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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)