The things you can't see

Most of the reactions concerning the Black Lives Matter movement puts the media at fault for racial priming, or "causing unnecessary division" among citizens. The Republicans who have ever spoken on it before have said this very thing, and have created an entire agenda based on the fact that the issues BLM brings to the forefront are more related to liberals being overly PC(Politically Correct)and succumbing to the needs of some over all. This train of thought is where the All Lives Matter rebuttal came from. We should treat every person the same no matter what. While these causes are noble on the surface, they ignore, or more fittingly, miss some of the points that BLM is trying to make. For the most part, while the two sides obviously disagree, some of the aspects of social life in contention are what we would call, implicit racism. This mostly consists of things that can't really be seen by those that it does not affect. I like to compare it to wearing different kinds of glasses. Let's say everyone born in the United States with a pair of glasses in which people can view the American Experience through their own perspective. Naturally, depending on location, race, gender, and class, your glasses will come in different shades. If I'm not wearing glasses that are the same shade as yours, it might be hard for me to explain the different things that I am seeing, and even HARDER for you to understand what I am describing. This is the premise for implicit racism, and also why its so hard for anyone to agree on anything. After reading that article one week ago, it has given me the understanding I need, and the tools to explain it better to anyone who is willing to listen

The Writing is on the Wall

In the aftermath of the Paris attacks, it shouldn't be a surprise that everyone had something to say.  No politician wasted time explaining to everyone following their respective twitter feed that they have all the answers to what they would have done to prevent the events from occurring; because, as I've said before, no politician is going to miss an opportunity to make him/herself look good. People all over the country shared their two cents. The most popular phrase in the USA became, "Pray for Paris." Facebook even went so far as to include a French flag overlay that you can add to any profile picture. In the weeks following, there was outrage by many of my peers who would consider themselves knowledgeable about world issues, because they felt that the media coverage of Paris was unfair considering that Lebanon had suffered an attack the day before. Nigeria was also mentioned by many, because of lack of coverage by media outlets. My shock isn't at the outrage itself, but the cause of the outrage. The history of American news, from radio to internet articles, has ALWAYS been filtered through what outlets deem to be important. The only difference is, back then people weren't able to instantly look up articles of differing perspectives and biases about the recent events of West Africa, instead of the newspaper's stories about Eastern Europe. Our information resources make it easy for us to find discrepancies in what people choose to cover and report. 
     Now, this is all well and good, except all of these outraged people are behaving as if it is a groundbreaking discovery that any sort of attack in Western Europe gets significantly more attention than a bombing in the Middle East. This is a staple of American News, and has been for years and years and years. The Paris attacks have exposed the fleeting emotions of the American Psyche. In a matter of minutes, an increasingly non-religious country is suddenly praying for their French ally, while all of the less than happy spectators are voicing their opinions on how much better this country can be. If the Paris attacks have taught us anything, its this; There will ALWAYS be a Western bias. Unless it involves this country, you aren't going to hear about the events of Lebanon, Palestine, Nigeria, South Africa, or anywhere else. This goes for domestic issues as well. If it isn't interesting to the companies that run the media, it won't be shown. The Writing is on the Wall, and it has been for a looooong time. The US does not care about what does not directly interest it. So let's stop expecting it to, and perhaps, make our own changes. Isn't that the attitude that created this country(wrong or not)?

Protest in Chicago over Police Killing: Pictures via Flipboard Article http://cdn.flipboard.com/content/thephotodesk/thephotodeskgalleries/items/1448465252000.html

The Politician Persona

In an earlier module, we established that one of the prevailing topics of the class is the changing methods of communication, and how that effects the way politicians present themselves to citizens. We also discussed the presence of campaign narratives, and what different aspects of a campaign come together to produce that narrative. These two aspects which merge media and politics are very interesting to me, and have changed the way that I see the current presidential race. It is easy to understand how an actor such as Arnold Schwarzenegger could win the governing office of California. The current climate is perfect for the rise of TV personalities with fleeting aspirations to run for the presidency. The ability for presidential hopefuls to be tall, handsome masters of English wasn't all that important when most of what people heard of them came out of the black and white pages of a city newspaper. All the newspaper and radio could hold was the policy suggestions and supposed party alignment of each candidate. With the invention of the TV, not only did the way that we receive our news change, but the types of candidates that essentially make the news changed with it. As much as it is the news itself that changed, we as humans have adapted to the inventions of communication, and will continue to as we advance more and more. Furthermore, the manner in which the news is delivered to us via TV and the internet has affected what kind of candidates are more successful. Our love of soft news like the Daily Show and the Colbert Report is a big reason why we would favor a President(or candidate) with a snarky attitude, cynical tone, and matter-of-fact speech pattern. These personality traits are most relatable, and appeal to the emotional side of many citizens. Basically, our sociopolitical climate is the reason why it is possible for Donald Trump to succeed in running for President.

