For my final post I would like to wrap up this semester by talking about the complete topic of how Politics and the Media correlate together and by that I mean how politicians use the media and television to manipulate people instead of educate them.
Through this semester we've watched several videos of politicians on shows either winning over their audience, or attacking their opponents. They have also insulted their hosts if they felt threatened by their questions. Why would politics need to rely of heavily on the media and broadcasting to achieve the vote?
According to a study done by California State University 99% of homes in the US have at least 1 television. It is obvious why broadcasting is so important to politicians now because this the most effective way for them to reach their audience and also influence the younger generations so when they are of age to vote they can easily be persuaded to their side. You can see there study here.http://www.csun.edu/science/health/docs/tv&health.html
When 49% of the country say they watch too much TV it is clear how attracted the population is to this small box in our living rooms. What better place to reach people then through this invention? While people sit in their living rooms comfortably you can reach out to them and gain their trust. They feel safe in their homes and can become more open to persuasion during their average of 6 hours of television each day.
Why bother persuading a crowd with actual logic and facts when you can simply manipulate them and slander your opponent at the same time? This way it's easier for you the candidate to focus on other things aside from actually providing an image and proposal for what you will do if you do gain the position. By attempting to (in a way) brainwash viewers you don't need to worry about questions because all they will think of when in the polls is how your opponent did all of these terrible things to the country and the people they should be taking care of, then they will remember your name and lovely face and the beautiful blue and red text you used in your logo instead of what you are actually planning to do when you are sworn in. This could possibly be one of the easily cop outs imaginable and audiences aren't even aware of it. They are too engulfed in the latest television show and scandal to focus on actual facts of politics and you of course take advantage of that.
Tuesday, November 25, 2014
Social Media & Politics: Twitter
The use of Twitters has widely grown, like it's competition Facebook, into a more evolved network of information instead of the original use of sole social interaction. Now that Twitter has began taking over the internet usage politicians are jumping on board and targeting the younger audiences for the vote. How could this change the way politics are seen in the eyes of America? Simple, the more information and technology out there the more likely skeletons deep in their closets are likely to come out.
We all remember the Anthony Weiner story several years ago, but you may not have heard about a more recent, less spread scandal.
Tennessee Democrat Stephen Cohen revealed he had a 24 year old daughter through Twitter. However this was not a normal reveal, Cohen apparently had not known about his daughter until roughly 3 years ago and instead of welcoming her into his political campaigns and possibly boosting or harming his image he hid her. After Tweeting to his daughter he then deleted the messages to cover his tracks.
These Tweets were of course later leaked and his "scandal" revealed. This may not be a big a deal as the Weiner case, but it is still detrimental to Cohen's campaign. Now thanks to social media the US voters know about his daughter and although he was in the dark about her existence until a few years ago he will not be seen as the man who is ashamed of showing his daughter to the public. Viewers of this scandal will not focus on what his Tweets to his daughter said but just the fact that he deleted them, thus making this a "scandal". Cohen has no other children and is not married so his opponents can't play on adultery as a target to take him down, however they can accuse him of neglect for this daughter and easily persuade the viewers to see him as an abandoner regardless of the fact he had no idea he had a daughter until she was in her 20s.
Look at this story here and see what The Washington Post thinks of this new event:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/02/14/memphis-congressman-deleted-state-of-the-union-tweets-went-to-daughter/
Claiming his daughter was another friends child also doesn't help Cohen's case and provides even more ammunition to his opponents in the future.
We all remember the Anthony Weiner story several years ago, but you may not have heard about a more recent, less spread scandal.
Tennessee Democrat Stephen Cohen revealed he had a 24 year old daughter through Twitter. However this was not a normal reveal, Cohen apparently had not known about his daughter until roughly 3 years ago and instead of welcoming her into his political campaigns and possibly boosting or harming his image he hid her. After Tweeting to his daughter he then deleted the messages to cover his tracks.
