Alana's Views

Extra Credit

noreply@blogger.com (Alana Rubenstein) — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 22:38:00 +0000

I hope everyone is enjoying the last days of their vacation.
The advertising people have come up with some ideas and the roon/date is 95% definite so I just wanted to make sure there was something to advertise for!
Basically just wondering how things are coming!
Please post here if you are making progress because we only have 2 and a half weeks left

Extra Credit

noreply@blogger.com (Alana Rubenstein) — Fri, 29 Dec 2006 00:47:00 +0000

Hey guys!
Now that we all got our extra credit from prof. pimpare, we need to earn it.
i hope everyone is making progress on their parts of whats going on.
post anything here.

Also - hows a meeting on the 15th sound?

Final Exam

noreply@blogger.com (Alana Rubenstein) — Fri, 22 Dec 2006 01:47:00 +0000

In an opinion piece written for the Stern College for Women undergraduate newspaper, The Observer, Perel Skier asked, “What is the true purpose of a student newspaper?” This question pertains to more than just a campus publication; it applies to the media world at large. What is the function of mainstream media and the press? Like most important questions, this one can be answered in a number of ways.

The first mass media model is the objective fact model; a model of the media many people believe does not, and never did, exist. Media outlets that follow this model believe that they are supposed to act as conduits of information for the public, presenting mirror images of world events. Reporters are supposed to give their audience the facts and the facts only, devoid of any opinions, commentary or biases. Objectivity, defined by communications scholar John Soloski as recording facts “from all ‘legitimate’ sides of an issue, and then…reporting the facts in an impartial and balanced way,” is considered an important journalistic value, whose idea was embodied in the Fairness Doctrine, established by the Federal Communications Commission in 1949 and abolished under former President Ronald Regan in 1983, which said that when discussing controversial issues of importance a variety of view points must be provided.

A mass media that operates this way is not in the best interest of the public. While the facts are important to have, journalists have insight and background information on occurrences that everyday people don’t have. By reporting a story exclusively as “XYZ happened and Person 1 said this but person 2 said that,” the public loses out on integral parts of the story. Another problem with this type of reporting is that it actually creates bias. First, not everything is always 50/50 and by presenting it that way the media is inadvertently favoring the more guilty party. Secondly, reporting this way makes journalists reliant on official sources and their stories will consequently favor the government and elites.

A second media model is the public advocacy model. Media sources that serve as public advocates are not neutral, nor to they claim to be. Reporters not only report the news, they make the news by evaluating the opinions of the public and developing stories that are complementary to their views. Public advocates infuse stories with their own values, which they believe are equivalent to the values of the public, and use their reports as a way to engage the public, spark debate and monitor elitist power.

This model of media is also not ideal in a democratic society. Although they claim to be working for the public interest, public advocacy journalists are determining who that public is and defining what their interests are. There is no single public and no one concern. Therefore, it is inevitable that certain people and groups will be underrepresented in the media and left out of public discourse, making the system somewhat antidemocratic.

A third media model, which according to Jan E. Leighley is the mold our current mainstream media fits into, is called the profit-seeker model. In this model, the media is operated as a private enterprise and is not considered a public service. The media is privately owned and the interests of those producing news are put before the interests of those absorbing it. The only responsibility editors, reporters and broadcasters have is to make money for their owners. The audience is viewed as a group of consumers; a group who needs to be attracted to and entertained by the news rather than informed by it.

This model is definitely not ideal. Because economic considerations are put first, what is considered news is determined by what will sell. If stories on crime and celebrities attract larger audiences, they will be shown regardless of their inherent news value or importance. Political and hard news gets sidelined because it does not translate into ratings and dollars. As a result, citizens will become ignorant and uneducated on issues that are imperative to them fulfilling their civic duties and on topics that will enable them to govern themselves.

Another media model is the propagandist model. Those who operate according to this model are motivated by both economic and political incentives and are not concerned with the public's welfare. Through selected news stories laden with symbols, myths and rhetoric, the three characteristics Nicholas Jackson O'Shaughnessy believes are present in all instances of propaganda, those who report in accordance with this model are working to maintain the economic and political status quo and only present stories that promote the interests of those they represent. Usually when fed with this type of journalism, the public is ignorant and thinks they are getting legitimate unbiased accounts of world events.

Though Noam Chomsky, promotes this type of media, calling the information it dispenses “cleansed” since those elites in positions of power think it is important and fit to print, this type of media is not ideal in a democratic society since it promotes the interests of those in power with no regard for the public. It creates a monotonous public that blindly agrees with those in power, a vision that directly opposes how a democratic nation should behave. Additionally, if they were to become aware of the fact that they were victims of propaganda they would lose all trust in the media and the government and be skeptical of everything they were told, never knowing what to believe. Instead of producing an informed public, the media would cause a paranoid and suspicious society to emerge.

A fifth model was devised by a Alexis de Tocqueville in a chapter he wrote. He argues that the role of a newspaper, the form of communication he was familiar with, is to present the people with useful information in an accessible way with the end goal of enabling them to govern themselves. The media’s purpose is to unite the citizens of a given country, since it provides them with a means of communication without physically being together. “Newspapers,” he writes, “make associations and associations make newspapers.”

This media design is not ideal either. Although newspapers can get a number of people to think about a common issue by devoting time to it, who decides what topics get discussed? While a newspaper can “drop the same thought into a thousand minds at the same moment” (de Tocqueville), a small group of people who do not represent the public may end up choosing what that thought is. Similarly, not everyone cares about the same things so this type of media has the ability to isolate people from the public discourse.

