While finishing up my readings for this week's class, I had an ADD moment that led to looking up the old schoolhouse rock "Just a Bill" song.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TBxxPPhzj8

Notice that there really isn't any partisan bias in this video and that it remains completely educational and objective. The race and gender bias is a conversation for another class, but this did make me think about what changes would be made if this were redone today.

It seems as if this very informative video was highly educational for most of us growing up.

I will admit that everything in this video summarizes the extent of my knowledge of how bills become law.

(Future Vice President and President, in that order)

Since I have a unique opportunity to discuss this among future lawmakers, I ask:

If it were done today, would you change anything (I realize that lawmaking policies haven't changed in the past few decades)? What would you add personally to make this more useful for the child audience? What would you change for an adult audience? Is there any other legal information would you consider important for children to know?

As far as edutainment goes, this is truly the finest and the golden standard in my book, I love Schoolhouse Rock!

The intersection of Media and Politics

One interesting example of the intersection between politics and the media is an ongoing event that is called Occupy Wall Street. This movement started on September 17th, according to a report by NPR, and the protest plans to march on Wall Street and camp out all week. There is no official leader of the movement, they simply operate on the principle that, "the one thing we all have in common is that We Are The 99% that will no longer tolerate the greed and corruption of the 1%." The one percent that they mention also happens to include several media moguls who own news media outlets. Since the group also pushes for the end of big bonuses for executives and an increase in labor, many outlets have yet to take the movement seriously. This event receives a lot of criticism in the news and rarely is discussed with a serious tone.

This is an example of how the media can frame issues in the media to alter public perception of the issue. Talking about the event as a joke makes people take the event as a joke rather than a serious movement. The difference with this event is that the issue of the down turning economy is a highly prevalent issue that is difficult for the public to take as a joke. This is seen through the tremendous growth of this event.

This event also lends itself to the DailyKos article that we read about Millenials and Activism. This movement affirms Logothetis claim that our generation does meet the “activism standard of the previous generation.” It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the media since it is something that they are trying to shrug off as it gains support from citizens. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=141073203

Infotainment...is this REALLY news?!

Lets face it, most people would rather read the National Enquirer than the NY Times. Soft news sells better than controversial or influential stories. When Beyonce Knowles became pregnant with her first child, it was, and continues to be, the talk of the town.

Not to say that I don't care about Beyonce's baby-- wait... I don't. With all of the social issues facing us today, I understand the need for a break from stories about corrupt politicians, robberies and murders; but at some we have to say enough is enough. If people had given half of the energy to actual social issues that they give to celebrities, we could actually make social change and progress.

This decline in news quality content is attributed to the concentration of media ownership in a select few hands. In an attempt to attract more news media consumers, advertising rates are distorted which effectively forces smaller outlets to either cease programming or assimilate their format to a more profitable one resulting in less diversity in programming. Also, there is a less critical coverage of the media industry because of the interests of maintaining a corporate image and in favor of self-promotion and because reporting the news has ceased to be a public service and has become another product that brings in profits. On page 240, Bennett notes that, “news content shifts to infotainment formats,” because of the economic effectiveness of soft news.

While the merging of news corporations diluted the news, Bennett points out on page 229 that the merging of entertainment and news has brought key issues to groups that are otherwise closed off to politics and news. Unfortunately, the information may be so fragmented that it is difficult to understand in terms of the big picture.

So go ahead and indulge in trivial mindless 'news' drivel, just make sure to read some hard news as well. :)

Journalistic Bias effecting News Content

In chapter 4 of our text by Lance Bennett, NEWS Politics of Illusion, he discusses 4 very important biases that effect the way in which our news content is delivered to us. He notes that the news is no longer about providing an important pubic service; rather it has become a packaged consumer product. Because of this, the quality of the news that we receive is has been reduced to what is commonly referred to as infotainment.

Next, he explains the preference to dramatize events and, “emphasize crisis over continuity… downplay complex policy information, the workings of government institutions, and the bases of power behind the central characters.” This is mainly seen in local news like many of these stories from the AJC. Rather than focusing on the quality of life and how to improve it, the media looks for every tear jerking, heart wrenching story that ensures you will pay to find out more.

