Can't Blame Technology For This One

Before attending the meeting scheduled to discuss how to better educate the Yeshiva University student body about the current media state, I began reading Gilmor. He argued that one of the main changes brought about by technology, and is thus one of the new rules of journalism, is that “it’s never been easier to organize like-minded people to support, or denounce, a person or a cause.”

One of these new technologies that Gilmor praises to no end is blogging. And while I wished I could share his enthusiasm about how blogs create the aforementioned unity, personal experiences forced me to laugh off his keenness. After seeing how the Media and Politics class uptown and the section downtown failed to unite despite the use of blogging, my faith in the medium as a way of mobilizing individuals for a common cause was diminished. Blogs are a great place for people to talk, but it takes more than talk for things to change. This is true regarding politics, business and any other area in which conversation is encouraged. Dialogue is necessary and galvanized but is only useful when utilized as a jumping off point for action. Unfortunately though, as a collective whole, we were unable to actualize our conversation. This pessimistic view followed me to tonight’s meeting and I joked with one of my classmates that we would probably be the only two showing up.

I was pleasantly surprised. While the turnout was not 100%, a group of dedicated students showed up and we definitely got the ball rolling. We were like-minded people who organized to denounce a cause and are planning to act with the hopes of changing what we believe is wrong with the current state of the media. While it took a meeting to get things started, it was the blogosphere that first made people aware of the cause and generated initial interest in bringing about some sort of change.

After reading further in Gilmor, the power of bloggers and citizen journalists became even more apparent. While I thought the reason I had never heard of Howard Dean before he tried to win the Democratic Presidential nomination in 2004 was because I was not as politically informed as I should have been, it turns out many Americans did not know who he was. Yet, because of technology, the Internet and blogs, Dean’s supporters, who were mainly activists on the fringes of the political and media scene, were able to find each other, discuss what they could do to help their candidate, and both physically and ideologically unite. While Dean still lost, these likeminded individuals managed to come together and make something happen. Their help enabled Dean to raise money and support and afforded him a much better chance of winning than he would have had if his Internet fan base had been unable to communicate.

After reading about this campaign and attending our class meeting tonight, much of my initial pessimism rescinded. While there may be other problems with blogging, they do have the ability to unite individuals who believe in a common cause and have similar goals. Our problem as a class was not that we were missing the necessary technology to communicate. Rather, we failed to mobilize ourselves because we were missing the second necessary element Gilmor brings into the equation. We were not like-minded people with a common opinion and goal. It was only once we set down an objective that we were able to meet and talk with the aim of educating others in mind.

ACTUALLY DOING IT!

Hey everybody!
A bunch of us got together tonight to come up with some ideas for our extra credit project.

The following is what we have decided on thus far.

Objective: To educate the Yeshiva University Community about the current state of the media and the problems within it regarding bias, objectivity and honest reporting. We would like to make YU students’ active participants in the media watching process by instructing them on how to become more critical viewers.

Plan of Action: On January 22nd, 23rd, and 24th we plan to set up a table in either the lobby or cafeteria (or both) publicizing a workshop event we plan on holding on the evening of the 24th. At the table we will have two television screens set up depicting images of what the news reported and what actually happened (For example, The Hussein Statue). We will hand out fact sheets and pamphlets informing the students about the dishonesty in the media and advertise our event. We will also hang up signs with shocking facts around the campus as a means of advertising.

The workshop will be operated with the following goals in mind:
1) raise awareness and point out the specific problem we want students to be more aware of (ie there is more than meets the eye in terms of world news and the news we see is not objective.)
2) Give the men and women who attend the tools to be critical participants in the media process (a more interactive part of the program)
3) Leave the group with hope for the future and suggest steps they can take to help solve the problem and raise awareness for this issue.

We will be asking various student clubs such as YU Republicans, YU Democrats, Political Science Club and the Communications Club for funding. We will make it clear that this event/workshop trancends party lines and is not a partisan attack on anyone.

We have scheduled a follow up meeting for next Monday night at 8:40 pm for those who agree with the above goals and still wish to participate. At the meeting we will also be delegating tasks and coming up with specific content to include in the pamphlets and workshop.

Please let us know what you think.
Also let us know if you want to participate but can’t come to the meeting

Perfect or Exaggerated?

