Question 2a: the one that won't go away

My attitude toward the media coverage of government before taking this course was curiosity. I had just taken Media and Government last spring and so this class was very much in keeping with many of the themes from last semester. I enjoyed both of these classes very much because of the open dialogue that we always shared in the classroom and the opportunity to look at things from new and different perspectives. Having watched the primaries play out last spring and discussing many of the media issues in regards to that, I was curious and excited to take this class and interested in seeing the election, and it’s coverage, play out in real time. I feel that I am a much more concerned and aware citizen than I was prior to these courses and that learning about politics in this type of forum has helped me to become far more knowledgeable and enthusiastic about the world around me.

One of the things that I will take away from this class and found so valuable was the websites and articles we viewed. I now have an RSS feed to many of these websites on my Google homepage so that I can access the information anytime I want. I feel it is important to be up to date on current events including politics and that due to the varying opinions in the world you have to seek out multiple sources of information and draw your own conclusions.

There is not anything that I wanted to learn and didn’t. I enjoyed this class very much and felt very fulfilled by the structure and dialogue.

Let me entertain you...

It seems that a lot of the election news (and politics/Govt news in general) has been packaged as entertainment. Instead of the issues being the most important, a middle name, a flag pin, lipstick on a pig, or the dollar amount of a campaign wardrobe are the latest buzz, comparable to Brittney Spears latest DUI or Lindsay Lohan's latest stint in rehab. The campaigns themselves are discussed as horse races (sporting entertainment events), and politicians (with the help of the mainstream media of course) have even used their family members to create more limelight for themselves.

I feel that the reason for this is cyclical and the politicians, media and viewers are all to blame. The campaign is to blame for perpetuating the negative campaign ads and counter attacks on their running mates that the media picked up and ran with, the media is to blame for choosing to highlight the mindless drivel more so than the real news and we, the citizens, are to blame for being more interested in that sort of information than the important stuff like education reform and foreign policy.

I feel we are very much deprived of a coherent contextual understanding of the world. When we aren't provided with all the information, the media has failed and we have lost. Our right to make educated and informed decisions has all but been ripped from our hands because those responsible for providing said information are not fulfilling the responsibilities of their jobs.

Is that a bum rap? ie)

Did the wisdom of crowds work in this election?

To blog or not to blog...that is the question

Globalization is an integral part to the new millennium and the availability of information a dominant trait in global media. The Internet not only gives us an endless supply of information right at our fingertips, but also gives us the availability to create our own blogs and respond to print journalists opinion pieces in real time. As much as I believe in free speech and the idea that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, more often than not, find these blogs to be very immature, uneducated and negatively charged. Journalists are supposed to hold themselves to a higher standard, research information and verify facts before their news ever makes it to print. They have a Code of Ethics and they are responsible for whatever they attach their name to. This is not the case with bloggers and those that respond to opinion pieces in the open forums allowed on the Web. The Average Joe can make claims that are unfounded and say slanderous and libelous things without any consequence whatsoever. These blogs lack the integrity and moral standards that journalism is supposed to stand for.

What is postmodernism?

Postmodernism is the belief that direction, evolution and progression have ended in social history, and society is based instead upon the decline of absolute truths, and the rise of relativity. To me this means that for every positive action there is inevitablly a negative or adverse reaction and therefore postive progress in it's purest form has ceased. For example, progress can be considered curing illness and disease, but a drawback to this progress is overpopulation and all of the negative ramifications that come along with it.

The myth of the maverick

As much as a person may appreciate the idea of the rugged frontiersman, or maverick that they see in Senator McCain, my question is why? Why do we as a nation think we feel safer in the hands of a rancher or war veteran than we do in the hands of a community activist? My opinion may mean nothing, but just because a man can herd cattle, doesn't mean he can run a county...I believe this point has been more than proven in the last eight years. Similarly, just because a man fought in a war, doesn't automatically make him a shoe in for the presidency. I hate to be the one to burst the idealistic bubble of society, but the Old West is dead. We don't need a president to run the county in the prototype of centuries past, we need a president who is rooted in the now and willing to move toward the future. Spurs, saddles and stirrups aren't going to fix the economy or our problems on foriegn soil.