The last type media model is the neutral adversary model of the media. This type of media has a goal/agenda; those journalists who categorize themselves within this model of the media are dedicated to searching for the truth amid the large marketplace of ideas present in a democracy. By seeking out the real story, they act as a check on the government, making sure that the people in power are being honest and acting with the interests of the public in mind. It is the press’s job to make sure that government officials are acting ethically and on behalf of the public and that citizens are getting the truth.

In a democratic society, the media should follow this type of model. A democratic government is supposed to represent the people and work on their behalf. Neutral adversary journalism helps guarantee this by serving as a watchdog over those in power. If something shady is going on, citizens have a right to know about it and in this type of media the press will be responsible for conveying that information. Secondly, to have a functioning democracy, citizens must be aware of what is happening in their government offices and in the world at large. Although the powerful want to stay in power and will do anything, including lie, to keep the status quo, the people need to know the truth to make the correct decisions. Having an independent party, a neutral adversary media, uncovering what is fact and fiction and then dispensing the information to the citizenry is decisive in a democratic government. To maintain a functioning government the people must have the knowledge necessary to make the correct choices and a neutral adversary media will give them that information.

Yet, despite the ideal nature of a neutral adversary media, the current mainstream media in the United States does not conform to a watchdog/truth-seeking format.

The mainstream media does not act as a proper check on the government. Although journalists and media outlets have the ability to challenge government officials and get to the bottom of issues, they haven’t. Instead of investigating the powerful elite, the media seems to be working with, and maybe even for, the government instead of for the people. There is a symbiotic relationship between the press and the government that adversely affects how much the press can challenge the president and others in positions of power. Reporters want easy information that comes cheap, and government officials give it to them in the form of press conferences and daily briefings such as the one below.

As seen above, and in a previous post of mine, each day the press secretary has a message he wants to send to the masses and will do so regardless of what he is asked by the White House Press Core. The press will then report what was said, regardless of the concerns expressed.

The most glaring example of the press failing as a watchdog and not getting to the truth of a matter has been in its coverage right after 9/11 in the time leading up to and immediately after the invasion of Iraq. The press did not do their job in challenging the government at this time, and consequently may have even caused the eventual invasion of Iraq. Although in the aforementioned video clip, Helen Thomas challenged the press secretary by saying there was no link between 9/11 and The War in Iraq, this realization on behalf of the press, or rather, the publication of this information from the press, came later than it should have. At the time, the press bowed out and let the government bully it into saying there was some sort of connection between the two and into getting public opinion behind the war. This is the argument made by Eric Boehlert in his book Lapdogs. Just like Helen Thomas did in a lecture at the Society for Ethical Culture a few months ago, Boehlert makes an argument about the docile nature of the White House Press Core and the press in general after 9/11.

"Big footed journalists conceded to do their jobs before the war. ABC's Ted Koppel admitted, 'If anything, what we've been criticized for, and probably more justifiably, is that we were too timid before the war. Dan Rather agreed: We did not do our job of pressing and asking questions often enough.'" (Lapdogs)

And while Stephen Colbert joked about the situation,

the current passivity of journalists and the control the government holds over the media is anything but funny.

Though journalists tried to justify their actions in a variety of ways, ranging from "we weren't smart to do it,"(Jim Lehrer) to "no one wanted to get in an argument with the president at this very serious time," (Elisabeth Bumiller) to "we had no independent testing authority" (Brian Williams), one thing was clear. The press was working with the government, promoting their fallacies and propaganda. According to a study conducted by the Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland on weapons of mass destruction coverage,"The American Media did not play the role of checking and balancing the exercise of power that the standard theory of democracy requires."

The media also "failed at playing the role of checking and balancing the exercise of power" required of a neutral adversary media form. And they did no better of a job at getting to and publicizing the truth.

How the press reported prior to the Iraqi invasion is a perfect of example of them failing to get at the truth. President Bush framed the issue by saying that Saddam Hussein was connected to Al-Qaeda and 9/11 and that Iraq was harboring weapons of mass destruction. The press did not even attempt to dismantle that claim.

"The media also have an opportunity to shape public opinion through tone, content manipulation, and issue frames. Since much of the media coverage of any political event prominently features quotes from political leaders and excerpts of official speeches, such media coverage gives public officials a second venue, beyond their direct pronouncement, from which to propagate their message, and one in which the generally uninformed public is likely
to hear, believe, and respond. How should the public respond to presidential rhetoric? We know that members of a president’s party are more likely than the members of the out party to support the president’s policy in any area. We also know that if opposition and debate occur among elites, this is reflected in media coverage; however, when this conflict is muted or nonexistent, a one-sided information flow emerges, even if citizens or foreign critics hold other viewpoints. This seemed to ring true even more so after September 11, when the press acted deferentially to government officials’ frames."
(Shaping Public Opinion: The 9/11-Iraq Connection in the Bush Administration’s Rhetoric)

As a result, instead of learning the truth, what should happen as a result of a neutral adversary media, the public, based on how much news they consumed, believed the lies they were fed.

This is just one example, albeit a big and important one, of the media not getting to the truth of an issue and reporting falsities to the public.

Not only is mainstream media failing at getting/publicizing the real stories correctly, they are even getting the soft news stories, which they air more than hard news since the heads of media corporations believe they bring in more viewers and profits, like the John Carr/Jon Benet Ramsey fiasco, wrong.