These Tweets were of course later leaked and his "scandal" revealed. This may not be a big a deal as the Weiner case, but it is still detrimental to Cohen's campaign. Now thanks to social media the US voters know about his daughter and although he was in the dark about her existence until a few years ago he will not be seen as the man who is ashamed of showing his daughter to the public. Viewers of this scandal will not focus on what his Tweets to his daughter said but just the fact that he deleted them, thus making this a "scandal". Cohen has no other children and is not married so his opponents can't play on adultery as a target to take him down, however they can accuse him of neglect for this daughter and easily persuade the viewers to see him as an abandoner regardless of the fact he had no idea he had a daughter until she was in her 20s.
Look at this story here and see what The Washington Post thinks of this new event:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/02/14/memphis-congressman-deleted-state-of-the-union-tweets-went-to-daughter/
Claiming his daughter was another friends child also doesn't help Cohen's case and provides even more ammunition to his opponents in the future.
Does the Media Help?
We have all heard about the problems in Ferguson. However does the media coverage of the devastating acts help or hurt the issue?
After the grand jury decided not to indict the officer protests got violent. Guns were fired in crowds and according to reports over a dozen business were set on fire and destroyed in the uproar.
Why would crowds feel this is an appropriate action against the results? Could it be that the media covering some but not all aspects of this case could push the protestors to violence?
I feel that is quite possible. Dozens of the people arrested for the many protests in Ferguson were actually from out of town. Although their original motives may have been honorable, they later participated in the destruction of property and looting of goods. Why would that have anything to do with this case? Perhaps these "out of towners" were only in this protests to take advantage of the situation.
This story from NBC reviews some of the many actions last night including the gun fire at police and the fires protestors set. http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/michael-brown-shooting/ferguson-businesses-ablaze-bullets-fly-overnight-mayhem-over-grand-jury-n255526
I understand that people may not agree with the ruling, but violence is not the answer to violence. Why would you want to shoot at police officers who are just trying to keep everyone safe? Wouldn't the protestors who are shooting at others be seen as just as bad as the officer they believe intentionally shot the young man?
What do you think? Many people agree and disagree with the ruling but what evidence do they have to make that judgement? Is it based on their view of race, or the facts produced by the media? Maybe they understand more about this case then the common viewer would.
After the grand jury decided not to indict the officer protests got violent. Guns were fired in crowds and according to reports over a dozen business were set on fire and destroyed in the uproar.
Why would crowds feel this is an appropriate action against the results? Could it be that the media covering some but not all aspects of this case could push the protestors to violence?
I feel that is quite possible. Dozens of the people arrested for the many protests in Ferguson were actually from out of town. Although their original motives may have been honorable, they later participated in the destruction of property and looting of goods. Why would that have anything to do with this case? Perhaps these "out of towners" were only in this protests to take advantage of the situation.
This story from NBC reviews some of the many actions last night including the gun fire at police and the fires protestors set. http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/michael-brown-shooting/ferguson-businesses-ablaze-bullets-fly-overnight-mayhem-over-grand-jury-n255526
I understand that people may not agree with the ruling, but violence is not the answer to violence. Why would you want to shoot at police officers who are just trying to keep everyone safe? Wouldn't the protestors who are shooting at others be seen as just as bad as the officer they believe intentionally shot the young man?
What do you think? Many people agree and disagree with the ruling but what evidence do they have to make that judgement? Is it based on their view of race, or the facts produced by the media? Maybe they understand more about this case then the common viewer would.
Wednesday, November 5, 2014
Relevance Is Irrelevant
Now that midterm elections have passed and all of the US is "safe" from the dreaded Ebola outbreak we can forget Africa's problems and cease reporting on this epidemic in our country. Clearly it does not impact us so we don't need to know what's going on.
Prior to the midterm elections and other American media interests the Ebola outbreak was a media frenzy. Of course it was here in the US with two citizens and then again with a Liberian native. However, did you know that now the Ebola outbreak is nearly 10 times as bad? Why is this not all over the news? Clearly we're "over" this topic and have moved on to the next interesting topic, Germany changed their school funding for immigrants, now US citizens can have a free college education abroad, that is clearly more important just like Ray Rice's issue with the NFL. However this recent article stresses how even more detrimental the outbreak has become.
