This semester has been very eye-opening in terms of understanding the various patterns of the mass media industry. With every media era has come a different view of politicians and the roles that they have been expected to play in our society. Overall, we have grown more comfortable with the politicians who lead our towns, cities and country. We use sketch comedy shows like Saturday Night Live to illustrate and exaggerate the flaws our political leaders possess, making them appear more human. Television programs like The Daily Show with Jon Stewart provide honest critiques about political policies and controversies, removing the mystique and barriers that once existed between “normal” American citizens and politicians. Indeed, we have come a long way from the days when people were punished for speaking out against their political leaders. Today, people have a very passionate relationship with their politicians; we love them ferociously, with bumper stickers and Facebook groups proclaiming our support, yet we are not afraid to question some of their policies and decisions.
I think that this American pattern relates to our current attitude towards President Obama. It’s no secret that the public’s opinion on the President has been steadily declining over the past few months, with many citing his suggested policies as anticlimactic and disappointing. The video posted below from CNN.com outlines the changes that have contributed to a more skeptical public response to President Obama. During his campaign, Obama appeared strong and fearless, appealing to many young college students and hopeful Americans who desperately wanted to see our country led in a more progressive, liberal direction.
Unfortunately, with power comes great responsibility, and becoming President of the United States meant that Obama would have to make some concessions to his ideological and hopeful campaign points in order to truly remodel the current American system. I think that some people were unprepared for the direction that President Obama took with some of his recent responsibilities, including job creation and the future in Afghanistan. The health care and deficit problems are also laid out for President Obama to tackle, but unemployment remains the main concern among Americans, as it went up to 10 percent last month. People are growing increasingly frustrated with Obama, and I think that the media’s new, unfriendly tone towards the President is somewhat to blame. As of late, the media has been diverted from the Obama-loving frenzy that filled newspapers and websites throughout the presidential campaign. I think that an unrealistically high set of expectations are to blame for the media’s recent disillusionment with President Obama; ironically, these expectations were set by media figures themselves.
Watch the video here:
-Sarah
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
The Unwelcome Salahi Party of Two
This past November, Tareq and Michaele Salahi put on their best attire and attended a star studded state dinner at the White House. They excitedly snapped photographs with some of the evening’s biggest names, including Vice President Joe Biden, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and Katie Couric. The following morning, Michaele, like so many others, logged onto her Facebook account to post pictures and status updates about the exclusive affair on her profile.
Within hours, the pictures had garnered media attention and The Washington Post became the first paper to report on the mystery guests. By Wednesday, the Secret Service was alerted to news of the security breach after increased media attention revealed that the Salahis had never been invited to the dinner. The Secret Service’s Office of Professional Responsibility quickly began reviewing the data from the dinner party. They quickly found that a checkpoint was responsible for the breach, after failing to follow proper procedures to verify that the couple was on the guest list.
As news of the Salahis’ party crashing antics spread across the country, Americans everywhere were shocked at the thought that two uninvited people were granted access into the one of the most high profile, security-stacked events of the year. The Secret Service’s spokesman, Ed Donovan, rushed to defend the agency, assuring reporters that the President was in no immediate danger because the Salahis went through the same security screenings as every other guest. This point seems irrelevant and unworthy of praise; it goes without saying that anyone who enters a room with the President be subject to intensive security screenings beforehand. Even though they did not have weapons in their possession, the Salahis still gained access to a White House affair that was supposed to be closed to the public. This is a major breach in security, suggesting to outside parties that Presidential events may not be as well-guarded as one would assume. I feel like this makes us appear disorganized and weak to other countries, with a Saturday Night Live skit and various editorials devoted to mocking and analyzing the incident.
