With all the unrest happening in the Middle East, I have been reading many news articles. What consistently strikes me is the disconnect between the press and the official view of their government. For example, the New York Times has an article about Netanyahu coming to the US soon where he will outline his policies. In the article it says that Netanyahu will not negotiate with the Palestinians when Hamas is included in the government (and does so in a way that makes him seem obstinate). But this is not news, especially as the U.S. goverment also considers Hamas to be a terrorist group. So if the American government treats them as terrorists, then why does the Times have to report this as news, or treat Hamas as if it is only a terrorist group according to the US government. What I am trying to say is that while newspapers should definitely question their government, shouldn't there be some overlap between the press and their government in terms of foreign policy?
If not, then why?
Monday, May 16, 2011
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Is the media blowing US-Pakistan relations out of proportion?
In the uproar surrounding Osama bin Laden's death, I have been noticing a lot of media reports proclaiming that the US and Pakistan are experiencing a crisis in their relations and are drifting away from one another.
One Reuters report, that I read in JPost, announces about the raid itself that "The CIA ruled out working with Pakistan on the raid because 'it was decided that any effort to work with the Pakistanis could jeopardize the mission: They might alert the targets,' Panetta said." Leon Panetta is the chief of the CIA.
Another article, this one in Time Magazine, has a headline of :
"American officials stopped well short of accusing Pakistan of sheltering Bin Laden, but they strongly indicated that they would want answers about the extent of the network in Pakistan that allowed Bin Laden to live and hide in apparent comfort for so long. "
All in all, the media paints Pakistan as an untrustworthy ally..but my question is, how much of this is speculation and how much is fact?
I think that when it comes to international relations, media speculation does not help anyone. We do not know what is happening behind closed doors. By the media announcing theories as facts, they are providing a disservice to citizens. Maybe Pakistan was hiding Bin Laden, maybe not. But for the media, which needs attention grabbing headlines to generate business, speculation is an easy way to grab readers and reminds us that one should always try to look at the media's stories with a grain of salt
One Reuters report, that I read in JPost, announces about the raid itself that "The CIA ruled out working with Pakistan on the raid because 'it was decided that any effort to work with the Pakistanis could jeopardize the mission: They might alert the targets,' Panetta said." Leon Panetta is the chief of the CIA.
Another article, this one in Time Magazine, has a headline of :
Finding Bin Laden Raises Questions About Pakistan's Complicity
The New York Times has an article where American officials are quoted as saying:"American officials stopped well short of accusing Pakistan of sheltering Bin Laden, but they strongly indicated that they would want answers about the extent of the network in Pakistan that allowed Bin Laden to live and hide in apparent comfort for so long. "
All in all, the media paints Pakistan as an untrustworthy ally..but my question is, how much of this is speculation and how much is fact?
I think that when it comes to international relations, media speculation does not help anyone. We do not know what is happening behind closed doors. By the media announcing theories as facts, they are providing a disservice to citizens. Maybe Pakistan was hiding Bin Laden, maybe not. But for the media, which needs attention grabbing headlines to generate business, speculation is an easy way to grab readers and reminds us that one should always try to look at the media's stories with a grain of salt
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Bloggers as.....Slaves?
Seems like in the new age of bloggers being used as an important tool of politics, some thorny questions of digital rights are coming up. Check this story out: http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/12/huffington-post-is-target-of-suit-on-behalf-of-bloggers/?nl=afternoonupdate&emc=aua22
The Huffington Post is being sued by bloggers for lack of compensation to the bloggers for the services that they were contracted to do by the Post. The suit is being led by Jonthan Tasini, a labor lawyer who had these kind words to say "“The Huffington bloggers have essentially been turned into modern-day slaves on Arianna Huffington’s plantation”.
The question that is really raised here, however, is what rights do bloggers have? Are they considered workers in the same sense of a traditional 9-5 job? Are they writers or authors like James Patterson or JK Rowling? I think that these questions, and this lawsuit, have the potential to become a really big deal because the blogging world is only going to proliferate and these questions must be dealt with.
The Huffington Post is being sued by bloggers for lack of compensation to the bloggers for the services that they were contracted to do by the Post. The suit is being led by Jonthan Tasini, a labor lawyer who had these kind words to say "“The Huffington bloggers have essentially been turned into modern-day slaves on Arianna Huffington’s plantation”.
The question that is really raised here, however, is what rights do bloggers have? Are they considered workers in the same sense of a traditional 9-5 job? Are they writers or authors like James Patterson or JK Rowling? I think that these questions, and this lawsuit, have the potential to become a really big deal because the blogging world is only going to proliferate and these questions must be dealt with.