The wisdom of crowds

The wisdom of crowds is considered the average opinion of the group. It cannot be considered a consensus because the end result should not be a compromise of the group. The final opinion will inevitably not be one that everyone agrees with, but a decision made based on all of the independent opinions of the group. The interesting thing about the wisdom of crowds is that it almost always turns out to be correct. This works when guessing how many beans are in a jar but does it work when things aren't so cut and dry? In regards to the current presidential campaigns, for instance, how can we as a "crowd" determine the best candidate and how do we quantify our decision? The election itself is, in a way, a good example of the wisdom of crowds. Crowds must be diverse, independent, decentralized and aggregate and citizens voting in an election are very much these things. The biggest difference is that voting in an election is a private matter and although there is usually much discussion amongst voters leading up to Election Day, they vote for themselves as individuals and not for the group as a whole.

So when it comes to major decisions...those decisions far more important than the number of beans in a jar...is it possible for the wisdom of crowds to work? We see the wisdom of crowds at work every day in the legal system when a jury is picked at random to decide the fate of a defendant and they must all agree on a verdict for it to be legitimate. But how many times are persons wrongfully accused and imprisoned for crimes they did not commit? I feel that there are far too many variables in people's lives that help form who they are and what they believe for the wisdom of crowds to be effective in most real life settings when the desired result is not of a quantitative nature. People are human and to err is human. Big decisions should be made by those best equipped to make them and not by the masses who aren't.

Carl Haissen

Carl Haissen seems to be a very dry sort of fellow. He reminds me a lot of Jimmy Breslin in his quest for getting the truth to the people and trying to promote what he feels is the greater good, but he goes about it very differently than Breslin. Haissen does not play on the heartstrings of the masses in the same way that Mr. Breslin did. While Jimmy took an emotional approach to journalism, Carl takes a very sarcastic, humorous approach to his writing. Haissen feels that"sarcasm and satire are incredibly effective weapons. Politicians don't mind if you get up on a soap box and scream and yell at them. They can take that - but if you're making fun of them that drives them nuts. And that's what I like to do... I love to ruin their day. The more I can humiliate them in print the happier I am. I mean I'm proud of it." I believe he is fueled by political and societal problems, especially those close to home. He seems to be extremely against the development of the Florida Everglades and the destruction of the natural habitats therein. I also believe that his sarcasm and satiristic writing is less effective than Breslin's emotional approach because that style of writing is more difficult to take seriously.

Buying happiness

I feel that Maslow and Aristotle's idea are very similar. "The central issue for Aristotle is the question of character or personality — what does it take for an individual human being to be a good person?" and similarly, Maslow's self-actualization need (which is the highest level a person can reach) is "the instinctual need of humans to make the most of their abilities and to strive to be the best they can. Working toward fulfilling our potential, toward becoming all that we are capable of becoming." To be a good person and strive to be the best one can are one in the same.
I don't believe that a person can become their best self simply by buying a certain product. If this were so, we would all be wonderful people and we'd be sitting around the classroom in our Nike's, singing Kume-by-ya and attaining spiritual enlightenment. It just doesn't work that way. The clothes do not make the man!!! It's what's inside that counts and that is where spiritual enlightenment or self-actualization must take place.
I don't think that it's necessarily wrong/unethical to try to sell a product by appealing to a persons deep desire for actual happiness. I think most advertising does this on some level. whether it be a Zale's diamond commercial or Nivea body lotion, most commercials tap into the consumers need for happiness and try to associate their product with finding such happiness.

Do you want Freedom Fries with your Liberty Steak?