Additionally, I think it’s fascinating that the Salahis essentially created this unflattering media attention themselves by posting their pictures to Facebook. Most people update their Facebook statuses and photo albums with their Friends List in mind; while they are aware that their ex-boyfriends and mother-in-laws may view their birthday party snapshots, it is quite unlikely that pictures from my family vacation will ignite a media frenzy. If, however, I attended a White House dinner to which I was not invited and managed to snag pictures with the President himself, I would probably be satisfied with a framed photo on my desk, rather than a detailed and cocky Facebook album. This logic leads me to believe that the Salahis, potential new cast members on Bravo’s hit reality franchise, “Real Housewives of D.C.,” fully intended to receive attention for their jaw dropping antics. The sheer nerve behind their actions and the ease with which Michaele posted their pictures on the Internet proves that the instant accessibility made possible by the mass media can breed an unhealthy sense of entitlement and exhibitionism. The Salahis clearly believed that they were worthy of fame and attention because of their socioeconomic status and used the mass media unfairly as a means of achieving their dishonest goals.
-Sarah
Within hours, the pictures had garnered media attention and The Washington Post became the first paper to report on the mystery guests. By Wednesday, the Secret Service was alerted to news of the security breach after increased media attention revealed that the Salahis had never been invited to the dinner. The Secret Service’s Office of Professional Responsibility quickly began reviewing the data from the dinner party. They quickly found that a checkpoint was responsible for the breach, after failing to follow proper procedures to verify that the couple was on the guest list.
As news of the Salahis’ party crashing antics spread across the country, Americans everywhere were shocked at the thought that two uninvited people were granted access into the one of the most high profile, security-stacked events of the year. The Secret Service’s spokesman, Ed Donovan, rushed to defend the agency, assuring reporters that the President was in no immediate danger because the Salahis went through the same security screenings as every other guest. This point seems irrelevant and unworthy of praise; it goes without saying that anyone who enters a room with the President be subject to intensive security screenings beforehand. Even though they did not have weapons in their possession, the Salahis still gained access to a White House affair that was supposed to be closed to the public. This is a major breach in security, suggesting to outside parties that Presidential events may not be as well-guarded as one would assume. I feel like this makes us appear disorganized and weak to other countries, with a Saturday Night Live skit and various editorials devoted to mocking and analyzing the incident.
Additionally, I think it’s fascinating that the Salahis essentially created this unflattering media attention themselves by posting their pictures to Facebook. Most people update their Facebook statuses and photo albums with their Friends List in mind; while they are aware that their ex-boyfriends and mother-in-laws may view their birthday party snapshots, it is quite unlikely that pictures from my family vacation will ignite a media frenzy. If, however, I attended a White House dinner to which I was not invited and managed to snag pictures with the President himself, I would probably be satisfied with a framed photo on my desk, rather than a detailed and cocky Facebook album. This logic leads me to believe that the Salahis, potential new cast members on Bravo’s hit reality franchise, “Real Housewives of D.C.,” fully intended to receive attention for their jaw dropping antics. The sheer nerve behind their actions and the ease with which Michaele posted their pictures on the Internet proves that the instant accessibility made possible by the mass media can breed an unhealthy sense of entitlement and exhibitionism. The Salahis clearly believed that they were worthy of fame and attention because of their socioeconomic status and used the mass media unfairly as a means of achieving their dishonest goals.
-Sarah
Google’s Not-So Friendly Neighbor
Since its early origins as the brainchild of two Stanford University students, Google has become the most visited website on the Internet, providing online search tools, e-mail, social networking, map services, video sharing and more. Google is always my first stop when I need to find an article about any given topic; the sheer volume of the search results it produces guarantees a useful website link. Indeed, Google’s mission is “to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful” and available in one, easy-to-use forum. Now, a major change may make that mission statement impossible to achieve.
Recently, Microsoft has been having discussions with Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp., which owns the Wall Street Journal and New York Post. These talks have been about potentially removing News Corp’s newspaper content from Google’s search results. Instead of using Google to access articles from these papers, news consumers would have to use Microsoft’s Bing. This search engine is not nearly as popular as Google and, as a result, Microsoft is prepared to pay companies to remove their content from Google and make it exclusively available on Bing.