In a statement to People magazine Jennifer Aniston said:

"I'm not engaged and I don't have a ring and I haven't been proposed to. Normally we don't even acknowledge these things because they're endless, at this point. The thing that got me was that… My dad calls and he says, 'Honey, it's on the CNN crawl,' and I'm going, 'Wait a second!' When it starts to travel over into the Today show and CNN and supposedly reliable and accurate news programs, then you just go, 'This is insane.' People are getting fed a lot of bull."

As I discussed on my blog at the time, if the news cannot get these stories correctly how can we expect them to grasp more important and complicated things? How can we trust what the media is telling us? And if the media isn't reporting the truth, they surely aren't following the neutral adversary model of the media.

New Media, which includes myriad of sources, is doing a somewhat better job of following the neutral adversary model of media. While I have definitely been critical of blogging, one of the unique avenues opened up by the Internet and the development of new media, blogs and other forms of journalism made possible by the progression of technology definitely fulfill the criteria necessary to be considered a neutral adversary model of the media better than mainstream media.

Although she is primarily insulting the blogosphere in her article, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, makes an astute observation:

"Investigative journalists - sadly a disappeared species in the mainstream media - have been replaced by well connected, literate, expert bloggers who expose corruption and the depravities of the powerful. One is a good mate. Much of what he does is in the public interest, some unashamedly is not. As traditional journalism is getting both brazen and more cautious, important stories disappear in the cracks between the two, to be sniffed out and dug up by bloggers."

One of the reasons new media is able to do this so well is because, like the neutral adversary model of the media expects, the “reporters” who use new media to get their word out can be a check on the government since they do not rely on Washington or other official sources for information. The Internet has opened up the media to the public. Anyone can make news, which has created a new genre of journalism called "citizen journalism." While many, including Benjamin I. Page in an article entitled "The Mass Media as Political Actors," believe that mainstream media is failing as "independent political actors" since they often rely on official sources, it is a hard to make this argument about new media since a lot of the people disseminating the information have no access to the higher echelons of society.

OhmyNews is a good example. Again, while there are definitely downsides to an all citizen Internet publication, the website, and the type of journalism practiced on it, has had tremendous implications for the people of South Korea. According to Jeong Woon Hyeon, chief editor of the publication, the citizen reporters working for OhmyNews can delve into issues that the mainstream media won't cover. It goes beyond the narrow view of mainstream media and forces the mainstream media to cover topics they would have otherwise ignored. They capture the sentiment of the public, a group who are not represented by the government influenced media. By being independent, citizen journalists are not as scared to challenge and investigate officials, making them the perfect neutral adversary journalists because they can act as a check on the government.

Not only does new media provide an outlet for stories that are missed by mainstream media, but it also corrects those stories reported with false details or inaccurate information. As blogger Ken Layne said in 2001, "We can fact check your ass."

Although these two students (who without the technological advances of video and Internet would not have been able to get their video out in the first place)

failed to get the truth out using the Internet (perhaps because there is no real answer to their question), bloggers and others have used the Internet to challenge mainstream media, politicians and other lies the public were being fed. Dan Gillmor, calls these individuals the "truth squad."

One example of the good job bloggers and new media sources have done at uncovering the truth is with regards to Dan Rather and his report about President Bush's National Guard service on "60 Minutes II." (see here) Rather publicized false documents regarding the President's service, claiming that President Bush did not undergo a physical examination. They also said that because the president failed to complete the physical and because he failed to "perform to USAF/TexANG standards," he was barred from flying. Lastly, the documents made reference to the fact that the president got preferential treatment, noting a telephone conversation in which he asked to be excused from a drill and that Col. Killian was pressured into giving the president better marks than he deserved.

Within hours, the site Free Republic, followed by the blog Little Green Footballs, questioned the authenticity of the documents used by Rather in his story. A blogger claimed that he forged the documents and that CBS somehow obtained them and portrayed them to be authentic. The story spread on the Internet and eventually reached mainstream media. Rather admitted his mistake soon after and eventually stopped working at CBS.

This comment by Roger L. Simon sums up the whole episode well:

"It’s fascinating how quickly the blogs and the Internet were able to catch this... Once again: advantage blogosphere!"

This is not to say that the blogophere and new media is perfect. Because it is basically open to everybody, anyone can post whatever he wants, regardless if it is true, on the Internet. In addition, information is transmitted so quickly that rumors and lies can spread faster and to more people than ever before. Yet, in terms of getting the truth out, new media is doing a much better job than mainstream media and it can be argued that the increase of truth made available on the Internet is worth the risk of false data.

The reason that new media works as a neutral adversary is because people can say what they have to say unfettered, without worrying about censorship from more powerful individuals. Technically, anyone can say anything to anyone, making it easy to challenge the government and the messages they espouse. Time Magazine has awarded it's "Person of the Year Award" to you, because "You control the Information Age." Unfortunately though, this control is slowly slipping away and being usurped by big businesses and larger corporate powers.

One of the problems with mainstream media is its closed nature. The media is owned by a small group of people, which is only getting smaller.

And while the Internet is currently, for the most part, free of such conglomerations, it is fast becoming more and more restricted. As described in the video below, big businesses are trying to take control of the media by charging people for speedy access, a practice that will take away the most democratic thing about the Internet.

If big companies take ownership of the Internet, they will control the discourse just as they do with mainstream media. They will make it harder to get to obscure web pages that do not agree with what they are saying, and it will be harder for everyday citizens to get their word out. As Jeff Chester explains in his article "The End of the Internet?" "Information seen as undesirable, such as peer-to-peer communications, would be relegated to a slow lane or simply shut out."