As a skeptical person, I could not help but take much of what Dan Gilmor said in "We the media Grassroots Journalism By The People, For The People," with a grain of salt. He painted an extremely optimistic and upbeat picture of the Internet and blogging, which seems to contradict much of what we have uncovered thus far in Media and Politics class this semester.

First, he makes the Internet seem all-good, without discussing many of the problems it both creates and fails to solve. His initial point, which he writes about in his introduction, is that the Internet makes the former audience of the news newsmakers. While I am not denying this line of reasoning, I think Gilmor exaggerates it. For me personally, the news I look at on the Internet is the news reported by MSM on their websites, like nytimes.com, and therefore do not utilize the diverse sources provided by the Internet. I don't create my own news or look at the news created by others. Instead, I rely on the same sources I would look at had the Internet never been invented. I have a hunch others follow similar pattern when searching for news on the web.

Additionally, Gilmor makes it seem like the Internet is the ultimate form of democracy. While in its purest sense it may award equal opportunities for all people to be news consumers and newsmakers, this is only an ideal and not the reality. As Jan E. Leighly pointed out in her book “Mass Media and Politics A Social Science Perspective,” the advantages of the Internet are embellished. While it makes information more readily available than ever, it is still not used as much as television and radio are. “Not everyone is wired- at least at the same level that television or radio is available almost universally in the United States,” she writes. Those who are “wired” are often from a particular racial and social class, which negates the democratic aspects of the technological medium. Similarly, when people surf the web they are often not doing so to obtain political information, and if they are, they often go to partisan sites that agree with their views. While I am not saying that Leighly is the ultimate source and should be taken 100% at face value, as one can argue that she is too critical of the avenues the Internet opens and creates, it is interesting to note that the Internet is not the saving grace Gilmor makes it out to be either.

The same can be said about how Gilmor portrays blogging. I am a fan of blogging, seeing as I am a blogger, but again, Gilmor paints too rosy of a picture of this new phenomenon. Referring back to a previous post of mine, while the blogosphere does open up avenues for conversation and interaction, a fault of the MSM, the discussion it enables and produces is not always enlightening. For every intelligent comment made by bloggers, there are probably just as many obscene statements posted on a regular basis. Gilmor fails to address the problem that mass communication and mass participation can spark when the masses included have nothing credible or newsworthy to say.

Technology, which includes other tools besides the Internet, has definitely opened up the media/news industry and created additional positive opportunities for lay citizens who wish to be both consumers and producers of news. The situation is optimistic; yet, it is not necessarily as hopeful and buoyant as Gilmor makes it out to be.

LETS DO IT!

As per an in class discussion today with Professor Pimpare, this project is now extra credit.
To get anything done we must meet!We are schedualing a meeting Monday Night at 840ish at the Starbucks located on the corner of 34th Street and Park Avenue.
The intention of this meeting is to figure out a way to raise awareness within the YU community about the dishonesty of the media with the hope of possibly taking the issue further.
This is not an effort to isolate anyone but as a class today some of us decided to make this our main goal. If anyone has a different agenda feel free to begin other efforts but if you would like to join this cause please join us on Monday.
If you are interested in this but cannot make the meeting, I will be posting the discussion on my blog Monday night.Have a great Thanksgiving, hope to see you Monday.

Being Nice to Bush

While I enjoyed reading an excerpt from Eric Boehlert’s Lapdogs, I did not find it particularly earth shattering. Although he brought in extremely relevant and interesting examples, such the Judith Miller controversy and the path taken by Cindy Sheehan to get her voice heard, to prove his point, the point itself was an old story.

After 9/11 the press did not do its job correctly. They chose to appease rather than challenge the administration. Instead of being the mouthpiece of the public, asking the question the population needed answers to, the media became a forum for the President to say whatever he wanted. The mainstream media failed to get to the bottom of the Sadaam-Osama link and the question of whether or not Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Not only did they fall short of getting to the truth, they helped perpetuate the lies.

While I do not necessarily agree that the press is entirely to blame (as I have reiterated in previous posts of mine), the above idea, that the media of the post-9/11 period and pre-war/during war in Iraq period was, to put it nicely, less than sufficient is generally acknowledged.