How far will they go?

Today's topic of discussion; How far are politicians willing to go in order to win the votes of citizens? More specifically, how far are politicians willing to bend their backs in order to win the votes of a demographic that does not usually align with their cause/beliefs? We just discussed in one of our learning modules about the New venues that are becoming arenas for politicians to strut their stuff, and show their human side. Two recent, blatant, and yet opposing examples just happen to involve the two Republican frontrunners, Ben Carson and Donald Trump. In Trump's case, he's had a couple appearances on Saturday Night Live. He even hosted it one night, which resulted in a wave of protests by mostly the latino population of New York City. However, the difference between Carson and Trump is that Trump seems more committed to winning/maintaining his constituency. He knows who isn't going to vote for him, and aside from saying, "I like ethnicity X," he isn't going to make any drastic moves.  Ben Carson' campaign team just released a rap-ad, which is described to play on "urban" stations, and anyone with common sense could infer that those stations are used by the more "urban" crowd. We all know what urban really means, and to be honest, Carson probably would have been better off not releasing the ad at all. In my opinion, the ad does not seem sincere to who Ben Carson is at all, and it feels very much like a shot in the dark to reach the ears of the population that he has neglected since he has announced his presidential run. Does he expect that this rap ad will increase the likely-hood of African Americans to vote for him next year? Who knows. For all that I know, it could have the opposite effect.

Here's some less than surprising information, listeners of NPR are some of the most informed when it comes to what's in the news. As part of a research poll from poynter.org, out of 5 questions, NPR listeners answered 1.51 current domestic questions correctly, compared to 1.42 from viewers of The Daily Show, 1.22 from viewers of MSNBC, and 1.04 from viewers of Fox News. Shockingly, people who did not watch the news at all got 1.22 questions correctly, which is just a tick under those who watched CNN, at 1.26.

Now, I'm pretty sure that most educated people realize that some news sources are speaking to certain audiences, and that those same sources may be unreliable compared to others. Is it plausible to say then that this is an accurate reflection of the voter base of Democrats and Republicans? This isn't to say that all of one group are smarter than the other, but I do think that the news sources discussed here know full well what their viewer base consists of, and they exacerbate it. Naturally, this ties into ownership of TV stations, but it does not stop there. The politicians themselves feed into this, not only through their own constituency, but also through the constituency of the opposite party. It seems that every part of the political process is a part of this mechanism, with the sole purpose of continuing employment, or getting a promotion. None of this should come as a surprise, but it should help you to recognize and even separate yourself from getting too high-spirited about the political process. By keeping this in mind, you can objectively view the actions of politicians, and the kinds of things that are reported in the news.

Strange Absence

I posted a video earlier this week about the Million Man March, which was held in Washington DC on October 10th. It is an annual event, this year's being special, because it marks the 20th anniversary of the Million Man March. People gathered in front of the Washington Monument from all over the country, with many celebrities making an appearance. So why was the coverage of such an event so scarce on cable news networks? What reasonable explanation could there be for such an event to go unnoticed? With all the negative attention that hip hop has attracted since it's inception into the mainstream spotlight, for rappers to show and walk with ordinary people as part of such a positive event, you would think that at least they would get some attention for just being there. However, that was simply not the case. I didn't really get any details of the event until I looked for it online. The concept of mass media catering to its audience was one of the first things I thought of when hearing about how much attention this event DIDN'T get. The fact that the largest demographic of viewers probably wouldn't be that interested in the Million Man March isn't that surprising to me, but that doesn't make it any less sad. People talk a big game about changing the we we think of each other, but that will never happen if our motivations for what we choose to show people in the news doesn't change.