While this reality is catastrophic in general for the future of the Internet as a medium that maintains democracy, since it negates the entire positive purpose of having an open forum to exchange, obtain and share information on everything and anything, it is especially devastating for the neutral adversary model of the media. The premise of this form of media is that it can challenge bigger powers in order to get the truth out. And as noted above, it is new media, as opposed to mainstream media sources that have succeeded in doing this. That being said, with a regulated Internet, the truth will be harder than ever to uncover. The lay people serving as checks on the government and acting as truth seekers will be blocked from getting their message to the public. If the big powers in control do not want something to get out, they will succeed in keeping that story hidden by preventing access to or slowing down entrance to sites that would leak the forbidden information. The efforts of citizen journalists to offer another perspective than that of mainstream media and government will be quelled. The big media companies, which are linked to the government, will be able to make sure things that contradict them will stay quiet and unseen. Once again, one voice, regardless of what it is saying, will prevail, and the ability of citizens and alternative news sources to get the truth and their messages out will disappear.

Though many people, including Leighley, think that the advantages of the Internet and new media are exaggerated, in terms of following a neutral adversary model of the media, which is the ideal media form in a democratic society, new media is a definite improvement over mainstream media. However, if big business gets its way, new media will become regulated and monitored, a move toward eliminating net neutrality that will be catastrophic for new media as a neutral adversary media form.

NEW DATE

noreply@blogger.com (Alana Rubenstein) — Mon, 18 Dec 2006 19:46:00 +0000

We are working on changing the event from January 23rd to January 30th.
The time (8-930) will remain the same.
I will let you all know as soon as the room is officially booked.

Good luck with studying and finals!

EVENT PLANNING FOR EXTRA CREDIT

noreply@blogger.com (Alana Rubenstein) — Thu, 14 Dec 2006 18:49:00 +0000

Although we might still be able to get the room for the date and time we want (it still hasn't been confirmed yet) according to Jane in the office there's a "major school-wide welcome back event" planned for the 23rd.

Do we want to keep that date anyway or change to the 30th?

Please post your opinion and then well choose a date according to the majority opinion.

EXTRA CREDIT

noreply@blogger.com (Alana Rubenstein) — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 07:46:00 +0000

I really think tonight’s meeting went well and I hope you all do as well.

Just to put us all on the same page:
We are hosting a workshop on January 23rd at Stern College for Women from 8:00 to 9:30. (Prof. Pimpare: Please let us know when this is official)

While our main focus is on objectivity, we will be addressing other issues at our workshop as well.

The workshop will consist of four stations

1) Negative Political Advertisements
This station will show how ads are becoming increasingly negative and explain to those in attendance why this is a bad trend in US politics
Committee: Shani Muschel and Shuli

2) New Media
This station will enlighten students about what new media is, why it is important and what it has been achieving. They will show students how to create blogs.
Committee: Jackie Saxe, Laura Shuman and Alex

3) Applying this to the Student
This station will cover The Observer and The Commentator, explaining to the men and women in attendance why media objectivity is a pertinent issue to them and how it applies to all media, no matter how specialized and small the audience is.
Committee: Shalom and Jonathan
(Not to take charge or anything but if you could really run your presentation by me I would appreciate it since I have a lot at stake here)

4) Objectivity
This station will show different examples of public deception in the media
Committee: Julia Frankston-Morris, Moshe, Sam

There will also be an Advertising Committee in charge of making signs and thinking about what should be written on the cards and pamphlets given out.
Committee: Alana Rubenstein, Ari, Spencer

Maytal - you expressed an interest in logistics ie funding, food, organizing the obtaining of multimedia tools etc. Are you still on board with this role? If not, are you interested in joining the advertising committee?

Regardless of the jobs delegated above, this is still a class project. Therefore, if people have ideas for their peers please share them. We also need people to make up the poll. In addition, if anyone has advanced technological skills or is a talented graphic designer make it known because these skills will come in handy.

Again, this is a class project so everyone should know what is going on with everyone. Please post any ideas of advancements being made here. I can also create new posts when necessary.

Also, everyone should eventually post what type of multimedia equipment they think they will need so that the MIS people can be notified before the event.
If I forgot anything feel free to let me know or just post a comment.

Rat Race for Ratings

noreply@blogger.com (Alana Rubenstein) — Sun, 10 Dec 2006 04:11:00 +0000

November, February and May are the best months to watch television. Known as “sweeps” months, sitcoms make sure to play all new episodes as they race to get the most viewers possible. Often, whether or not an entertainment program gets picked up for the next season (or even continues for the rest of the current season) depends on the Nielsen Media Research ratings which determine how many people tune in to any given channel or station on a specific evening.

Yet, sitcoms are not the only television programs that compete for ratings. Considering the profit-seeker nature of media news corporations it should not come as a shock that news programs follow their ratings very closely and have sweeps periods as well. News corporations operate in the same sweeps cycle.

And this year’s winner of the fall season, judged by how many people tuned in this month, was Brian Williams, the anchor of “NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams.”

According to The New York Times report on the most recent Nielsen report, the anchor’ show averages 9.6 million viewers a night, more than both Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson.

Here's an example of the top rated show:

Although it is well known that the news broadcasts run themselves more as a businessess than as public services, the article made this fact all the more obvious.

First, it said the "three network evening newscasts, each of which is a business generating annual revenues in excess of $100 million annually." To NBC, ABC and CBS, the "three network evening newscasts" which were being referred to, the news is just another way to make money. NBC looks at Brian Williams the same way they look at Steve Carell of The Office and Howie Mandel, host of Deal or No Deal. And as we can see from the clip above, his show is not exclusively a hard news show.