The United States has always seemed to take an "us" vs. "them" attitude on many foreign political issues. When we are right, "they" are wrong and when we are wrong... well, we are still right and "they" are more wrong. So the story goes with french fries. The French opposed the United States invasion of Iraq in 2003, so we (the U.S.) retaliate by renaming the fried potato?? No longer called a french fry, this staple to our food group was affectionately renamed the freedom fry to publicly portray our displeasure with France for not supporting our actions. Many United States citizens also boycotted French imports and businesses. And this is not the first time in history that the United States has thrown the proverbial temper tantrum. Sauerkraut was called liberty cabbage during WWI, because of the similar anti-"they" sentiment (in this case we were mad a Germany). During WWII, many other euphemisms sprung up, including the liberty steak, formerly known as the hamburger. Evidently, the word hamburger was derived from the German city of Hamburg, and therefore, was in desperate need of a new name.
The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 was signed into law by GW Bush with the stated purpose of fighting terrorism and strengthening National Security. Our phone communications, mail, bank accounts and luggage were now able to be monitored by the government.
The Espionage Act of 1917 was somewhat similar in that it also promoted National Security. This Act, which was signed into law shortly after entering WWI, made it a criminal offense for any person to convey any information with the intent to interfere with the success of the United States Armed Forces, or promote the success of it's enemies.
The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 were, again, passed in wartime and supposedly designed to protect the U.S. from enemy powers and stop seditious attacks from weakening the government. Opponents of the Acts hailed them as being unconstitutional, however one (The Alien Enemies Act) is still in use today.
Freedom Fries and Liberty cabbage are both perfect examples of freedom of speech working. As silly as it may be to rename food, it is a political statement and our rights to voice our discontent with those who do not support us are protected by our constitutional right to free speech.
The Patriot Act, Espionage Act and Alien and Sedition Acts may be very important aspects to Homeland Security, but they all, in one way or another, violate our freedom of speech. the same holds true for freedom of press.
So are we always right and "they" always wrong? Is it worth it to have such an "us" vs. "them" attitude about everything? After all, this is America...a nation of immigrants...the melting pot of the world...the land of the free, home of the...liberty cabbage?????

Brittany and 5150

Brittany Spears is protected by 5150 because the statute was enacted to help protect those who can't (or aren't willing to) protect themselves. Because people with mental health issues are so often unable to recognize the severity of their problems, the 5150 grants family and friends the ability to commit a loved one to a mental health hospital (without their consent) for up to 72 hours. The idea behind this is to help keep the patient and those around them safe and give them the opportunity to be more closely evaluated.
So often, manic/depressives are given medicine and once they notice that they are "better" they quit taking the prescribed meds and quickly become detrimental to themselves and others once again. They do not always have the capacity to understand that they need the medicine to continue to function normally and healthily in society. 5150 allows those closest to the individual to make an informed decision on the individual's behalf, if they are not rational to do so on their own. In Brittany's case, she was not only a risk to herself but also to her small children. I believe her safety was the number one goal of her family and the mental health faculty, but due to her celebrity, she is being publicly ridiculed and analysed in a way you or I never would. The anonymity that we believe is supposed to come with mental health aid does not exist for someone with that amount of star power. I feel that this lack of celebrity privacy is not only a disservice to the mental health system (which then perpetuates the negative stigma of mental health treatment), but to the overall treatment benefit and future health of someone with Brittany's amount of celebrity. The media's need to cover every aspect of these sort of personal issues goes against, in my opinion, journalist/source as well as the fairness ethical standards set up by the SPJ National Ethics Committee.

William F. Buckley

William Buckley contributed to the way we talk about political affairs by not being afraid to discuss the issues or his views on the issues. Buckley created "Firing Line," which was the first of many debate shows to air on television. Buckley was witty, personable and intelligent and many people, both liberal and conservative, were happy to discuss political issues with him. I feel that he could compete very well in today's multimedia world, and given that he was the first to create televised debating, he most likely would adapt to the new forms of media that have come about in the last ten years. My only fear is that he might be more harshly criticized for his very opinionated right wing views in present day than he was thirty some years ago (ex. the tattooing of HIV/AIDS infected individuals in an attempt to stop it's spread...this seems like a bit of a throw back to Nazi Germany to me...) His opinionated stance on the issues, his eloquence, and his lifelong quest for knowledge are all qualities that would very likely help one in their own career.

Obama plagerized?