Watching the Democratic Debate last night and comparing it to the Republican Debate some weeks ago has brought a couple of things to light that I had not noticed before. If you consider the different audiences that the two debates attract, it is not surprising to think/say that the Democratic Debate attracted a more moderate crowd. Maybe it's a product of the nature of the candidates themselves, but the Republican Debate seemed less controlled. What I mean by that, is that the Democratic Debate felt more issue based, and they were less concerned about whatever personal attacks were made. A part of this comes from what we as a society view as "the truth" and how we perceive ourselves to come to it. Every single politician claims to have seen, or to know exactly what to do to fix whatever issues are at hand. Each one has different "truths" that they hold themselves to, and their respective constituencies all have their reasons for voting for a candidate also. How can we expect the media to be objective when the politicians that they are watching/reporting on are FAR from objective?  What people seem to forget is that all of the different statements that politicians make before being voted into office changes when they are actually voted into office. People say the President didn't do this, or is incapable of doing that, and claim to know why that is the case. However, we must remember that the office of the President is a fluid position, and that there are things that the public will never know, that will probably greatly influence the ability for future Presidents to take action like they say they will. In conclusion, we all think we know what's best, but we have no idea.

Million Man March

https://youtu.be/pxiz95-zt30

As seen by my first few posts, I haven't decided on a specific theme for the blog.In my first few posts I discussed the effects that our advancements in communication has had on the way we report the news, and more importantly, how THAT has had an effect on how we view history. The speed in which stories are produced, covered and then left in the past doesn't leave much room for context, which is needed to view events that are currently happening or have already happened somewhat objectively. In conjunction with this, I am going to highlight the manner of news coverage based on the audiences that they mostly cater to. It is of great interest to me, just like the reading earlier this semester, which suggested that as the largest demographic in the US changes over the next few decades, the kinds of news that we see will also begin to change.

At the speed of print

This semester we have acknowledged in more ways than one, that the way we communicate has effected the way news is brought to us, and the amount of people that see it. I think that there is no better example of this phenomenon then the Texas student who was sent away out of fear of bringing a bomb to school. The story broke on September 16th. In a matter of hours, both President Obama and Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg responded encouragingly to the story, reassuring Ahmed Mohamed that he had their support. Everyone in the country began tweeting about it, retweeting it, sharing it on Facebook, as well as maybe finding it in the newspaper. Just 5 days later, Ahmed has been invited, and is going, to space camp,  and the story seems to have been resolved. I  couldn't help but notice, that since I've been informed on the perspective of the speed of national interest, the story was introduced, reached the climax of national interest, and has died down faster than I realized it could. It goes without saying that without the internet, we would probably be getting the details today, instead of hours after it happened. That's why this serves as the best case study for what we've been discussing so far.

Former inmates: Incarceration makes economic stability nearly impossible for our families http://flip.it/S1Ehw

Beginning observations

As I've been learning throughout the semester, there are various ways in which the media chooses to distribute it's information to us. One of the things that I have noticed is the collective perspective that articles and news stories take over time. What I mean is, each time a newsworthy event happens, some one reports it, and there's a story. Usually, stories are written so that you get the gist of what has happened as quickly as possible. But based on the idea of fragmented bias, if you were to put all of the articles of a certain story together over time, how much information would be missing? I think that this sort of bias transcends the news sphere and affects the way we look at history, and even the way we learn. When politicians cite historical events in their arguments, they use the events themselves to their advantage, despite whatever context caused that event to happen. Of course, I would never expect a politician to do otherwise, and so should no one else. But when large numbers of people believe everything that is told to them, word for word, for over 30 years, it sort of becomes a  "paper truth," until the truth is uncovered through research. So when people bring up the police brutality issues, and the responses are mostly statistics and trends(i.e. black on black crimes, poverty, the usual stuff), no one considers the context, or *why those things were that way at that time* People use these responses as isolated incidents, with the expectation that these retorts are good enough to end any argument of the opposite persuasion. Furthermore, the same people that do this use context to defend their arguments, which is I guess as expected of them. I understand that it's unrealistic to expect people all over the country  to put forth the effort to find their own facts. But when it gets bad enough that it spreads from media, to education, to everyday living, that's when it becomes a problem.