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Goldstone and the UN
In a stunning Washington Post article, Richard Goldstone, the UN chief of investigating Israel and Hamas's conduct during the 2008 war, completely retracts his previous report, where he claimed Israel deliberately targeted civilians (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/reconsidering-the-goldstone-report-on-israel-and-war-crimes/2011/04/01/AFg111JC_story.html) . In response, Israel and various Jewish organizations are pressing the UN to rescind the report. After all, if the author himself disagrees with the conclusions, then why should such a report stand?
Now lets be honest here. We all know that the UN Human Rights Council is full of inveterate Israel haters. They are not going to invalidate any literature that supports their doctrine of evil Israelis killing Palestinian babies. If Israel did not target civilians and they admit it, then all their holier-than-thou announcements hold no water and they know so. BUT what is interesting to me as a student in Media and Politics is how the media portrays the U.N.
For the most part, the media portrays the UN as a respectable international institution. But, it has not been like that for many years- and not just in its treatment of Israel. Why is it when that something/someone gives off an air of legitimacy, the media respects it? The media can be scathing sometimes, for example local US media can be very incisive against the U.S. government. Why should the UN get off easy? The media should treat the UN like any other organization and bring its failings to light.
And unrelated, but an interesting idea of how organizations should use terms in their public relations dealings is this blog: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/goldstones-retraction-and-the-new-anti-semitism/2011/03/29/AFMYIM9C_blog.html
I think her idea is really interesting. If Jewish organizations started calling the BDS movement anti-Semitic, would people take them more seriously?
Now lets be honest here. We all know that the UN Human Rights Council is full of inveterate Israel haters. They are not going to invalidate any literature that supports their doctrine of evil Israelis killing Palestinian babies. If Israel did not target civilians and they admit it, then all their holier-than-thou announcements hold no water and they know so. BUT what is interesting to me as a student in Media and Politics is how the media portrays the U.N.
For the most part, the media portrays the UN as a respectable international institution. But, it has not been like that for many years- and not just in its treatment of Israel. Why is it when that something/someone gives off an air of legitimacy, the media respects it? The media can be scathing sometimes, for example local US media can be very incisive against the U.S. government. Why should the UN get off easy? The media should treat the UN like any other organization and bring its failings to light.
And unrelated, but an interesting idea of how organizations should use terms in their public relations dealings is this blog: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/goldstones-retraction-and-the-new-anti-semitism/2011/03/29/AFMYIM9C_blog.html
I think her idea is really interesting. If Jewish organizations started calling the BDS movement anti-Semitic, would people take them more seriously?
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Youtube as a Venue to Talk to World Leaders
Last class we were discussing the ways a presidental hopeful would run a campaign, and how he/she would have to incorporate new media. On that note, I thought that this was really cool. It seems Youtube runs interviews with world leaders where average citizens from around the globe submit video questions and then the world leaders respond with their own video response in a interview style. Here is the link to Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu's interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5t6A9wSMWo&feature=featured
I wonder if this will herald a new time where average citizens have more up close and personal exposure to their leaders, or the status quo remains the same? Either way, I think this was a really cool idea as more and more people go to the internet for news and entertainment programs like this will keep politics on the minds of average citizens.
I wonder if this will herald a new time where average citizens have more up close and personal exposure to their leaders, or the status quo remains the same? Either way, I think this was a really cool idea as more and more people go to the internet for news and entertainment programs like this will keep politics on the minds of average citizens.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
One man's "strike" is another nation's terrorist tragedy
Delving into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict when it comes to media is dangerous. Both sides claim that the media is biased towards it. I personally hold very strong pro-Israel views, but I admit that there is truth to both sides of the argument. However, I will say that recently, the media has gone on a complete whitewash of Palestinian terrorism.
When the brutal attack and murder of the Fogel family was being reported by CNN, they put the words terrorist attack in quotation marks. Lets call a spade a spade here. Knifing a family while they sleep is a pretty clear terrorist act.
But it gets even better. Today, a bus in Jerusalem was attacked by terrorists. Guess what the wonderful staff at Yahoo News had to say: "Police said it was a "terrorist attack" -- Israel's term for a Palestinian strike".
Honestly. When does blowing up a bus full of civilians constitute a "strike"? How can the media in any way seem to suggest that there is moral equivalence between terrorists and the Israeli army. Its sickening
When the brutal attack and murder of the Fogel family was being reported by CNN, they put the words terrorist attack in quotation marks. Lets call a spade a spade here. Knifing a family while they sleep is a pretty clear terrorist act.