Secondly, the networks seem to be unconcerned with their particular product and the quality of the news they are giving to the people, so long as that product is better than that of the competition. For example, although all three stations are losing viewers, which can either mean Americans are no longer concerned with obtaining information on the world around them, or that they realized how bad network television news is and have decided to go elsewhere for their information, the producer of "NBC Nightly News With Brian Williams" was more concerned with being number one. "'I’m thrilled that we’re winning, and that viewers keep coming to Brian,' said John Reiss, executive producer of Mr. Williams’s broadcast, which was able to withstand a heavy marketing campaign mounted on Ms. Couric’s behalf around her Sept. 5 start. 'You’ll win by more some years, and less others. The one thing consistent is Brian is No. 1.'" The word winning was also alarming, once again implying that producers and station owners are working to be the best for their own sake and not for the sake of the people they are supposed to be providing for.

The interesting thing, which is also slightly ironic, is that it was the last place show, "CBS Evening News With Katie Couric" seems to be the most dedicated to improving their newscast to be better for the public. "'We really have been focused on trying to make the broadcast as good as it can be and not chasing any specific demographic or viewer, but hoping we are doing a broadcast that is interesting and lively and valuable,' Mr. Hartman said. 'That is going to be a long process and hopefully one that will be successful. It’s going to take time.'”

This is ironic because of the reputation Katie Couric's broadcast has gotten. On her first show she chose to talk about Baby Suri Cruise which isn't exactly a quality news item that will inform the public on important events.

The second reason this is ironic is because Katie Couric is last in the ratings. Assuming we believe the people working at CBS who are promising that they are concerned with putting together an interesting and valuable show, which I can't say I really do, it is notable that this dedication isn't translating into viewers. This just shows how little the populace expects from their newscasts and how disinterested they are in real news. They'd rather watch Brian Williams, who I am sad to say reports on a good deal of sensationalism and entertainment stories himself, than Katie Couric who is more dedicated to providing them with real information. Or maybe they just see through Mr. Hartman's statement and would rather watch a better not 100% informative news broadcast (NBC) than a not 100% informative awkward newscast (CBS).

One thing about this article was encouraging though. More people are watching the evening news, which is known as "hard news" regardless of the actual content, than morning talk/soft news shows like "Today."

Losing Faith

noreply@blogger.com (Alana Rubenstein) — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 00:36:00 +0000

Although his focus is on advertisements, Father Jeffery expounds on the points made by Diana C. Mutz and Byron Reeve in the article "The New Videomalaise: Effects of Televised Incivility on Political Trust," in a video clip appropriatly titled "Civility in Politics."

The bottom line is that negativity in politics is causing people to become more and more disillusioned with and disgusted by politicians, the government and the political process as a whole.

Yet, the two sources mentioned above differ on a key point. Father Jeffery seems to believe that the politicians hold the power to make political discourse more polite and positive, while Mutz and Reeves propose that the media change something about their programs to make the end product display more civil dialogue. On the outset it seems that each position makes sense considering the visual medium they are describing. Father Jeffery is talking about something produced by the candidates and Mutz and Reeves are discussing the nature of programming and formatting. However, I would still like to propose that the later are letting the politicians/those involved in the uncivil debate off the hook too easily.

Take this debate clip. It is not a political debate but I would like to go out on a limb and say that a similar situation has occurred sometime over the course of history with politicians as well.

As you can see, the moderator here is not the one who encouraged the violence for better ratings. Granted he didn't do that much to stop it, but clearly it is the debaters who were responsible for what occurred. They were the ones cursing and being rude and they were ones who turned a roundtable discussion into a violent episode.

I am not denying the fact that the media thrives on this kind of conflict. While this stunt was not planned, I am sure the producers did not complain that it went down either. Television stations particularly love showing controversial video clips. They only show a few minutes of political debates and if there is anything uncivil that was said or done it is safe to assume that is what they will show.

However, they do not make this stuff up. Moderators at debates and political talk show hosts may invite confrontational guests and ask provocative questions, but they are not controlling what their panelists do or say. Politicians are not mannequins. Bill O'Reilly is not jerking his guests' head or making their eyes roll. He is not whispering explicative statements in their ears. Although he is undeniably happy when those on his show act this way, he is not making them do so.

Sure MSM will zero in on the incivility of politicians and overexpose it, but pointing it out is all they are doing. If the politicians do not give them the materials to work with, they will not be able to focus their reports on it. Finding a way "to create political programming that is both interesting and exciting to watch yet not likely to damage public attitudes in a significant way," as Mutz and Reeve propose, is not what we should concentrate on doing. Finding politicians who are exciting to watch without being rude and thus turning off the public from politics is a much harder thing to find, but will end up being a more successful way to discourage outlandish and uncivil programming.

EXTRA CREDIT UPDATE

noreply@blogger.com (Alana Rubenstein) — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 02:43:00 +0000

Thanks to Everyone who attended tonight's meeting! We are really moving forward with this which is so great.

We decided to make the workshop on Tuesday the 23rd at 730 downtown instead of on the 24th.

However, IT IS NOT TO LATE TO JOIN!

We will be delegating out jobs in the very near future so if you are interested in helping out please email me personally (you can find my email on the yu website) so that we know exactly how many people are seriously dedicated to this project.

Some of the tasks we need to work on are logistics and programming, gathering video data, designing brochures and cards, power point/multi-media presentation, content, and probably a bunch of more things we haven't thought of yet.

