After watching the local news on a monday night in the beautiful Pearl River, NY, I can't say I was very surprised as to the content. The news that night included things such as information on the school budget next year, the stats of a recent Gaelic Football game (Pearl River supports the largest Youth Gaelic Football league in the nation), and a segment about the way the poor economy is affecting the economy of New York. There were a few moments where the subject matter became somewhat political, but these moments were few and far between. The local news became the most political in a brief spot about the stimulus package and how it will affect Pearl River's business, but this vague and passing reference to the world outside "the Town of Friendly People" was about as political as it got.
In my opinion a little more political content couldn't hurt, but local news may not be the medium for this sort of content. (The few) individuals who watch local news aren't watching it to learn what Barack Obama is doing or about recent legislature going through Congress, they watch to learn about property taxes in New York or about the New York education system. Of course, as somewhat of a political junkie I would be lying if I said it wouldn't be more interesting with some more political content..
The local news was somewhat entertaining, but it is certainly not entertaining enough to keep my attention if I did not have to watch it for this assignment. The only interesting bits were things I could relate to, such as the peice about the Gaelic Football (many, many Pearl River kids play in this league) or the few political segments. I was somewhat surprised that I did not see a single "shock value" segment of the news -- this night, they did not air anything about any fires, crime, or war stories, which seemed atypical of news programs.
All in all, my brief foray into the world of local news was slightly interesting, but I think I will keep my next visit even more brief.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Post #5 - Pakistan and You
In a recent news article released by the Associated Press, the journalist writes that "a growing number of U.S. intelligence, defense and diplomatic officials have concluded that there's little hope of preventing nuclear-armed Pakistan from disintegrating into fiefdoms controlled by Islamist warlords and terrorists, posing the a greater threat to the U.S. than Afghanistan's terrorist haven did before 9/11." As many of you already know, Pakistan is a nuclear-armed nation and, at the moment, one of the more America-friendly nations in the region (despite U.S. air strikes on their soil). However, the possibility of this nation breaking down into warlord-run fiefdoms is a growing concern, and has the potential to be a real disaster in these already turbulent times.
Indeed, a Pentagon advisor who chose to remain anonymous so he may speak freely said that he believes Pakistan is moving toward a situation where the extremists control virtually all of the countryside and the government controls only the urban centers," he continued. "If you look out 10 years, I think the government will be overrun by Islamic militants."
I am forced to wonder what Obama will do about this. Having run on a platform of peace and non-conflict, America's President has a difficult choice ahead of him. If these experts are correct in their assessment, a "Talabanized Pakistan" will be a reality in a decade. The plausibility of this scenario is made even more so when we consider Pakistan's weak civilian government, which seems unwilling to cooperate on the issues that divide their nation. Pakistan is plagued with sectarian hatred, ineffective police, a broken court system, widespread corruption, endemic poverty, and a deepening financial crisis, and all of these things only fuel the violence and non-cooperation in this war-torn, poverty stricken nation.
Preventing Pakistan from radicalizing may be another heavy burden on Obama's already full agenda. If these experts are correct in their assessment of the situation, a nuclear-armed, warlord-run Pakistan makes the situation in Afghanistan look merry. Is it just me, or does it feel like the world is stuck in an ever-going episode of "The Twilight Zone"?
Indeed, a Pentagon advisor who chose to remain anonymous so he may speak freely said that he believes Pakistan is moving toward a situation where the extremists control virtually all of the countryside and the government controls only the urban centers," he continued. "If you look out 10 years, I think the government will be overrun by Islamic militants."
I am forced to wonder what Obama will do about this. Having run on a platform of peace and non-conflict, America's President has a difficult choice ahead of him. If these experts are correct in their assessment, a "Talabanized Pakistan" will be a reality in a decade. The plausibility of this scenario is made even more so when we consider Pakistan's weak civilian government, which seems unwilling to cooperate on the issues that divide their nation. Pakistan is plagued with sectarian hatred, ineffective police, a broken court system, widespread corruption, endemic poverty, and a deepening financial crisis, and all of these things only fuel the violence and non-cooperation in this war-torn, poverty stricken nation.