The facts regarding this contoversial plagerisam accusation are as follows: Senator Obama did, in fact, paraphrase the words and ideas of his friend Governer Deval Patrick (whether we can call that plagerism in this situation is questionable). The Senator had even used this line in a prior speech and accredited it to Governer Patrick. Obama and Patrick also use the same campaign wizard, David Axelrod, to help them draft their speeches, so it comes as no suprise that their may be similarities in the content.
The ethical principles involved in the case seem to me to be very hazy. Is it ethical to hire someone to write a speech for you and allow the general public to believe that these are your words. I believe it is. It may be dishonest on some level, but I do not believe it is unethical. I feel that it is more unethical to use this sort of desperation to slander another candidiate. I find it interestingly ironic that the supposed plagerized paragraph included the phrase "just words." To me, that says it all. They are in fact just words!!! It should be the message behind the words that we, as voters, try to analyse...not the words themselves.
I feel that the issues in this case speak for themselves. Senator Obama is not the first, nor will he be the last to borrow a good quote ('just words') from another individual. As a candidate I feel that he was well within the realm of what is appropriate and I feel that his oppostion is being quite petty to exaggerate the issue as she did. As a speechwriter, I feel that it would be my job to create an effective and powerful speech. There is a certain sense of commonality between state and national government and what we as voters want to hear from those who represent us. As a reporter I would like to believe I would be more interested in the candidates views on the issues, and getting that information out to the masses, not quibble over the repetition of words.

His Girl Friday in Real Time

1:24 Black and white

1:25 Always smoking-Smoking is portrayed as cool. Smoking is also something one does when stressed and the high intensity of the job makes for high stress all the time.

1:25 Fast talking- Again, helps portray the high stress and high intensity of the job.

1:26 Hilde Johnson: "Oh!... How you have messed up my life! What am I going to do?" She's blaming Grant's character for her following her dream/heart so that she doesn't feel so bad about not conforming to the stereotypical female gender role of marriage and family.

1:29 Walter Burns: "You're going to let a women come between us after all we've been through?!?" It was a funny quote because of the love triangle that evolves in the movie.

1:31 Hilde: "I've got a right to carry a gun if I want to!" She's a tough broad and that makes her really cool, but she's also proper and dainty looking. The gender stereotypes of the time were crushed by her character.

1:33 Walter: "Excuse me madam are you refering to me?" --I like the use of language here. It's kinda like in 'Gone With the Wind.'

1:37 Hilde: "Oh you'd hang your own mother to be re-elected and you know it!" The quick wit on the part of Roselyn's character is a nice touch because you don't expect the female lead in an older film to be so brazen. More often they are weepy and sensitive and fainting on cue etc.

1:39 Walter: "Look honey, when you walk out that door part of me is going with you..." Again, a great quote that signifies the times and reminds me of the old 'Casablanca'/'Gone With the Wind' use of language.

Jimmy Breslin

I'm sure we've all heard the old adage: "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all." Well this statement must have fallen on deaf ears where Jimmy Breslin is concerned. Breslin, a long time columnist for the New York Daily News, prided himself on being the voice of the common man, and his words weren't always pleasant. He spent his career criticizing the church, the president, and a vast variety of other injustices felt by the poor blue collar families that live in the lower middle class neighborhoods of New York.
To some, Breslin's soapbox stance on city, state and world issues may be overkill, but to him and those that understand him, his words are a catalyst for change. He feels that while his ambition may be difficult to put into effect, it throbs with noble energy.
Breslin's work is effective because his voice evokes a level of feeling that most journalists lack. Regardless of whether you agree with his opinions, you can't help but be moved by him. His words regarding 9/11 or the war in Iraq send chills down the spines of his readers. He is so effective at this style of journalism because instead of just covering the story, he writes about the people affected. Instead of writing about the war in Iraq like so many people have done, Breslin writes about a single mother, who's 17 year old son begged her to allow him to join the military. He needed her signature since he was not yet eighteen. She agreed, and he soon left for training and then went on to Iraq. His trip fell short when a homemade bomb blew up the truck he was riding in. Breslin's story opens with the military police getting out of their car in front of the single mother's home. She sees them and her mind is begging them 'don't come here'. The story closes with the military police making their way up the front walk of her home and her voice becomes audible,... "Don't come here!"
Breslin is, in effect, a present day Robin Hood. He criticizes choices of the rich and powerful because of the detrimental effect these choices can have on the ordinary man. He wants to be the voice of those that cannot get their voices heard on their own.

What do I hope to learn in COM 387

When I signed up for this class, I had absolutely no idea what is was, what it would be about or even what Literature of Journalism meant. I have to say that, so far, I am pleasantly suprised. I am hoping that this class will show me new ways in which to compose creative works and allow me the opportunity to expand my knowledge in creative journalism. I hope to learn through viewing and interpreting the works of others, not only published authors, but also my classmates.