But it gets even better. Today, a bus in Jerusalem was attacked by terrorists. Guess what the wonderful staff at Yahoo News had to say: "Police said it was a "terrorist attack" -- Israel's term for a Palestinian strike".
Honestly. When does blowing up a bus full of civilians constitute a "strike"? How can the media in any way seem to suggest that there is moral equivalence between terrorists and the Israeli army. Its sickening
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Putting Words in Palin's Mouth
Now I am no big fan of Sarah Palin. But it is very interesting to see how the media frames her actions. Today, Palin is in Israel on a completely private trip. (She will meet with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu however). She released a statement that said: "“I’m thankful to be able to travel to Israel on my way back to the US,” Palin said. “As the world confronts sweeping changes and new realities, I look forward to meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu to discuss the key issues facing his country, our ally Israel.”"
Its a fairly generic statement for a Republican politician, and seemingly that should have been the end of it. But every single story I read about it barely focused on her visit, but rather on her potential presidential campaign. The tack they all take is about her lack of foreign policy expertise and how her current trips abroad are meant to boost her image and standing to make a presidential run. As the JPost staff had to mention:
"Palin will be coming at a time when her poll numbers in the US are on a steep decline. A Bloomberg National Poll conducted from March 4-7 found that 60 percent of the US public has either a “mostly unfavorable” or “very unfavorable” opinion of her.
An ABC News/Washington Post poll released Wednesday found that her numbers among Republican and Republicanleaning voters have dropped considerably."
Its a fairly generic statement for a Republican politician, and seemingly that should have been the end of it. But every single story I read about it barely focused on her visit, but rather on her potential presidential campaign. The tack they all take is about her lack of foreign policy expertise and how her current trips abroad are meant to boost her image and standing to make a presidential run. As the JPost staff had to mention:
"Palin will be coming at a time when her poll numbers in the US are on a steep decline. A Bloomberg National Poll conducted from March 4-7 found that 60 percent of the US public has either a “mostly unfavorable” or “very unfavorable” opinion of her.
An ABC News/Washington Post poll released Wednesday found that her numbers among Republican and Republicanleaning voters have dropped considerably."
This phenomenon of media framing, where they not only show the news but tell readers how to think about the news, is a very important theme in media and politics. One should always look at the stories one reads and see what frame the story is being presented in to see if there is a inherent bias in the story.
Monday, March 14, 2011
Using dead bodies for hasbara?
Minister of Public Diplomacy and Diaspora Affairs Yuli Edelstein was quoted in a JPost article about the Israeli government's decision to publicize the images of the murdered Fogel family. He said that the use of these images was not meant as a Hasbara policy, but that since the attack did happen; "we can also use unusual forms of public diplomacy" in showing the images.
And honestly, he is right. Regardless of whether you consider this action to be exploiting the tragic deaths of the Fogels, the media's selective use of images is very powerful, even iconic. In the article, the case of al-Dura is mentioned, where a 12 year old Palestinian boy was pictured in a crossfire between Israeli forces and Palestinian gunmen. That was an iconic image that negatively portrayed Israel. In general, the image has lasting power and effect, more so than the written word. I just thought that in the midst of this terrible case, we could see how the media's use of, or omission, of images can play in a role in how someone views these issues and contribute to bias.
Heres the article: http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=212176
And honestly, he is right. Regardless of whether you consider this action to be exploiting the tragic deaths of the Fogels, the media's selective use of images is very powerful, even iconic. In the article, the case of al-Dura is mentioned, where a 12 year old Palestinian boy was pictured in a crossfire between Israeli forces and Palestinian gunmen. That was an iconic image that negatively portrayed Israel. In general, the image has lasting power and effect, more so than the written word. I just thought that in the midst of this terrible case, we could see how the media's use of, or omission, of images can play in a role in how someone views these issues and contribute to bias.
Heres the article: http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=212176
Monday, March 7, 2011
Media and Wikileaks
After today's discussion in class, I learned something new about the whole Wikileaks affair. The professor said that major media outlets actually convinced Assange to blackout certain names and dates. This interests me because judged on what we have learned so far, it seems the media loves to expose the government's inner workings.
But the major question I think Wikileaks raises is how much information is too much? The fact is- aside from Hilliary Clinton asking her aides to spy on other nations at the UN-the leaks showed that by and large, the State Department was doing its job. Its diplomats were dutifully reporting about the countries they were stationed at, and by leaking the files, nothing too crazy was revealed. All it did was to harm the US and other countries by showing sensitive information. This information was not harmful to the public or something that we needed to know. In this case, I don't think Wikileaks really had a right to reveal the information and I don't think the media should have published the material. Obviously, this is naive because Assange has a vendetta against the US government and the media will publish anything that generates headlines.
