What does this say about the state of the news media?

In the United States, the news media is charged with the responsibility of acting as the supervisors of the political establishment. Accountability is an important check on political power; politicians know that informed voters can throw them out of office. And good journalism is the means by which such necessary information is disseminated. That would-be tyrants, conspirators, and abusers of power work behind closed doors is a powerful testament to this fact.

Most Americans become aware of political issues via the media. Because of this, reporters seem especially well-placed to guard against political gambits that depart from citizens’s wishes. If the media’s role as the palladium of good government is as crucial to contemporary society as many in the news business believe, then politicians who want to head off-center should be checking their rearview mirrors often.

Yet, as we witness time and again, many news organizations have failed to fulfill this role. Political elites continue to refine their techniques with dealing with voters and managing the media. In the political battles waged through news outlets, news organizations frequently transform from watchdogs into lapdogs.

So is the problem that plagues the news media today partisan bias? Most journalists would describe their political views as centrist, although I would imagine they tend to vote Democratic. And while journalists tend to the left, publishers and editorial pages tend to the right. Maybe there isn’t so much of a “liberal media bias” after all.

Perhaps the issue is not partisan bias, but other biases that the news media is involved with. One such bias is that the news media is more focused on entertaining than informing (Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan, in my opinion, should never be considered “breaking news”, much less “news” at all). It was at a lecture at Princeton that I learned that “what bleeds, reads.” The news media has put a premium on drama and brevity. Consider this: the print edition of the New York Times contains, on average, 100,000 words. Nightly news on stations such as NBC averages 3600 words. I suppose that’s why television is a medium; it isn’t well-done.

TV news stories must catch the viewer’s eye, and must to do immediately. To do otherwise is to face the vengeance of the remote control. Because of this, stories have become shorter and more dramatic. More and more news stories cover crime, celebrities, and disasters. To compensate, less airtime is devoted to the more complex political issues that are of interest to the citizen who wishes to be informed.

What of the print media? It performs slightly better. But fewer Americans get their information from the daily paper as more get their information from Web and TV sources. Newspaper companies have been cutting back operations for some time now, and as consolidation becomes more commonplace, news conglomerates shift their focus on turning a profit. This renders newspapers as yet another ordinary commodity. Few papers give their readers enough news to make them informed citizens of domestic and international affairs. Clearly, the majority of Americans don’t get their news from the New York Times, much less the Financial Times.

For all these reasons, the American media has decomposed into a delivery system for “news”, commentary, talking points, jargon, and spin. Biases such as the media’s attraction towards hyperbole, among other biases, impede its effectiveness far more than any left-or-right-leaning political bias. Only once we identify and understand these biases can we begin to take steps to reform this defunct machine.

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way”

That is how Envision More feels right now, the few days after this historic election, even though we are still united in trying to pursue the advancement of our civilizations. Our ideals still remain divided. We may not be, as President-Elect Obama stated, a collection of ‘Red states, or blue states, but the United States of America.’ However we still remain a nation of independent and open thought, a nation where we can discuss different points of view freely, and where we let the people decide on viewpoint they believe is the correct choice for the nation at that time. The people have spoken in this election as well, and this time they have chosen to push the country to a more liberal direction.

However conservatives should not lose heart, Obama has spoken about and realizes that swinging the pendulum to the extreme left will not solve the problems. As Cicero stated, “Never go to excess, but let moderation be your guide.” I believe Barack Obama agrees with this adage, and will be prudent in all his actions. Many of you will say that with the majority in the congress, the liberals are going to run wild. I tell you, Obama himself won?t let that happen, he will be thorn to be the strong right and a strong left, because he was elected for that reason, he appealed to the independents, a congregation to which I am a proud member of.

I leave you with two pictures that tell two different tales, about two opposite ideals.

One may be a victor, and the other a loser, and this battle may have been lost, but the war for our future still continues. Don?t lose hope conservatives, tomorrow is a new day.