Preventing Pakistan from radicalizing may be another heavy burden on Obama's already full agenda. If these experts are correct in their assessment of the situation, a nuclear-armed, warlord-run Pakistan makes the situation in Afghanistan look merry. Is it just me, or does it feel like the world is stuck in an ever-going episode of "The Twilight Zone"?
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Post #4 - Re: Assignment #7 - Socialization of Girls through the Media
Today, there are hundreds of shows on TV, each with their own message, their own bias, their own interpretation. The question at hand is this: do shows like Girls Next Door or America's Next Top Model have a significant impact on the socialization of girls in modern America? Needless to say, until there is an empirical study done, any speculation as to the answer to this question is pure opinion. However, speculate I shall.
In these shows, women are seen traipsing about in skimpy outfits desperately seeking the approval of their superiors or the other individuals in the show. Of course, these women are of an extremely rare minority of empty-headed bimbos that exist in this country, but some have suggested that young girls could feel pressured to look and behave in this way in order to be accepted in society. So therefore, the further question we must ask to analyze our original thesis is this: do girls really believe that shows like this set the standard in America? Proving any direct impact is just short of impossible, because the counterpoints are nearly infinite. If these shows impact the way girls dress and behave, why would they have any more impact than Gray's Anatomy or Lost?
I do not believe that it is the skimpy clothes that the women of Girls Next Door wear that influences American girls, but rather the inanely stupid behavior depicted on these shows that is the real danger. In order to create shows like these, TV executives find the pettiest, dumbest, most egocentric people in the country because those are the kind of people who will create the most drama on the show (go figure). These are individuals who are uneducated and lack any sort of culture other than the kind found growing on a loaf of old bread, and yet they are the ones that our younger generations will watch and in some cases admire. It is because of this that I believe that shows like these have a slightly negative impact -- but I would never advocate removing them from television. To do so would go against everything America stands for in terms of inherent human freedom.
The threat of our children (and even some adults) becoming dumber by watching this type of low-brow television is evident, but the biggest problem that shows like these have is their impact abroad. Individuals from nations overseas see these shows and believe that they are the standard of American behavior, and do not understand that the people in these shows are the worst of the worst that we can dredge up. That, my friends, is partially how the many American stereotypes are formed abroad - Americans are dumb, egocentric, lazy, and competitive. American men are simple and brutish, and the women are slutty and airheaded.
That sound like America to you? Sound's like VH1 to me.
Cheers.
In these shows, women are seen traipsing about in skimpy outfits desperately seeking the approval of their superiors or the other individuals in the show. Of course, these women are of an extremely rare minority of empty-headed bimbos that exist in this country, but some have suggested that young girls could feel pressured to look and behave in this way in order to be accepted in society. So therefore, the further question we must ask to analyze our original thesis is this: do girls really believe that shows like this set the standard in America? Proving any direct impact is just short of impossible, because the counterpoints are nearly infinite. If these shows impact the way girls dress and behave, why would they have any more impact than Gray's Anatomy or Lost?
I do not believe that it is the skimpy clothes that the women of Girls Next Door wear that influences American girls, but rather the inanely stupid behavior depicted on these shows that is the real danger. In order to create shows like these, TV executives find the pettiest, dumbest, most egocentric people in the country because those are the kind of people who will create the most drama on the show (go figure). These are individuals who are uneducated and lack any sort of culture other than the kind found growing on a loaf of old bread, and yet they are the ones that our younger generations will watch and in some cases admire. It is because of this that I believe that shows like these have a slightly negative impact -- but I would never advocate removing them from television. To do so would go against everything America stands for in terms of inherent human freedom.
The threat of our children (and even some adults) becoming dumber by watching this type of low-brow television is evident, but the biggest problem that shows like these have is their impact abroad. Individuals from nations overseas see these shows and believe that they are the standard of American behavior, and do not understand that the people in these shows are the worst of the worst that we can dredge up. That, my friends, is partially how the many American stereotypes are formed abroad - Americans are dumb, egocentric, lazy, and competitive. American men are simple and brutish, and the women are slutty and airheaded.