But, while I do think that the media should never be afraid to publish something, when the government is actually doing its job, there is no need to impede it.
But the major question I think Wikileaks raises is how much information is too much? The fact is- aside from Hilliary Clinton asking her aides to spy on other nations at the UN-the leaks showed that by and large, the State Department was doing its job. Its diplomats were dutifully reporting about the countries they were stationed at, and by leaking the files, nothing too crazy was revealed. All it did was to harm the US and other countries by showing sensitive information. This information was not harmful to the public or something that we needed to know. In this case, I don't think Wikileaks really had a right to reveal the information and I don't think the media should have published the material. Obviously, this is naive because Assange has a vendetta against the US government and the media will publish anything that generates headlines.
But, while I do think that the media should never be afraid to publish something, when the government is actually doing its job, there is no need to impede it.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Losing the News
In his book Losing the News: The Future of the News That Feeds Democracy, Alex Jones argues that as newspapers begin to fail due to lack of money, we will lose our main source of the news that a democracy needs to function. He is not talking about soft news, but as he calls it: "the core" of news, reports of corruption, wartime reporting, foreign policy, and other important news that informed citizens should know about. While digital media is great and free, only newspapers hire people to do the legwork required to find out these stories. Newspapers employ investigative reporters and journalists to find out the stories we need to know. But nowadays to make the bottom line, newspapers are slashing their investigative news corps, which is bad news for our democracy.
I think that he is correct and we should try to find a way to find a business model which ensures the survival of our newspapers. Check this story out about the environmental risks of natural gas drilling :http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/27/us/27gas.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=general .
Only a newspaper with investigative reporters who have the resources to pursue a story (in this case, going to the EPA and finding those reports) would be able to give the public a story like this. IF newspapers fold, then we all lose in the process.
I think that he is correct and we should try to find a way to find a business model which ensures the survival of our newspapers. Check this story out about the environmental risks of natural gas drilling :http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/27/us/27gas.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=general .
Only a newspaper with investigative reporters who have the resources to pursue a story (in this case, going to the EPA and finding those reports) would be able to give the public a story like this. IF newspapers fold, then we all lose in the process.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Is the new media all that bad?
I have begun reading my book for the report: Losing the News: The Future of the News That Feeds Democracy by Alex Jones. From what I have read so far, one of his main arguments is that the explosion of digital media and new information sources is one of the main processes that is driving newspapers to bankruptcy. These new sources are coupled with new sites like craigslist, which take away one of newspapers main sources of revenue in the classified ads. Jones argues that because of this, the core of investigative news is being driven away. He says in one line that the new media of the internet could potentially help....but he leaves it at that and doesn't give it much more consideration.
But I disagree. Yes, the majority of people would rather read soft news on Yahoo, but for those informed citizens who really want information, the internet is a great tool for it places multiple sources of information at their fingertips free of cost. A person can read about the unrest in Libya from sources in Libya, major newspapers online, and the US government. Digital media in this sense allows for more citizens to learn about the world and how it affects their democracy.
Where I do agree with Jones is when it comes to news that hold those in power accountable, it has been the newspapers that have been doing the legwork. They are the ones who pay reporters and journalists full salaries to track down the important news stories and spend the amount of time necessary to obtain all the details. With newspapers slashing their staff to try and survive, losing these reporters and journalists is something that online and digital media cannot replace.
But I disagree. Yes, the majority of people would rather read soft news on Yahoo, but for those informed citizens who really want information, the internet is a great tool for it places multiple sources of information at their fingertips free of cost. A person can read about the unrest in Libya from sources in Libya, major newspapers online, and the US government. Digital media in this sense allows for more citizens to learn about the world and how it affects their democracy.
Where I do agree with Jones is when it comes to news that hold those in power accountable, it has been the newspapers that have been doing the legwork. They are the ones who pay reporters and journalists full salaries to track down the important news stories and spend the amount of time necessary to obtain all the details. With newspapers slashing their staff to try and survive, losing these reporters and journalists is something that online and digital media cannot replace.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Man has 39 Wives and nearly 100 children/ Soft news
Yesterday in class we were discussing the media's obligation to bring real news to the public's attention. The professor said that this standard has been declining and that now soft news takes up way too much of the coverage. Other students responded that the media wasn't doing this because they wanted to, but because the public wants it. Its not that the media's standard for soft news has fallen, it just reflects the demographic realities of our generation. Well, either way, with revolt in Libya and an earthquake in New Zealand, guess what made top news in Yahoo? :http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110222/od_nm/us_india_family Still, thats pretty impressive to deal with 39 wives and have 100 children.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Media Portrayal of Politics in Wisconsin
For those who have not been following the news, check out this NY Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/20/us/politics/20wisconsin.html?_r=1&ref=us. What I find interesting is not the politics behind the labor unions and the governor, but how the media portrays it. In the textbook, a motif discussed was how the media often "frames" the issue. Since most news often covers very broad topics, when the media presents a story, it decides into what context it will place the story. Furthermore, an idea discussed for a large portion of the textbook was that not only does the media place its' stories in different contexts, it also tells the viewers how to think about an issue. When an issue is presented, the media will, on purpose or not, tell you how to think about a certain issue.