Therefore, the more divisive point made by Boehlert was that the media was more antagonistic towards former President Bill Clinton than they were/are towards President George Bush.

In the beginning of 2000, when President Bush was first brought into the White House, the press did not treat him any better than his predecessor. During the first 100 days, “Bush's coverage overall was actually less positive than Bill Clinton's eight years ago, the study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism found.”

Since then however, there has definitely been a shift. While Clinton, who many media sources did not even refer to with the courtesy title of President, was lambasted for many things, including the Whitewater scandal and his numerous affairs, President Bush, who the media refers to this way out of respect, has been coddled by the media despite his bad political, military and personal choices.

While I cannot speak for the media, I think this shift can be attributed to two factors. First, the obvious answer pointed out by both Boehlert and the press themselves, is that Bush is a wartime president. Regardless of whether or not it is correct for the media or the public to be less harsh during times of war, they are. No one wants to appear unpatriotic or help the enemy out by publishing negative reports about the government. President Clinton, despite all the hardships he dealt with, was not in charge of the country during a terrorist attack and a war, and was consequently not given the same courtesy as President Bush.

Secondly, as noted about the media in general, sensationalism and sex sells. President Clinton had relations with Monica Lewinsky and the whole country got to hear about it. While President Bush may have lied about weapons and war, people would rather hear sexy private details about the most powerful man in the world. Therefore, the media could not look away and ignore the former Presidents transgressions since it is precisely this kind of coverage that guarantees them viewers. And while President Bush is no angel, he did not misbehave personally while in office. He might have put Americans in danger and may have started a war for no reason, but at least the only person he is sleeping with in the White House is his wife!

Good for Everybody

Our founding fathers gave the American people a gift when they set up the American political system and government structure. The Bill of Rights outlines 10 things American citizens are entitled to/protected from including due process, unwarranted searches and the right to bear arms.

The first amendment, whose place on the list connotes its importance, is freedom of religion, SPEECH, press, to gather peacefully and to petition the government. That is all. There is no "except for," no "but" and no "this does not apply in cases xyz." Being an American citizen bound by the laws and constitution of this country entitles a person to these rights, End of Story.

Unfortunately though, the story is yet to be finished. What American people are entitled to under this right is hotly debated. To begin with, there were always restrictions placed on free speech. Although the following list is definitely open to interpretation, technically, one cannot use speak if what they are saying is "obscene," "fighting words," "commercial" or will "incite"/cause a "clear and present danger."

More than the others, it is this last limitation that has caused government leaders to officially and unofficially limit or prohibit free speech during times of war. They allege that people speaking out against the war effort or leadership of the US while war is going on overseas or at home will hurt the country. This is not a partisan issue or opinion. Both Democrats and Republicans have used "clear and present danger" as an excuse to stop people from going against their policies.

The current administration is in presently in this mindset. Although we have all heard the mantra, "Actions speak louder than words," over and over again, people are still being discouraged from speaking out against President Bush, the war in Iraq and the American troops in the Middle East. Take the infamous Dixie Chicks comment. All Natalie Maines said was that she was ashamed to be from the same state as George W. Bush. Within hours stations weren't playing their songs, people were burning their records and concert attendance plummeted. The result did amazing thing for the government. While free speech wasn't being officially sanctioned, so the administration couldn't completely be blamed, this episode would surely discourage anyone else from speaking out against something that many people are against.

Restricting free speech, both officially and unofficially, is not a legitimate answer. People should not be limited from saying what they want, even in times of war. Rather than prohibiting people from talking, people should be encouraged to engage in intelligent discourse. As W.E.B Dubois argued, it is beneficial to have open dialogue so people can get all the facts about a topic. Just knowing one side of what is occurring thousands of miles away is beneficial only to the government interests that are being protected.

But we all know government officials don't always look out for the best interests of the people they serve. Therefore, Dubois's argument probably won't convince presidents or administrations to allow people to say what they want. But, allowing people to speak up against the government could actually help them. By having people say negative things against them, the government is given a chance to defend themselves and make their position stronger. Furthermore, they can get more support by blowing up negative comments and using them to rally support. Take the comments of John Kerry before the midterm elections. He said "You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq," at a campaign event. Very soon after the whole world knew about it and headlines that said "Kerry calls troops stupid," were splashed everywhere. Although the Republican Party still did not come out on top on Election Day, they did get them some last minute support and reinvigorate their agenda. While some might say how this was handled was propaganda, it was still beneficial to the administration, and would not have been occurred if formal free speech restrictions were in place.