]]> http://www.envisionmore.net/a-tale-of-two-ideals/feed/ 2 http://www.envisionmore.net/vote-early-and-vote-often-the-genius-of-the-obama-campaign%e2%80%99s-use-of-text-messaging-and-other-forms-of-mass-communication/ http://www.envisionmore.net/vote-early-and-vote-often-the-genius-of-the-obama-campaign%e2%80%99s-use-of-text-messaging-and-other-forms-of-mass-communication/#comments Sun, 31 Aug 2008 07:35:39 +0000 Daniel Downs http://www.envisionmore.net/?p=62 The origin of the phrase “Vote Early and Vote Often” is usually attributed to Chicago mayor William Hale Thompson, a highly corrupt Republican politician who ruled the city from 1915 to 1923 and again from 1931 to 1935. The phrase itself described how political partisans could easily game the democratic voting process. As verifying a person’s identity was difficult in an era when people carried no form of identification on their person, astute politicians would urge their loyal constituents to vote starting early in the morning and at multiple polling stations. When thousands of reliable supporters voted for a candidate multiple times in one day, the vote could easily be swayed.

While the Obama campaign is by no means advocating such trickery, the mass communication infrastructure created by the Democratic candidate’s team has an incredible potential, one that has forever changed the nature of national politics. Imagine this: It’s Tuesday, November 4^th. You are a lanky college Freshman waking up after noon following a night of rigorous studying. Leaving the bed, you feel the familiar vibration of the brand-new iPhone that rests in your pocket. You look at the screen and see that there are two new text messages, both from the Obama campaign. The first, sent at 8:00 AM sharp, is a reminder that today is Election Day and that the Obama campaign needs your vote. The second is a follow-up reminder, this one containing a special video message from Barack Obama himself. It’s 12:34 PM and you’re still in bed, but the Obama campaign has turned your mind to national politics and has reminded you to vote. You quickly hop out of bed and turn on your laptop, eager to check your Facebook and MySpace profiles. Besides a few regular updates to your Wall that are just extensions of mundane, circular conversations that have been skipping back and forth between your Wall and the Wall of your distant friend for over a year now, you see that the Obama campaign has sent you reminders. All who are friends with Barack on MySpace get a personalized message; one that is replete with the fancy HTML coding that caused millions to jump ship to Facebook. It’s now 12:40 PM on a cloudy Tuesday. You have received a total of four communiques from the Obama campaign, with two being text-messages, one a Facebook reminder, and the other a colorful MySpace greeting. Although your day schedule was previously clear, you make plans to visit the nearest polling station. You know who you’ll be voting for.

With the advent of high-speed internet connections and instant, worldwide messaging devices, the Obama campaign could have the ability to effectively mobilize a younger and more tech-savvy demographic, one that is usually associated with staying home every November 4^th. The ubiquitousness of such communication devices gives the Obama campaign the capacity to remind potential voters constantly, to rally those students who may support him but didn’t plan on voting.

The McCain campaign had better watch out! While a certain phrase regarding the political process in Chicago is certainly outdated, the spirit it carries, that of mobilizing huge bodies of voters, is alive and well today. In a world of modern marvels and high-connectivity, the Obama campaign can and most certainly will be telling those able to “Just Vote!” on the first Tuesday of November.

Copyright 2008 Daniel Downs

It was an average Perspectives meeting. This week?s topic of discussion was about the then-current crop of frontrunners in the race for the White House. The meeting started spectacularly, with a group of female students quickly attacking Democratic Party candidate Hillary Clinton. These girls criticized the former First Lady to great extent, sometimes using words that cannot be printed here. While I understand and respect any informed person?s political views, I was horrified by the main argument that these girls put forward: Hillary Clinton should not become President of the United States simply because she was a woman. With the irony both obvious and saddening, I came to the startling realization that this argument was actually considered legitimate by these girls and other students in the classroom.