That sound like America to you? Sound's like VH1 to me.
Cheers.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Post #3 - Re: Assignment #2 - Fox News and CNN Comparison
After watching CNN and Fox News' coverage on the same day, the differences between them are abundantly clear - but the similarities are evident as well, in an almost eerie sort of way. While the two news networks are diametrically opposed in terms of their ideological lean, the fact that they both have their own agenda that they are vigorously working toward is obvious. Both try to act as if they are the voice of the "middle-ground", although Fox News' claim to be "fair and balanced" is absurd.
Personally, I was suprised that the two networks put so much emphasis on the theatrical side of their news delivery. By this I mean that neither were trying to give "just the news," but instead were playing to the audiences heart strings by serving up stories intended to stir emotion from their viewers. CNN covered a fire in Philadelphia, not-so-subtly reminding the audience that this could happen in any home or apartment building "even near you." Directly after this, with the appearance that they did not even consider adding some sort of segway, they discussed how one can get the most flavor out of their raviola a vodka. They transitioned from this into a heartfelt tale about how a boy from Michigan worked with his school to raise money for disabled children, finally ending this circus of the bizarre news with a tragic tale about a home-invasion, where some maniac broke into a woman's house and assaulted her. Needless to say, CNN is not concerned with any sort of theme, it seemed as if they were throwing anything they could out there to get some sort of emotional response.
Fox News - the only word I could use to describe this is "ridiculous". CNN, of course, is ridiculous in its own right, but Fox has no shame. Fox will make outlandish claims about public figures or skew stories to the point that its not even the same story anymore, and they do so with a confident gusto that only Fox could pull off. A few times in the half hour I watched this Twilight Zone-esque version of something someone actually calls "news", I couldn't help but bust out laughing at some of the thing's the pundits and anchors suggested. Fox started off by reminding the audience that America was in a recession, and even had someone they referred to as an expert (expert of what I don't know) say that it is even worse than the Great Depression. They furthered this point by claiming that Obama might be in league with the corrupt businessmen who helped cause this, and that the President stands to gain if the country's economy collapses. It is not what they say that is so hilarious, but the way they say it. Fox airs these completely absurd statements with a self-righteous swagger, as if they couldn't be more sure that Obama is "out to get us." And we wonder why there is so much partisan bickering in this country...
Unfortunately, I was not lucky enough to see CNN and Fox cover the same story, so I didn't get a taste of this sort of direct comparison. However, the personality of the two networks is so strong that I could most likely make a pretty accurate guess about how each of the networks would have covered one another's stories. I can't say which one I like better - I suppose I'd prefer CNN if I wanted to watch a random slew of stories, each more random than the last. On the other hand, when I feel like watching someone say something that is pure speculation as if it was fact, and do so with a straight face that only eight years of home schooling can provide, I would switch over to the more "fair and balanced" of the two networks.
If I learned anything from watching these two embarassments to our freedoms, it is that there is no objective news anymore. Of course, I would love to see objective news over partisan news, but such a thing does not exist in this day and age. Today, it is a theatre of the absurd, with each network vying to get the best ratings by any means possible. If this means outright lying about public figures or airing the most insane stories and spinning them in every direction imaginable, then "so be it" is the network approach.
But really, would we even watch objective news if it was on? Compared to the rollercoaster-like style of today's news networks, such a program would probably lose its viewers to Bill O' Reilly in a matter of minutes, to watch his old song and dance.
Personally, I was suprised that the two networks put so much emphasis on the theatrical side of their news delivery. By this I mean that neither were trying to give "just the news," but instead were playing to the audiences heart strings by serving up stories intended to stir emotion from their viewers. CNN covered a fire in Philadelphia, not-so-subtly reminding the audience that this could happen in any home or apartment building "even near you." Directly after this, with the appearance that they did not even consider adding some sort of segway, they discussed how one can get the most flavor out of their raviola a vodka. They transitioned from this into a heartfelt tale about how a boy from Michigan worked with his school to raise money for disabled children, finally ending this circus of the bizarre news with a tragic tale about a home-invasion, where some maniac broke into a woman's house and assaulted her. Needless to say, CNN is not concerned with any sort of theme, it seemed as if they were throwing anything they could out there to get some sort of emotional response.