Why is this no longer in the US's interests? How do you feel about this no longer being a top news story? Do you think the lack of coverage of this topic now will have an effect on the end result of the outbreak?
Prior to the midterm elections and other American media interests the Ebola outbreak was a media frenzy. Of course it was here in the US with two citizens and then again with a Liberian native. However, did you know that now the Ebola outbreak is nearly 10 times as bad? Why is this not all over the news? Clearly we're "over" this topic and have moved on to the next interesting topic, Germany changed their school funding for immigrants, now US citizens can have a free college education abroad, that is clearly more important just like Ray Rice's issue with the NFL. However this recent article stresses how even more detrimental the outbreak has become.
Why is this no longer in the US's interests? How do you feel about this no longer being a top news story? Do you think the lack of coverage of this topic now will have an effect on the end result of the outbreak?
Voting in the Green
Midterm elections have just finished and ask of this week four total states will have legalized the use of medical marijuana. Some voters may not understand any medical aspect of this special plant but 54% of Oregon voters decided it was worth the chance. While marijuana has been used as a recreational drug for many years past, it's uses are also beneficial for patients struggling with diseases such as cancer, AIDS and MS. Why is this topic such a political focus?
In the Oregon case, the newly reelected governor spoke of the "victory" voters had in legalizing the leafy green. Across the US multiple political candidates are afraid to mention their opinions about legalization, in the conservative south many voters will shun a politician for stating opposing beliefs. According to this study only 1 of the 50 supposed governors who support this movement have come forward, coincidently this one governor has just been reelected in Oregon, and the legalization has also been approved. What do you think about this? Do you believe that there is a reason we should or shouldn't legalize medical marijuana?
To read more about Oregon's vote and other legalizations click here.
In the Oregon case, the newly reelected governor spoke of the "victory" voters had in legalizing the leafy green. Across the US multiple political candidates are afraid to mention their opinions about legalization, in the conservative south many voters will shun a politician for stating opposing beliefs. According to this study only 1 of the 50 supposed governors who support this movement have come forward, coincidently this one governor has just been reelected in Oregon, and the legalization has also been approved. What do you think about this? Do you believe that there is a reason we should or shouldn't legalize medical marijuana?
To read more about Oregon's vote and other legalizations click here.
Saturday, October 11, 2014
Pro-Ebola?! Government Conspiracies
I'm not sure if everyone else has noticed how the media has gone crazy with the whole Ebola in the US topic, but this caught my eye and I figured it'd be a great piece to talk about.
The Wall Street Journal is accusing the Democratic Party of being "Pro-Ebola". They feel that the CDC funds are not sufficient to support and protect our country against an agent such as this. I would like to know what do you think about this? Do you believe that political parties are supporting lower funding of medical practices and protection plans?
To read the full article please click here.
Although common conspiracy theories declare that political parties are keeping the pharmaceutical companies under their thumb to maintain control on the US citizens and also use as a buffer for the economy, check our this list of supposed theories that are "true" here.
The writers for Trueactivist.com are saying that the CDC knowingly placed cancer causing agents in vaccines. Trueactivist.com is not the only website that believes that the government is trying to control the people with medical issues, Lymphomation.org is also another supporter of this theory. You can check our their site here.
What I would like to know is if you believe that this is not only possible, but actually happening. Do you think that our government, sworn to help the people, and the many doctors and people who have dedicated their lives to helping us are actually doing us harm to advance other causes? Would this type of sacrifice be worth harming so many people if this is indeed happening?
The Wall Street Journal is accusing the Democratic Party of being "Pro-Ebola". They feel that the CDC funds are not sufficient to support and protect our country against an agent such as this. I would like to know what do you think about this? Do you believe that political parties are supporting lower funding of medical practices and protection plans?
To read the full article please click here.