A Little Less Scared

Al Jazeera has a bad reputation in this country, especially with American Jews who are critical of the network on two fronts. Therefore, I imagined that when I signed on to the homepage I would be greeted with blatant anti-American and anti-Semitic propaganda pieces, convincing me that the beliefs of Islam and the East are the only true, just and moral values.

Yet, after reading about the Arab news channel in both the New York Times article referred to us by crankydocs and the piece "The War on Al Jazeera" by Jeremy Scahill I was a lot calmer about viewing their page. After all, Al Jazeera is just a "a champion of forgotten causes, a news organization willing to take the contrarian view and to risk being controversial," said the Times piece. "It is not anti-American--it is independent," according to Scahill and "it is hardly the Al Qaeda mouthpiece the Administration has wanted us to believe it is."

Which opinion is correct? Is Al Jazeera this propagandist station rallying Arab and Islamic people against the United States and democracy like the Bush administration wants us to believe? Or, are the Al Jazeera journalists superior to what we have here in the United States, reporting honestly and independent of outside pressures? Should we shun the news that comes out of this network or embrace it? Is Al Jazeera harsher on the United States than other internal and external media sources?

In an attempt to answer these perplexing questions, one must turn to the text. The article "'Up to 150' abducted in Baghdad" is a report about the seizing of employees from the higher education ministry building. While this episode was not directly related to the United States presence in Iraq, I assumed that if Al Jazeera’s goal was to slander the U.S. they could have found some way to condone the American presence in the country through this article. Yet, the report seems extremely evenhanded. The reporter did not make any snap judgments about who was responsible or what exactly went on, the pull quote even being, ""All interior ministry forces are on alert, searching for this group. We don't know if it's terrorists, militias or even government forces," a statement by Brigadier Abd al-Karim Khalaf, the Iraqi interior ministry spokesman.

The only time the United States was even mentioned in the article was at the very end. The article reported what seemed like a disconnected incident. It said that in Shula, six people were killed in what Iraqis say was a U.S. air raid and that another 13 were killed in a different U.S. air strike after coming under attack. While this wasn't the big bad piece of propaganda that I thought Al Jazeera would present, I was a bit skeptical as to why these incidents were recorded in this article. The only explanation I could come up with was that the network was trying to make the reader connect the academic kidnappings to these other episodes. Perhaps readers would place blame on the United States for what happened in the higher education ministry even though there is not direct connection between these three events.

These feelings lasted only about 5 minutes, which is the amount of time it took me to access an article on the same topic via AOL news.
Christopher Bodeen's account of the episode appears to be more anti-American than the one the "enemy," Al Jazeera, presented. First, he references the United States in the first paragraph of the report even though they may have no involvement by the United States in this abduction. Secondly, it calls the U.S. presence in Iraq an "occupation." Regardless of whether or not this is true, the word occupation has a negative connotation, different than if the article would have said presence or another more neutral word.

Later on in the article the word "occupation" is repeated in an even more accusatory context. "The mass kidnapping is among the largest since the start of the U.S. occupation in 2003, though abductions have been increasing in scale in recent weeks, with about 50 people kidnapped near Latifiyah on Saturday." This statement makes the U.S. seem either involved or to blame for this incident, something Al Jazeera did not necessarily imply. Lastly, this article also mentioned the Shula incident, so the fact that Al Jazeera reported it in this context was not necessarily a malicious or propagandist move exclusive to the Arab news source.

As seen above, Al Jazeera does not seem as, and definitely not more, critical of America than other news sources. So while the monster I pictured Al Jazeera to be has lost a head or two, the above comparison cannot be conclusive in showing that Al Jazeera is as unbiased and even handed as Scahill claims. The article I viewed was written in English, and those who wrote it knew that Westerners, rather than Arabs, would see it. Therefore, this piece could have been written to prove how not anti-American and anti the West the country is, while sending a totally different message to its Eastern audience.