If you have any special talents in any of the aforementioned areas, mention that in your email as well.

Please be aware before committing to this project that the bulk of the work will be done after finals and over vacation. Therefore, if you weren't interested because finals were overwhelming you do not worry. Along the same lines, if you have no interest in this class post next week, I would discuss your particular situation with Prof. Pimpare to see if he will still be able to include you in the extra credit before you commit.

Hope to hear from you all!

Losing Credibility

noreply@blogger.com (Alana Rubenstein) — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 06:47:00 +0000

After reading even the littlest bits of Dan Gilmor’s “We The Media,” it is obvious that he is a fan of citizen journalism. He believes this recent genre of journalism, made possible by advancements in technology, is the start of something very positive. Blogs and citizen reports give people the chance to participate in making the news and the chance to engage in conversations with people who have interests similar to their own. Gilmor says the result will be better reporting, both in terms of the scope of the subject matter covered and the accuracy and completeness of the reports, since people can write about whatever interests them and check what others have written about.

As I previously blogged, I was a bit skeptical about Gilmor’s enthusiasm. So, I decided to check out his claims for myself. Time and time again he refers to his own blog, and talks about how much conversation it has generated and how his readers have enhanced the quality of his work. He expressed thanks to his readers and commentators who have corrected his work on numerous occasions, something Gilmor views as a constructive improvement that mainstream media outlets cannot experience.

Yet, when I read through his blog, I did not find the array of comments and bevy of activity Gilmor led me to believe I would see. In the last month he only got 12 comments and some of them were just his responses to what others said. While I am not trying to belittle his efforts, it was interesting to discover that Gilmor’ blog is not the busy and constant conversation starter I had imagined it to be after reading 173 pages of his book.

The next piece of new media Gilmor thinks is just to good to be true is Ohmy News, a Korean based online newspaper whose motto is "every citizen is a reporter” and most of the articles are written by regular people who want to be heard. Gilmor believes this is the model grassroots efforts because citizens are writing for other citizens, and there is room to email the reporter and post blog like comments on articles in an effort to create a real dialouge.

From my brief perusal of the site, I once again found Gilmor’s praise to be overrated. I looked at a few articles and many of them elicited little to no comments. Again, the amazing dialogue Gilmor promised was missing. And as I delved into a specific article entitled, “Former Russian Prime Minister Poisoned” by Ludwig De Braeckeleer, the site continued to disappoint me. The article was narrowly focused. It spoke about the Prime Ministers death as the Prime Ministers death without mentioning must else. While the death of Gaidar is an important event in its own right, the article failed to put this event in any context or explain the full significance of the occurrence.

MSM coverage on this was totally different. In a New York Times article entitled “Radioactive Trail Is Found in Case of Poisoned Spy,” the death was recorded but in a totally different context. The writers concentrated less on the actual poisoning and instead wrote about how this is a trend, with at least 12 cases of radiation known about. The article gave enough specific about Gaidar's death without focusing only on Gaidar's poisoning.

While Ohmy News gave more detail into the actual poisoning, it could not tell the story as MSM did. Citizen reporters do not necessarily have the breadth of knowledge and resources that journalists have to put events in context and understand them with a wider world perspective. Regarding politics and political events, it is important to know details but it is just as, if not more, important to understand why certain events are crucial in the broader sense and how they impact other world occurrences and the individuals reading about them.

Can't Blame Technology For This One

noreply@blogger.com (Alana Rubenstein) — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 06:56:00 +0000

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!

noreply@blogger.com (Alana Rubenstein) — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 05:29:00 +0000

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?

noreply@blogger.com (Alana Rubenstein) — Sun, 26 Nov 2006 20:18:00 +0000

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!

noreply@blogger.com (Alana Rubenstein) — Wed, 22 Nov 2006 17:13:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Alana Rubenstein) — Wed, 22 Nov 2006 07:16:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Alana Rubenstein) — Fri, 17 Nov 2006 15:44:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Alana Rubenstein) — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 18:47:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Alana Rubenstein) — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 14:27:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Alana Rubenstein) — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 04:00:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Alana Rubenstein) — Mon, 06 Nov 2006 14:15:00 +0000

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?

noreply@blogger.com (Alana Rubenstein) — Fri, 03 Nov 2006 06:55:00 +0000

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.

All Hail the...President?

noreply@blogger.com (Alana Rubenstein) — Tue, 31 Oct 2006 18:23:00 +0000

According to recent polls, the number of American people who do not approve of how President George W. Bush is handling his job out numbers those who do. In all of the polls conducted this year, the numbers in the “disapprove” column are greater than those in the “approve” column. At face value it would seem correct to assume that Americans are unhappy with the President and his conservative policies.

Yet, this is not necessarily a fair conclusion. As previously noted, in general, one must be skeptical when viewing any type of poll and be careful to ask the important and pertinent questions such as, who is doing the asking, what is being asked, and who is being asked. Just because it claims to be measuring public opinion does not mean it is.

Take this specific approval rating poll conducted by CNN this past weekend. While it would seem that this poll is telling us a lot about the mood of the country and their opinion on how the President is doing, it doesn't. Without trying to sound too repetitive we must keep in mind that once again CNN is not telling us nearly enough about whose opinion they are soliciting. They polled 1,014 adults (18 or older). Are these people citizens? Are they voters? How were they chosen? How were they approached for answers? It's great that these people are generally discontented with the President but if we do not know who these people are and if they accurately represent the public mood. If they don’t, who really cares what they think?

For arguments sake though, let’s assume this poll is scientific and can be considered legitimate. As an approval rating it still, by nature, does not tell us much.

