told and whether it's to sway elections, or just incite hate against Islam, I feel like we need to know who is behind this and why.

What Do We Really Want?

Everyday day I get at least one or two e-mails regarding the new Facebook.  It either is asking me to join a group or sending me some bumper sticker depicting the person's irritation with the new lay-out.  I personally do not understand what all the fuss is about, it honestly is not that different, but people seem to be having heart attacks over it.

Thinking of this, I recalled how the youth is supposed to be more interested in interactive websites, new technology.  The media is constantly creating new websites to complement their newspapers or television news shows, adding interesting features to entice the younger generation.  For this reason I do not understand why there is such resistance against the new facebook.  It strives to better the product, allowing more applications, a new and improved look, it is everything that the younger demographic is supposed to eat up.

The question then, is why is the response to this so negative?  Do young people actually not like new and improved technology; instead becoming as stuck in their ways as older people who swear by their morning Tribune?

Weis and Brady are partners in crime AGAIN!!!!

Not more than a week had passed when Tom Brady, quarterback for the New England Patriots, tore both is MCL and his ACL in the first game of the season against the Kansas City Chiefs and then his best friend and mentor Charlie Weis had the same thing happen to him and he's not even a player. Charlie Weis is the head football coach for the University of Notre Dame. The news showed the footage of the game over and over again. The public got a eye full of what it is like to have your leg snapped with 300 pounds coming down on you. His own player was pushed into him from behing and Charlie Weis went town like a ton of bricks. Even though Michigan lost, it was still a sweet victory! The news has been all over this story because Charlie Weis was already on the hot seat to start the season and now he is getting more coverage than ever!

Allergies and Global Warming

Have your allergies been a lot worse than usual? Over the past few months, I have noticed an increase in the amount of people being affected by respiratory allergies. Friends of mine who never had allergies before suddenly have constant tears in their eyes and are sneezing way more than usual. A recent study suggests that this increase is possibly due to the effects of Global Warming, since the higher CO2 levels in the air are rapidly increasing the growth of plants and specifically, ragweed pollen, which is the most common allergen. Bryan Walsh states "Researchers have shown repeatedly that elevated levels of CO2 stimulate weeds to produce pollen out of proportion with their growth rates — meaning you get more pollen per plant, which means more allergies." The increase in people suffering from allergies is also affecting the amount of people suffering from symptoms of asthma. It is a fact that over the past few decades, the number of patients with asthma has doubled in comparison to previous years. Ironically, the amount of CO2 levels in the air have risen dramatically over the past few decades as well. What does this research mean for those suffering with allergies? Well, for starters stop contributing to the rise of CO2 levels in the air by changing your lifestyle. Take a look at the Top 50 Things To Do To Stop Global Warming to help save our planet and even save some of the lives who are affected by health issues related to Global Warming.

Tina Fey Makes for a Better Palin than Palin Herself

After watching SNL this weekend, along with everyone else in America, I was once again reassured that the media is certainly filled with liberal bias, and as much as Sarah Palin would like to stay away from the media, the media just can't stay away from her.

As Tina Fey made a guest appearance as Sarah Palin, it really was hard to tell the difference when it came to looks. But when it came to speaking, you couldn't help but laugh and side with Tina Fey. Now I know Sarah Palin would not be doing a comedic skit as she's running for V.P., but the show did bring up some interesting points, firing jokes at her flaws and attacking her history and position as a political candidate, not her family situation that has been painted all over every news program since she was announced as the candidate. The duo of Fey and Amy Poehler (acting as Hilary Clinton) did raise the issues of a sexist bias also coming out in this election, earlier with Hilary and now with Palin.

But are the people watching this show really as informed about these topics as we'd like to think? Were ordinary citizens laughing at the skit because they think Palin is "hott"? Or are the citizens informed, knowledgable, and intellectual, like those of the Daily Show who honestly just prefer a comedic spin on things over the interrogations and boring jargon we typically hear?

Racism in Sports

A couple days ago, John Rawlings, from Sportingnews.com wrote an article titled, "Does race color discussion of bad athletes?" where he highlights that black athletes get noticed more when they do something bad in the media than white athletes. He goes on to mention that Rick Ankiel for the beloved St. Louis Cardinals was shipped human growth hormones and the media found out, but no one really made a huge deal about it. People did however make a huge deal out of Barry Bonds taking steroids. Rawlings says that's because the color of his race. OK, I will agree that it might be a factor but another factor was that he was in the race for the home run record i believe when it started, and the fact that his stats jumped up out of nowhere. Rick Ankiel is a no name player compared to Bonds. He is insufficient to the sporting world because he really was not very important at the time of the accusations. But it's not just baseball that Rawlings touches, he talks about football with the whole Micheal Vick shenanigans. Even if you do not follow football at all you most likely know who Micheal Vick is. So many different news stations covered his dog fighting case. But i truthfully do not think that race is the biggest factor in this story or even a good factor. He was hurting innocent dogs and being a huge dog lover myself i only wanted justice because he was hurting such amazing animals. He was getting all that media coverage because he was a huge celebrity in football doing something unbelievable with his money. But I guess its all how you look at it?

Which lipstick color do pigs prefer?

I recently read an article in the Chicago Tribune that described the ludicrous scene of presidential candidates putting make-up on pigs, following it up with an advertisement for other animals as well. If they will put lipstick on a pig, why not a chicken?  It then went to go on and quote interviews with establishments such as the Lincoln Park Zoo, displaying their answers to whether or not it is wrong for the candidates to only put lipstick on pigs.

After reading this I was not only a bit disturbed (lipsticks on pigs?) but also worried for the level of quality that the Tribune has usually held.  This is a widely circulated newspaper which people trust for their news on the election and the world's affairs in general.  I understand that newspapers have a variety of articles, heavy to light, but this article just seemed downright silly.  I don't know about the rest of the readers, but while reading about which underwater animals would be best suited for lipstick was entertaining, I don't really feel that I came away with anything substantial.  I would much rather have had an article that had real information on the election, not on the makeup tendencies of animals.