Although common conspiracy theories declare that political parties are keeping the pharmaceutical companies under their thumb to maintain control on the US citizens and also use as a buffer for the economy, check our this list of supposed theories that are "true" here.
The writers for Trueactivist.com are saying that the CDC knowingly placed cancer causing agents in vaccines. Trueactivist.com is not the only website that believes that the government is trying to control the people with medical issues, Lymphomation.org is also another supporter of this theory. You can check our their site here.
What I would like to know is if you believe that this is not only possible, but actually happening. Do you think that our government, sworn to help the people, and the many doctors and people who have dedicated their lives to helping us are actually doing us harm to advance other causes? Would this type of sacrifice be worth harming so many people if this is indeed happening?
Sunday, October 5, 2014
Social Media: Facebook & Politics
Recently I've seen a lot of talk about social media and its influence on people. Whether a user checks with accounts daily, hourly or by the minute someone is always posting new information, photos or other data that can be absorbed with the mind. A new site I've seen is "Facebook for Business" a new form of Facebook used to help organizations reach out to potential voters and participants.
There are a few key steps Facebook as published on its main page, view them here, 1st you must of course, reach out to your friends. Facebook encourages organizations to use pages, events and advertisements to get their voter's attention and spread the word about them by liking their page. 2nd of course is to deepen your connection with your voter, perhaps Facebook means for the organization to post inspirational messages, it would be too much work to reply to all of their followers. Instead of posting about their political plans and ideas they post about their upcoming events they wish for you to attend, not why to attend them. Look at President Barack Obama's Facebook page here, what do you think about how his page is run? These both fall under the organization between elections section, the actual election still has yet to come.
Another important task Facebook says is to activate your voters, inspire them and build your communications with them by building your email lists. These tasks, while helpful for a newer candidate and smaller campaigns, can lead people to misguide their audience to vote for any suggestion they have. Instead of trying to win your voters over with facts and important notices of your plans, Facebook seems to encourage you to advertise your name and brand as much as possible so that when it comes time to vote, they'll simply remember you name and that'll be enough incentive for them to vote for a candidate.
What do you believe? Should major political candidates rely on Facebook to kick off their campaigns? Is there another way you would prefer someone were to contact you about your preference in voting? What do you prefer they speak about on Facebook when running a campaign page?
Media Panick: Convenience vs. Timeliness
As I'm sure we've all heard, there has at last been a case of Ebola diagnosed in the US. Of course the media is having a field day with this information the moment it is released. As soon as someone, who traveled here from Africa, comes our way are we now expected to run away from them?
While this disease is terrifying in its own way, we must continue our daily lives and do everything we can to help those affected by it. However, does that mean we should read about it every second of the day, start wearing gloves to work and avoid touching anyone in an elevator? CNN released this report earlier today, Oct. 5, 2014 to announce the condition of the man diagnosed. Only now that this one patient has gone into critical condition with a virus that has over a 50% fatality rate, must the US consider raising the level of security at the airports. Not before we have had a diagnosis, and certainly not when the problem first began and other countries decided to up their airport staff and increase watch lists, oh no, we needed to wait.
Every time there is an even such as this, the media enjoys publishing hourly updates and breaking news titles to enhance the terror struck into their readers. Every fear is another click. Every person dying in Africa means nothing until someone from the US is transported here with the virus or someone is diagnosed here with the virus. The news won't capitalize on this event unless they can really bring it home to people.
Today I googled Ebola US, out of the 25 links I got on the first page 16 of them were updated or published within the last 20 hours. Why do you believe the media is producing so much information out on this event, even though we have scientists and top doctors telling us it's not that big of a deal?
While this disease is terrifying in its own way, we must continue our daily lives and do everything we can to help those affected by it. However, does that mean we should read about it every second of the day, start wearing gloves to work and avoid touching anyone in an elevator? CNN released this report earlier today, Oct. 5, 2014 to announce the condition of the man diagnosed. Only now that this one patient has gone into critical condition with a virus that has over a 50% fatality rate, must the US consider raising the level of security at the airports. Not before we have had a diagnosis, and certainly not when the problem first began and other countries decided to up their airport staff and increase watch lists, oh no, we needed to wait.