I guess I'll never know the truth till I learn Arabic...

The Power of a Symbol

As O'Shaughnessy never gets tired of saying, all propaganda needs three interrelated elements to be successful. It must use persuasive rhetoric, be full of imaganative and memorable myths and use symbolism.

During the Nazi regime in Europe, which lasted from 1933-1945, Adolf Hitler and his top cronies used these techniques often, earning positive results as he got a whole nation of people to believe that Jews were evil, inferior and to blame for all of the problems in Germany. He made powerful speeches, created inventive stories and used a lot of visual images to get his point across.

One of these images is the infamous yellow star.
From 1939 until the end of WWII, all Jews had to wear the yellow star whenever they were in public. This distinguished the Jews from the non-Jews, the Arians from the inferior other races, and the good people from the enemy. This particular propaganda poster on the right says, "He who wears this symbol is an enemy of our people."

Through statements like this, the yellow star became an effective propaganda symbol. Infused with meaning, those wearing the star represented everything Germans should fear. It also emphasized one of Hitler’s main points: that the Jews were everywhere and taking over. When Gertrud Scholtz-Klink, a German citizen was asked, "What did you think when one day in 1941 you saw so many of your fellow Berliners appear with yellow stars on their coats?" she answered, "I don't know how to say it. There were so many. I felt that my aesthetic sensibility was wounded." She felt overwhelmed by the number of Jews around her, something Hitler had said numerous times but was hard to imagine and truly "believe" before she physically saw it for herself.

Another interesting thing about the yellow star is that although it is most remembered as being a piece of Nazi propaganda it, like most Nazi ideas, was used before Hitler and the Nazi party ever came to power. In 870, 1215, and until European emancipation in 1781, Jews were ordered to wear distinct yellow garments to differentiate them from their neighbors. Like many propaganda slogans and symbols, Hitler reinvented and reinvigorated a propaganda technique that had previously been used and was already somewhat familiar to his people.

The yellow star was cheap to produce, a Jew had to get the materials to make it themselves; noticeable by the public and a shorthand way of embodying all the negative traits the Nazi party accused the Jews of having. Basically, it was just good propaganda!

Persuasive Rhetoric at its Best

Though the first four chapters of “Politics and Propaganda Weapons of Mass Seduction” talk about many things, there are a few themes which author Nicholas Jackson O’Shaughnessy stresses. He repeats numerous times how important it is for propaganda to contain myths, symbols and persuasive rhetoric to be effective.

When speaking about how to make rhetoric persuasive, O’Shaughnessy brought in the method Aristotle invented many centuries ago. He developed a way in which to persuade people through three argument types. One can use ethos, relying on their credibility to sway their audience, logos, using rational based arguments to reach a point, or pathos, in which one attempts to appeal to their audiences’ emotions, to influence their listeners.

And although many people, and propagandists, have utilized this technique, one example that stands out in my mind is how Charles, Earl of Spencer and brother of Princess Diana of Wales, did so when addressing the world after the death of his sister. He used pathos and ethos to remind people of this beloved figure and to evoke respect and sympathy from a worldwide audience.

Pathos, a root found in the words sympathy and apathy, is used by a speaker to appeal to his listeners through emotionally based arguments rather than through rational thought. This was the main technique employed by the Earl of Spencer when he eulogized his sister, and he succeeded in stirring up emotion in a number of ways. Firstly, he spoke directly to his deceased sister, which was extremely moving and hard to watch. He spoke of her positive qualities, as well as her negative ones, to try and recreate her in the minds of those who were listening. Forcing people to recall her dazzling smile and good deeds required his audience to remember what they lost, making her death so much more real. He also spoke in first person, saying that Diana was “the big sister who mothered me,” and using phrases such as “I remember,” which not only reminded the audience of his blood relationship to the princess, but allowed him to receive additional sympathy from them as well.

By speaking in first person and establishing his close relationship (which in reality wasn’t so close at all) to the princess, he also used the persuasion technique known as ethos. Using Ethos, whose root is found in the word ethics, means the Earl of Spencer relied on his credibility to appeal to a large group of people. By reminding the audience that he was Diana’s brother, he convinced them that he really knew Diana and had the authority to speak about her personal attributes and feelings. Being directly touched by this tragedy implied that he knew his subject well and made the audience more willing to believe what he had to say. Other examples of how he relied on ethos are found in the fact that when he addressed the world he was dressed very nicely and did so from Westminster Abbey, an important place that automatically gives his words credence.