The most harmful bias is what Bennett refers to on page 45 as the personalization bias. He notes that there is a tendency to downplay the big picture of an event to focus on the human trials and tragedies. The reason is because human interest pieces are easier to sell than hard news that analyzes the political system and potentially alienates people.

Media also has a tendency to take stories out of context so that the big picture is hard to see. This is what Bennett refers to as fragmentation on page 47. For example, in the two articles that are linked in the previous paragraph, rather than focusing on the social issues that are causing the ever increasing robberies, we look at fragmented events (and are shocked every time it happens!).

On the same page, he also remarks that there is an obsession with “authority disorder.” That is to say, the news is preoccupied with order and whether or not authorities can restore or establish it.

To become a more observant media consumer, rather than another mindless drone, it is important to be aware of the biases in the news media. Unlike most consumer products, our choices don't drastically effect our quality of life and that of our nation. Since this is the case with the news media, it is imperative to be aware of the ways in which we are manipulated by the news media.

Do you think that the news media's many biases have a negative effect on people, or is this all malarkey?

Social Media: Motivator or Distraction

In this article from the New York Times, author Noam Choen reviews an interesting thesis conducted by a Yale graduate student that provides an interesting viewpoint on the effects of social media that I feel relates to the DailyKos article in an interesting way. In his thesis, Media Disruption Exacerbates Revolutionary Unrest, Navid Hassanpour examines the effects of President Hosni Mubarak's decision to cut off Internet and cellphone service in the middle of the Tahrir Square riots. He concludes that this was a poor decision because it involved citizens who did not previously hold a political opinion about the situation, it prompted more face-to-face activism, and it decentralized the rebellion thus making it more difficult to control.

I would have to agree that while social media sites are great for people to come together and discuss like interests, I have not seen much actual activism influenced by these means. Everyone is more than happy to post status updates about whatever cause interests them that day, but anymore than that would require a major catalyst for change. In this case, the incitation needed to move the opposition from a virtual world to the real world was provided by the government when they removed these avenues of communication.

I feel that this relates to the DailyKos article because it provides a current example that validates the claims that Friedman and Kohn make about social media hindering the face-to-face activism of yore. Due to the fact that the government restricted the use of the Internet, the activists had to find another way to vent their feelings. Since they couldn't do it from the comfort of home, many went to the streets. This illustrates many of the concerns that Friedman and Kohn have about social media.

This also validates many of Logothetis's claims as well. Without the social media, these people would have never assembled together in the first place. But that is not enough to incite the kind of change that the protests accomplished.

All in all, I feel that social media is a powerful tool for this, but we also gotta get off our butts from time to time and get the word out.

Political Role of Mass Media

John Stewart on crossfire.

This clip officially made John Stewart my favorite television personality and ended a very long tie for first place with Bill Maher. What I like most about the clip is that he goes onto the show because he is promoting a book, and he ends up denouncing the entire news media.

When I look at America and wonder why the majority of the population ignorant and out of touch with the politics that affect them, I realize that I have to take into account all of the manipulation done by the news media.

The discord occurs because Americans believe that the news media actually wants to help us. As a country, we have a flawed belief that everyone has our best interests in mind. The media, the government, the USDA, the church, they all have their own agenda. Usually their agenda revolves around the acquisition of money, and they use us to attain that money. We assume that the media has our interests in mind and that they would let us know any and all important information. The reality, however, is that they have their own best interests in mind and will go so far as to omit entire viewpoints to protect those interests.

The media makes its money and gains its power thorough ratings and having a large fan base; politics works in a similar fashion. With that being said, it seems like they would be natural soul-mates. Since the news media has no moral obligation to its public, besides a self-imposed one, entire media entities have been set up with solely political basis.

Is this bad or wrong?

Not really since there is enough information available that people should do their own research and come to their own conclusions rather than sitting around waiting for someone else to tell them what to think. Unfortunately, this is America.