Fox News - the only word I could use to describe this is "ridiculous". CNN, of course, is ridiculous in its own right, but Fox has no shame. Fox will make outlandish claims about public figures or skew stories to the point that its not even the same story anymore, and they do so with a confident gusto that only Fox could pull off. A few times in the half hour I watched this Twilight Zone-esque version of something someone actually calls "news", I couldn't help but bust out laughing at some of the thing's the pundits and anchors suggested. Fox started off by reminding the audience that America was in a recession, and even had someone they referred to as an expert (expert of what I don't know) say that it is even worse than the Great Depression. They furthered this point by claiming that Obama might be in league with the corrupt businessmen who helped cause this, and that the President stands to gain if the country's economy collapses. It is not what they say that is so hilarious, but the way they say it. Fox airs these completely absurd statements with a self-righteous swagger, as if they couldn't be more sure that Obama is "out to get us." And we wonder why there is so much partisan bickering in this country...
Unfortunately, I was not lucky enough to see CNN and Fox cover the same story, so I didn't get a taste of this sort of direct comparison. However, the personality of the two networks is so strong that I could most likely make a pretty accurate guess about how each of the networks would have covered one another's stories. I can't say which one I like better - I suppose I'd prefer CNN if I wanted to watch a random slew of stories, each more random than the last. On the other hand, when I feel like watching someone say something that is pure speculation as if it was fact, and do so with a straight face that only eight years of home schooling can provide, I would switch over to the more "fair and balanced" of the two networks.
If I learned anything from watching these two embarassments to our freedoms, it is that there is no objective news anymore. Of course, I would love to see objective news over partisan news, but such a thing does not exist in this day and age. Today, it is a theatre of the absurd, with each network vying to get the best ratings by any means possible. If this means outright lying about public figures or airing the most insane stories and spinning them in every direction imaginable, then "so be it" is the network approach.
But really, would we even watch objective news if it was on? Compared to the rollercoaster-like style of today's news networks, such a program would probably lose its viewers to Bill O' Reilly in a matter of minutes, to watch his old song and dance.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Post #2 - Re: Assignment #5 - Op-Ed Critique
In a recent New York times op-ed piece written by David Brooks, the writer slams the G.O.P. for their actions (or lack of actions, really) amid the recent economic turmoil. He claims that the Republicans in power should be "think[ing] through a response to the extraordinary crisis at hand" rather than pointing fingers, calling names, and "repeat[ing] the familiar talking points."
Mr. Brooks' words hold true. Rather than cooperating with the new administration, or suggesting alternative methods to resolving our economic crisis, the Republicans of late have been vetoing nearly every bill that the Dems suggest. John Boehner, the house minority leader and owner of a very unfortunate last name, has even called for a federal spending freeze for the rest of the year. After nearly a decade of recklessly wasteful spending, the Republicans have called for a "rigid fiscal straitjacket at the one moment in the past 70 years when it is completely inappropriate." Doesn't it seem hypocritical that the Grand Old Party involves itself in hedonistic spending while it controls the White House, and then condemns spending of any kind once their opposition comes to power?
All in all, Brooks' editorial provided an interesting point-of-view to the embattled economy and state of the nation. I found his peice to be written well, and, although it is hard to discern whether he is a Dem angry at the Reps or a Rep angry at his own party, he suggested some insightful actions that the Republicans could take to improve both their standing in the eyes of the nation and the nation's ability to move forward through our fiscal crisis.
In times like these, we need cooperation. While such a thing may be nearly impossible in a two-party Democratic Republic like we have, it is important now more than ever before in recent history that we work together toward a common goal. Hopefully, the two parties can stop sabotaging one another long enough to take some collective steps forward. Until then, we must do what we can do educate ourselves about the issues and have an informed, intelligent debate - something I am not sure most people can do these days.