We cannot make many specific conclusions from this poll aside from the fact that many people feel the President isn’t doing his job well. It would be erroneous for CNN to take this poll and make their next headline: "Majority of Americans support gay marriage" or "Americans are against the war in Iraq," since these are specific things the President does not agree with. In fact, as recorded in the article “Shaping Public Opinion: The 9/11-Iraq Connection in the Bush Administration’s Rhetoric,” the opposite may be true. Approval ratings tell us nothing about specific policies and cannot be used as a vehicle to measure how the public feels about explicit topics.

Similarly, it would be wrong for CNN to use these results to connote that something the President did over the weekend has received the scorn of the public. A headline reading “Americans want Hurricane Katrina Victims to be taxed,” would be inaccurate. The negative approval ratings recorded this past weekend are only the most updated lackluster performance evaluations the public has given the President. CNN has not reported a positive approval rating for President Bush since at least September 2005. While this latest approval rating may be emphasized by the network since the elections are rapidly approaching, the public should be careful to give this poll too much credence since it is not new or revolutionary and again does not say anything specific about President Bush and Republican policy.

As seen by this poll, Presidential approval rating polls are uninformative and should not be given much weight since they don't really measure much. While they may help further specific people’s political agendas by giving them data they can publicize to show Americans why a certain politician/party is good or bad, they do little to help the public. Polls are supposed to gauge public opinion so that politicians and government officials can get feedback on their policies and adjust them to the wants and desires of the people they serve. Approval rating polls do not measure this and are useless in pinpointing specific points of contention and inciting changes in the appropriate areas.

Whose Opinion Is It Really?

noreply@blogger.com (Alana Rubenstein) — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 01:59:00 +0000

As we have discussed in class, the “doublespeak” George Orwell wrote about in his novel “1984” is still alive and well in this country. We mentioned the most well know example, the fact that the War Department is now the Department of Defense.

After reading the pieces The Nation in a Room, Best Estimates, 20 Questions Journalists Should Ask About Poll Results and Tomgram: Schwartz on polling as a political narcotic, I realized another term that is disguised in a nicer name: PUBLIC OPINION POLLING. These polls are being conducted on a daily basis by organizations, companies and political candidates around the world, but how accurately they actually reflect public opinion can be debated.

Take this poll, conducted by CNN and posted on the Roper Center’s website. Taken at face value, the poll indicates that as of October 6th, a short 20 days ago, a majority of the country believes that the war in Iraq has made the country less safe from terrorism.

The poll asked: Do you think the war with Iraq has made the US (United States) safer or less safe from terrorism?

36% of people said safer, 53% said less safe, 7% said no change and 4% said no opinion.

Yet, like most things, the results of this poll cannot be taken at face value. The first thing to note is who's doing the asking. CNN is considered a more liberal television station so these results fit perfectly with the agenda they may be trying to promote. Because 53% of the people they asked think this country has gotten less safe since Iraq was invaded, they can now perhaps claim that the country is unhappy with the war and the President.

But, referring back to the premise of this post, is this really the public's opinion? First off, all we are told is that this poll was done by telephone. Over 1000 people were polled and these were the results. Normally this would mean that CNN asked a significant amount of people, enough to gauge public opinion, and that the expected margin of error would be low. Yet, we are not informed as to how the people called were chosen, the population they were chosen from, and if everyone they called was home and responded. Did the pollers call over 1000 people or did over 1000 people respond? Did they coerce the people they wanted to answer to answer by being extremely persistent or was participation voluntary, and they just used the responses of the first 1000 people they randomly called. Were the people asked representative of the whole country or did they come from a specific age group, political party or geographic region? This makes a difference when attempting to determine how accurate and scientific the results are.

The second issue with this poll is the question. By phrasing the question in the way they did, CNN infused certain biases into the response. It has been proven that despite what President Bush has claimed, Iraq and Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with September 11th and the terrible acts of terror that were inflicted on the United States when four planes were hijacked by members of Al Qaeda and crashed in various parts of the country. However, this query into public opinion may imply the opposite. By putting the phrase "war in Iraq" in a sentence together with terrorism, people may begin to think of the two issues as interconnected and that one affects the other. If they think the war in Iraq is going badly, which many liberals who trust CNN for news do, they may assume that the threat of terrorism has increased.

According to this poll 53% of the country believes America was safer from terrorism before the war in Iraq. This may be true. Unfortunately though, based exclusively on these poll results, one cannot be sure. While this poll was conducted to get a sense of how the public views the current terrorist threat and it's relation to the war in Iraq, it brings about more questions than it answers.

Wake Up And Pay Attention

noreply@blogger.com (Alana Rubenstein) — Mon, 23 Oct 2006 22:03:00 +0000

As an English Communications/Journalism major, I am familiar with the importance of word choice. Using the word “claim” implies something different than “stated.” Calling someone a “terrorist” is not the same as calling them a “militant.” Writing that someone “died” paints a different picture than describing in detail how someone was murdered.

Yet, I am not the only one who understands how crucial language and word selection is in making a point. Politicians, as George Orwell points out in his article “Politics in the English Language,” are aware of this as well. Each time they speak, their speeches are the product of hours and hours of work in which every phrase, word and letter was carefully planned out and reviewed before being used.