The demise of Princess Diana came as a shock to people around the world, leaving them heartbroken and upset. Charles, Earl of Spencer, was aware of this when he eulogized his sister to a national audience in the wake of her death from Westminster Abbey. Using Aristotle as his mentor, he relied on the speech persuasion techniques of pathos and ethos to try to evoke sympathy and respect from an already emotional crowd, and was extremely successful in achieving it.

Unfair Question

We were officially asked to do the impossible!

According to O'Shaughnessy there is no clear definition as to what propaganda is. While people use the term often, to describe many things, it is hard to clearly define the word. However, despite a lack of a definition, there are many characteristics of propaganda.

Propaganda combines myth, symbolism and rhetoric. It is debatable as to whether or not it must have intent or not. It is often manipulative and ambiguous, so that the main actors are the recipients who must interpret the message and not the propagandists.

Yet, there is one unmistakable characteristic. "EMOTION IS THE CORE OF PROPAGANDA." Even if we think propaganda is being rational its not. Rather, that is just part of the technique to get one to believe in the fantasy/utopia the propagandists, whether they be single issue groups, the media or the government, are trying to promote.

Now... What Do You Think?

Although Franklin (1998), quoted by Nicholas Jackson O’Shaughnessy in “Politics and Propaganda Weapons of Mass Seduction,” said, “There are no agreed, mutual uncontentious criteria which allow the separation of propaganda from information,” I tried to find some piece of foreign journalism that could pass as propaganda anyways. Instead I found “Power to the People” by Paul Harris, originally published in “The Observer,” a news source in the U.K., on watchingamerica.com.

After spending a good part of the semester examining the flaws in the American political system and the American people who do not pay enough attention to it, reading this article excited me. While national coverage continues to focus on horserace and mudslinging, both of which are in full swing now that the midterm elections are only days away, Harris praised our political system and made voting on Tuesday seem like something that is important and virtuous, rather than just a choice between the lesser of two evils. While he admitted that our system is not perfect, he highlighted special ballot initiatives as a great way for the "little" people in the U.S. to have a say in government policy. In Harris’s own words, “It is hard to argue that this is not a healthy thing for democracy. "

At first glance I could not help but think how this article could not be propaganda since "propaganda is always associated with the idea of excess, and only a term of abuse, signifying the hyperbolic, extreme, declamatory." This article has a positive spin and is actually complementing something about America instead of just insulting our country, which many nations tend to do on a regular basis.

Yet, after reading further in O'Shaughnessy, I realized that was not a good enough reason to discount this piece as propaganda. "There can be a virtuous propaganda." Trying to convince people of something that will help them or that is inherently good, does not automatically discount it from being propaganda.

But after reading the article a second time with the aforementioned point in mind, I still came to the same conclusion. While I am sure Harris wrote this piece with a particular motive, to get something similar to referendum established in the United Kingdom, I do not think “Power to the People” is a piece of propaganda.

First of all, propaganda often promotes myth’s, inviting people into a fantasy world that is extremely enticing, as a way to garner support. This article does not idealize the American democratic/electoral system. Harris is not so blunt to say “the United States has a perfect governmental system and we should institute the same one.” He carefully lists the pros and cons of the system, letting the reader in on his thought process without just praising the American system.

Secondly, by formulating a carefully constructed article and argument, Harris rationally concludes why he thinks special ballot initiatives are assets to the democratic process. He believes his readers will come to the same conclusion as him based on logic. At its core he appeals to one's rational and not to their emotion. If one can say anything definite about the definition of propaganda it is exactly the opposite. Propaganda does not appeal to reason, it appeals to fear, insecurity and feelings. If one thinks about what Harris is saying he makes sense. On the contrary, if one thinks carefully about propaganda they will come to realize how ridiculous what they are being told really is.

I do not think “Power to the People,” is a piece written by a propagandist. Then again, propaganda is all about interpretation. Therefore, while I urge you to consider my arguments, I leave it up to each and everyone of you to decide what this article is for yourselves.