Mr. Brooks' words hold true. Rather than cooperating with the new administration, or suggesting alternative methods to resolving our economic crisis, the Republicans of late have been vetoing nearly every bill that the Dems suggest. John Boehner, the house minority leader and owner of a very unfortunate last name, has even called for a federal spending freeze for the rest of the year. After nearly a decade of recklessly wasteful spending, the Republicans have called for a "rigid fiscal straitjacket at the one moment in the past 70 years when it is completely inappropriate." Doesn't it seem hypocritical that the Grand Old Party involves itself in hedonistic spending while it controls the White House, and then condemns spending of any kind once their opposition comes to power?
All in all, Brooks' editorial provided an interesting point-of-view to the embattled economy and state of the nation. I found his peice to be written well, and, although it is hard to discern whether he is a Dem angry at the Reps or a Rep angry at his own party, he suggested some insightful actions that the Republicans could take to improve both their standing in the eyes of the nation and the nation's ability to move forward through our fiscal crisis.
In times like these, we need cooperation. While such a thing may be nearly impossible in a two-party Democratic Republic like we have, it is important now more than ever before in recent history that we work together toward a common goal. Hopefully, the two parties can stop sabotaging one another long enough to take some collective steps forward. Until then, we must do what we can do educate ourselves about the issues and have an informed, intelligent debate - something I am not sure most people can do these days.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
If you have a little free time...
I recommend that you check out these photos taken by photojournalist Callie Shell. She is a personal friend of Obama's, and has known him since he was a lowly State Senator of Illinois. There are some very rare pics in here, you see a side of the Prez that you never get to see.
Definitly worth checking out and reading the captions, if you've got a little free time.
-Lane
Definitly worth checking out and reading the captions, if you've got a little free time.
-Lane
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Post #1 - NBC News/Wall Street Journal Survey, February 2009
In the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal Survey released at the end of February, there is a vast amount of interesting information pertaining to the way most Americans' feel the country is headed. The survey can be found here (assuming I linked it right). As usual with statistics such as these, the most interesting bits of info can be found when we compare the tables within.
Question 6 asks the individuals in the sample to rate their feelings toward various public figures on a Lickert scale ranging from "Very Positive" to "Very Negative". When the sample of 100 was asked to rate Barack Obama, we see a clear, positively skewed distribution, meaning that over time (from October 2006 to February 2009) the individuals polled were found to be more favorable to Obama over time. Furthermore, the democratic party is at its highest favorability in over a year, Michelle Obama is only topped by her husband in terms of favorability, and Hilary Clinton is experiencing her highest favorability since, get this, 2004. Surprising when we consider that her favorability is higher now than it was when she was a Presidential candidate!
Needless to say, it is a great time to be a Democrat in power right now. That being said, what if we compare this to responses asking voters who they blame for the country's economic problems?
Right now 8% of respondents said that Obama was "mostly responsable" for the poor economy and 6% blame him in part. We can assume, however, that the longer the recession lasts, the more likely voters will be to blame the President's actions (or lack thereof).In a graph created by Nate Silver, an American statistician and political analyst, he translates these numbers into a more easily-readable format, comparing them with a related question asking voters when they expect the recession to end.
As can be seen by the figure to the right, Obama crosses the 50% blame threshold around the 18 month mark, meaning that in September 2010 more people will hold Obama accountable for the economy than believe he inherited the problem.
Certainly this is good news for our President, because the American public seems to have quite low expectations of the economy, and very high enthusiasm for Obama's presidency, meaning that the President has a relatively long time to make big steps toward solving America's economic crisis before we start pointing the finger of blame at him.
This does raise some questions, however. For example, how will this affect the midterm elections? The Dems could lose a fair share of House and Senate seats in 2010 if the voters are slow to notice any economic improvement. Furthermore, the question above asks when Americans will start blaming B.O., but will this remain the case after a few month of more economic hardship?
Only time will tell.
Or perhaps my next post will?
Who knows.
Until next time, blogosphere.
-Lane
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