Collectivism is the philosophy of grouping an individual with a larger body or establishment. Collectivists tend to make unfair associations between people and large social groups due to a stereotype or commonly held belief. Collectivism encompasses all forms of discrimination, including racism, sexism, ageism, homophobia, etc.

The discussion regarding Hillary Clinton is a perfect example of collectivist attitudes found in America today. Here, girls attacked Hillary Clinton for being born a female. Instead of judging her as an individual, these girls argued that females were inherently less suited for the demanding job as leader of the free world because, according to them, women were emotional and not able to properly deal with stress. This argument was not against Hillary herself but rather against all women. These girls argued that their belief, whether formed by personal experience or otherwise, applied to Mrs. Clinton because she herself was a woman, not taking into account that Hillary, as an individual, might not conform to their preconceived notions of how all women act.

The terrifyingly gargantuan nature of collectivism can be hard to grasp. While it is well known that forms of discrimination are all related, the idea that they come from humans making generalizations about groups of people can be a tough pill to swallow. Besides this, our current culture and government perpetuate the collectivist way of thinking.

For example, government handouts and leniency based on race, sex, ethnicity, etc. can build resentment between groups of people. Intelligent individuals could turn towards racism if the government were to specifically give benefits to people of a certain race. If all the members of one group were given special treatment because they just happened to be born with a certain skin color or ethnicity, people who didn?t receive such treatment might characterize all people receiving the government?s attentions as having the same positive or negative traits.

Culture also perpetuates collectivist thinking. What do women want? I don?t know what women want, as I am not every woman on the planet. I do know what certain women want. I know that my mom wants to go on vacation this summer to Disney World. But does every woman share this goal? Grouping all men or women together with a seemingly harmless question takes away from the individual rights of every person to be considered equally among all humans, regardless of gender or any other inborn trait.

Someday, I hope that all people are judged solely on their non-superficial traits. Until this concept is realized, the world will continue to exist with over six billion people but not a single individual.

Let?s examine one act of Change that Obama would like to effect. He is the sponsor of S. 2433: Global Poverty Act of 2007, the Senate version of a bill that passed in the House of Representatives last year. As one may infer from the name of this bill, its goal is to reduce poverty across the globe. But at what cost? Obama would like to take roughly seven-tenths of a percent of out gross national product and put it towards this noble goal. Somehow, in my mind, at least, $845 billion seems like a lot of change to be sending out of our country when we are entering a recession ourselves.

On a more personal level, it is a nice thing to know that Michelle Obama, the candidate?s wife, is ?for the first time . . . proud of [her] country. Not just because Barack is doing well, but [because she] think[s] people are hungry for change.? There it is again! Change. What is most striking about this quote by a potential first lady is its insensitivity towards Americans in general. She is proud to be an American because America strives for change? That doesn’t seem like a patriotic statement in any sense of the word.

Obama was placed on a pedestal when he entered the political arena. He was viewed as someone who was beyond reproach, who represented everything that was not existent in Washington, but could be. Now, as the presidential race turns dirty, and as Clinton and Obama fight over precious few superdelegates and the remaining states, Obama can no longer hold himself to the ideological ideal that benefited him in the beginning and still persuade people to vote for him either as their party’s candidate or in the general election.

Perhaps the first sign of a crack in Obama’s ironclad aloofness from the political mainstream came during the recent ABC News debate. Ignoring the unprofessional conduct displayed by the moderators, it is still clear that Obama is not willing to live up to his former deeds. Consider the IVI-IPO General Candidate Questionnaire on gun control. In the debate, Obama denied answering this survey, even when his handwriting appears on it!

The Pennsylvania primaries are in two days, and it stands to be seen whether Obama or Clinton will be victorious in them. However, as the campaign rages on and these two candidates rip each other apart, are they really doing nothing more than destroying their respective electability?

Obama’s Gun Survey (PDF)