The fact that political statements are so planned out, and thus become painstakingly similar, is obvious when listening to any elected official, or really anyone in a position of power, speak. As Orwell put it, “One often has a curious feeling that one is not watching a live human being but some kind of dummy.” While one may have voted for a politician based on his political speeches, it was really his public relations people and speechwriters who have swayed them. The political figures are just mouthpieces of those who work behind the scenes and their party/organization. The individual is not necessarily eloquent and intelligent but “… has gone some distance towards turning himself into a machine. The appropriate noises are coming out of his larynx but his brain is not involved as it would be if he were choosing the words for himself.”

This unconsciousness of the speaker becomes especially apparent during press conferences and other question-answer forums. Looking back to a Press Gaggle given by White House Press Secretary Robert Anthony “Tony” Snow and Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Frances Townsend on September 5th, as well as a previous post of mine, one cannot help but notice how things spun slightly out of control when the questions began. Snow got extremely defensive very quickly. He also failed to answer many of the questions, choosing instead to reiterate what he said in the planned part of his speech in a lot of words regardles of what was asked.

While in that post I suggested that this was a way for him, and the government at large, to exercise and maintain control over the press despite the fact that press conferences are only considered “partially controlled news events,” after reading Orwell’s piece another possible answer came to mind. Not only did Snow not want to answer the questions, perhaps he couldn’t answer the questions. Snow is the Press Secretary. His role is to provide daily news briefings. This does not mean he is an expert on the topics he adresses. While he may have written this particular speech, he is not necessarily the one who researches and comes up with everything he says. Therefore, when caught off guard by a question he relies on long answers and common phrases like war on terror and democracy to hide his lack of expertise.

And like Orwell points out, this is a problem that crosses party lines and is prevalent outide of the political arena as well. When people don’t know how to answer a question, they don’t really answer it. Yet, they do not remain silent either. Rather, instead of being clear and concise, which is the most effective way to communicate, they will talk for a long time about nothing at all. Often, it is only after a speech when one sits down to record the event or reflect on what went on, that one realizes that despite the pages of notes and hours of tape they may have, very little was actually said. “Poltical language—and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservaticvces to Anarchists—is designed to… give an appearance of solidity to pure winds.”

And while Orwell gives some suggestions about how politicians can improve their speeches through the language they use, they have not taken his advice in the last sixty years. So if speechwriters are not going to change their writing habits, the audience must change how they listen. We must not take everything at face value. What is said at an uncontrolled news event should be given more importance when evaluating a politican, even though the mainstream media is more prone to emphasize larger, preplanned events, because it is in these rare intances that the true views and personality of the speaker may come out. Furthermore, despite the fact that television has drastically lowered our attention spans and ability to concentrate for long periods of time, we must not get distracted by euphamisms and familiar phrases politicians and others spew out when speaking and answering questions. Rather, we must pay attention to the content of the answers, realizing when they are just repetitive rants which add nothing to the discussion that has not already been said.

The Internet: Not All Its Cracked Up To Be

noreply@blogger.com (Alana Rubenstein) — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 08:06:00 +0000

When the Internet was established in the 1980’s, critics of the MSM were convinced their prayers were answered. They were under the impression that a system with the ability to counter the commercial media market had been set up. Now there was a technological advancement that could give the public exposure to news and information that did not necessarily support and advance the views and interests of the concentrated elite controlling the MSM.

They were not wrong. The Internet promotes the democratic ideals the American press and media were founded on. It has answered the problems created by the MSM by becoming a venue for public discourse and uncensored journalism. Setting up a website is generally inexpensive, so anyone, not just the small number of corporations who dominate the commercial media, can get their point of view out to the public. Any group, no matter how marginal, can express their opinions and report what they believe is important.

As Leighley pointed out, “The Internet provides instant and abundant information from diverse information sources, and it makes widespread participation in the political system possible via the use of chatrooms, electronic town hall meetings, low-cost communication with government officials, and, eventually, electronic voting in referenda, initiatives, and general elections.”

Furthermore, blogs, which can be set up by anyone using free services like Blogger, allow individuals to both express themselves and make the MSM more accountable by exposing it’s blunders and biases. It also gives people from around the world a place to directly communicate with one another and engage in intelligent (though this is not always the case) debates.

Yet, as both McChesney and Leighley argue, the positive affects of the Internet have been exaggerated. Anyone who believes that the Internet is a technological advancement completely different from and opposed to the MSM is mistaken.

Firstly, the Internet is not only a forum for subsidiary news outlets. All the different components included in the MSM have their own web pages. Therefore, instead of exclusively challenging them, the Internet actually increases the amount of people the MSM can reach. Most people use the Internet not to look up obscure web pages that may give them a new perspective on political affairs, but to search the sites of major networks and publications such as CNN and The New York Times. The public has chosen to make the Internet a complement to the MSM instead of a competitor.

Additionally, the Internet is not shielded from the hyper-commercialism that has over taken the MSM. Web pages boast an abundance of advertisements for a plethora of products. Just like on television, radio or in newspapers, these ads are carefully placed and generate a lot of revenue. On some sites the infusion of information and advertisements makes it hard to distinguish which one is which, just like in the MSM.

And while Leighley and McChesney believe it is too soon to establish whether or not the Internet has been a positive technological advancement in terms of the effects it has on people and the media system, in it’s ideal form the Internet is supposed to be a positive alternative to the MSM. Yet, it is the Internet's beneficial and distinctive attributes that have made it more and more like the MSM. By being open to anyone, commercial media conglomerates have used it to their advantage by creating their own Internet sites. In giving the public a choice in the information they request and access, the Internet has advanced the amount of people the corporations behind the MSM can influence. In being unregulated, in the true sense of the word, the Internet has opened its doors to those profit-seekers intent on spreading the scope of commercialism for their own good.