Keeping that in mind, when I read this article, I could see the framing the NY times has done. It has clearly placed this story in the frame of the partisan debate between Republicans and Democrats, as well as a frame of this affair being a staging point for a Democrat comeback. I just found that interesting.
Keeping that in mind, when I read this article, I could see the framing the NY times has done. It has clearly placed this story in the frame of the partisan debate between Republicans and Democrats, as well as a frame of this affair being a staging point for a Democrat comeback. I just found that interesting.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Watchdog or Lapdog?
Chapter 10 in the textbook is all about the watchdog aspect of journalism and how it is essential to democracy. The textbook claims- and I agree- that though the public assumes that this is a essential and needed aspect to journalism, it is the least well defined. How do journalists skirt on the line of asking the necessary questions to show exactly what the government is doing and not just be a pack of dogs looking to tear into every public official? Another question that was raised is how do journalists do this watchdog aspect (like the Watergate and Deep Throat affair) without being influenced by money? Whoever owns the newsroom is looking for scandal-generating headlines and money- not necessarily the best journalism. I think that the public needs to not only hold governments accountable, but also their newspapers to ensure that the newspapers lets the journalists do their jobs.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Mubarak Steps Down
Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak stepped down a few days after 30 years of rule. Media was not a major factor behind his decision, it WAS the major factor. Of course, Mubarak created the conditions that made people protest. He was the one who let the gaps between the rich and poor develop and created a police state.
But once the protests started, it was the new global media of Twitter and Youtube that were able to broadcast images from handheld cell phones and let hundreds of thousands of people deposit Mubarak from power even though they had no clear program or leader. I think that new global media can be a force for both unification and division, but for sure this media is powerful. I am curious though about how though the world was shocked by what happened to the Green movement in Iran, nothing happened there, whereas in Egypt, with no organized movement, serious change happened? In conclusion I think that mass media can have a major political effect, but it cannot by itself effect change.
But once the protests started, it was the new global media of Twitter and Youtube that were able to broadcast images from handheld cell phones and let hundreds of thousands of people deposit Mubarak from power even though they had no clear program or leader. I think that new global media can be a force for both unification and division, but for sure this media is powerful. I am curious though about how though the world was shocked by what happened to the Green movement in Iran, nothing happened there, whereas in Egypt, with no organized movement, serious change happened? In conclusion I think that mass media can have a major political effect, but it cannot by itself effect change.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Television vs. Radio
I really agreed with Druckman's point that people learn more from television than they do from radio. Like he said, when it comes to judging qualities like evasiveness and being trustworthy, humans put a lot of emphasis on non-verbal components. I know for sure that sometimes when I see someone, I just feel in my gut that this person is a genuinely nice guy or is not trustworthy. Thats why dirty political ads are so effective: by putting an image on the screen and then inviting the viewer to associate the image of the political opponent with some negative quality, it is in our nature to come to accept that association. With that in mind; here is an example of Mccain's attempt to get viewers to associate President Obama as more of a celebrity than an serious candidate:
Saturday, February 5, 2011
The Egyptian Protests
I was thinking about our class discussion about the objectivity of the media. I said that there is no such thing as an objective media. If even if one media outlet tries to project an objective outlook, there is always some bias because humans are biased. When we look at piece of news or knowledge, we immediately begin judging it and reinterpreting the event according to how we think this news should appear. To that effect, I thought the media's slant on the Egyptian protests was very clear. To according to many (but not all) of the media outlets, the protests were for the beginning of a democratic regime in Egypt. As Fareed Zakaria of TIME magazine wrote: "according to the 2010 report, a large majority believes that democracy is preferable to any other kind of government...
I remain convinced that fears of an Egyptian theocracy are vastly overblown.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2045888-3,00.html#ixzz1D9MZUHOl"Granted, this was an opinion piece but it is just emblematic of media outlets to put spins on stories. I think that this is the natural order of things, but others disagreed. Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)