Today I googled Ebola US, out of the 25 links I got on the first page 16 of them were updated or published within the last 20 hours. Why do you believe the media is producing so much information out on this event, even though we have scientists and top doctors telling us it's not that big of a deal?
Monday, September 22, 2014
CamPAINing
Has anyone ever realized
that there are specific guidelines for how to broadcast any political campaign?
I sure didn’t know until getting curious how politicians begin their campaigns
on the television.
According to this manual
explaining all of the terms and conditions to broadcasting a campaign one of
the first things is the duty to the public. They are supposed to make sure that
the public are informed of any topics related to the election, including
information on the parties, candidates and voting process. Yet another
guideline is the duty to impartiality. This guideline is clearly blurred, and
I’m sure it is an intentional moment of impaired vision.
These guidelines are
supposed to keep the airing of elections and campaigns unbiased and
non-discriminatory, however they don’t seem to do so. Do you believe, based on any elections you’ve seen
broadcasted, that even one of these guidelines are followed?
Please look at the link
below for all of the guidelines. A few of the major ones that caught my eye
were:
Guideline 2: Duty of Balance
and Impartiality
Publicly owned or funded
media have a duty to be balanced and impartial in their election reporting and
not to discriminate against any political party or candidate.
Guideline 8: News Coverage
Publicly owned or funded
media should be particularly scrupulous in complying with their obligations of
balance and impartiality in their news and current affairs reporting
Guideline
12: Opinion Polls and Election Projections
If a broadcaster publishes
the results of an opinion poll or election projection, it should strive to
report the results fairly.
http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CI/CI/pdf/guidelines_for_election_broadcasting_en.pdf
Left Winged Broadcasts
When I was young I remember using the internet very briefly
and always seeing the MSN website pop up before my eyes right as I opened the
browser. Had I known I could change the homepage to myspace, or whatever I was
currently into at the time, I probably would have, but that isn’t my point. My
point is that MSN and MSNBC have changed their entire look, or my perception of
them has changed with time and maturity.
Looking at some of the major Left Winged broadcasts MSNBC
was one of the first things to pop up on my search for studies and accusations.
According to the Huffington Post MSNBC was accused of biased
coverage over the coverage in Israel they provided.
See story here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/21/rula-jebreal-msnbc-palestinians-airtime_n_5606673.html
The writer was accused of covering the Israel side more than
the Palestinian side of the current situation. According to an Italian and
Israeli citizen a radio station broadcast very little air-time for the
Palestinian side and more than substantive time for the Israeli side of the
debate.
The show was later cancelled for unknown circumstances,
perhaps related to this biased coverage? Do you think a major broadcast company
like MSNBC should have cancelled the show after being accused of the biased
reporting, if that was the reason it was cancelled?
Right Winged Broadcasts
If you’ve grown up in a Republican and/or conservative
household I’m sure you’ve seen Fox News on the screen many times, perhaps all
night sometimes.
According to a study done by Pew Research there are several
factors that show Fox News has an extremely biased product. According to Pew’s
study over 60% of Fox News watchers identify themselves as conservatives. It
would be natural to lean towards what the majority of your audience prefers,
however is that the point of media?
Wasn’t the purpose of a news broadcast to relay information
and “news” not press political bills and voters?
To top off the uneven statistics Fox News actually costs
more than other news broadcasts, but it’s audience still continues to pay the
extra. Do you think that is something that would be necessary if news
broadcasts weren’t biased? Although research shows Fox News outspends all of it’s
competitors for various funds and running expenses wouldn’t this seem a little
strange if you were asked to pay 50 cents more for the same candy bar, but this
one had a red wrapper instead of a blue wrapper?
Take a look at the Pew Research Study yourself here: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/14/five-facts-about-fox-news/
What do you think about it?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)