Online news has become increasingly popular throughout the past few years as a result of changing demands and expectations from readers. In spite of the increased efficiencies of online news, Rupert Murdoch blames Google for the increased traffic on the Wall Street Journal website. With more than 25 percent of the Wall Street Journal’s visitors being directed from Google, Murdoch blames low sales numbers on the vast availability of online content on Google. His plan therefore puts pressure on Google to begin paying for the content it provides.
I think that this business plan is incredibly flawed and will ultimately hurt News Corp’s popularity among Americans. Very few people will take the time to switch from Google to Bing in order to access Wall Street Journal content. They are more likely to choose other, more easily available news sites, instead. This shift is also unlikely to hurt Google, since people have grown familiar with its services already. Additionally, as CNN’s Pete Cashmore explains, the word “news” does not draw the greatest number of hits, so advertisers are not likely to break off their deals with Google.
Recently, in response to News Corp and Microsoft’s discussions, Google has been downplaying the importance of online newspaper content. Google’s UK director, Matt Britain, explained that, “economically it’s not a big part of how we generate revenue.” For Google’s sake, I really hope that he’s right. Steve Ballmer, chief executive of Microsoft, has not been shy about discussing his company’s dedication to building up Bing’s name. He has said that Microsoft is prepared to spend a great deal of money over a period of several years just to make Bing a major rival for Google. It will be interesting to see how this competitive agenda plays out. Personally, I will always be loyal to Google; I have never had a problem with the site and I think it is a reliable and user-friendly source. May the best search engine win!
-Sarah
Recently, Microsoft has been having discussions with Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp., which owns the Wall Street Journal and New York Post. These talks have been about potentially removing News Corp’s newspaper content from Google’s search results. Instead of using Google to access articles from these papers, news consumers would have to use Microsoft’s Bing. This search engine is not nearly as popular as Google and, as a result, Microsoft is prepared to pay companies to remove their content from Google and make it exclusively available on Bing.
Online news has become increasingly popular throughout the past few years as a result of changing demands and expectations from readers. In spite of the increased efficiencies of online news, Rupert Murdoch blames Google for the increased traffic on the Wall Street Journal website. With more than 25 percent of the Wall Street Journal’s visitors being directed from Google, Murdoch blames low sales numbers on the vast availability of online content on Google. His plan therefore puts pressure on Google to begin paying for the content it provides.
I think that this business plan is incredibly flawed and will ultimately hurt News Corp’s popularity among Americans. Very few people will take the time to switch from Google to Bing in order to access Wall Street Journal content. They are more likely to choose other, more easily available news sites, instead. This shift is also unlikely to hurt Google, since people have grown familiar with its services already. Additionally, as CNN’s Pete Cashmore explains, the word “news” does not draw the greatest number of hits, so advertisers are not likely to break off their deals with Google.
Recently, in response to News Corp and Microsoft’s discussions, Google has been downplaying the importance of online newspaper content. Google’s UK director, Matt Britain, explained that, “economically it’s not a big part of how we generate revenue.” For Google’s sake, I really hope that he’s right. Steve Ballmer, chief executive of Microsoft, has not been shy about discussing his company’s dedication to building up Bing’s name. He has said that Microsoft is prepared to spend a great deal of money over a period of several years just to make Bing a major rival for Google. It will be interesting to see how this competitive agenda plays out. Personally, I will always be loyal to Google; I have never had a problem with the site and I think it is a reliable and user-friendly source. May the best search engine win!
-Sarah
Barack Obama's BlackBerry Addiction
Who doesn’t love e-mail? Even my grandparents have jumped on the bandwagon, using e-mail as a means of communicating with me around the clock. This form of correspondence has done amazing things for our society, creating an instant connection between people across the globe. It’s hard to imagine how international businesses survived before the days of Outlook Express and Google Mail. As a college student, I use e-mail on a daily basis, whether I’m sending a paper to a professor, e-mailing my brother a YouTube video or organizing a study group meeting time.
The scope of e-mail’s influence also extends to the political spectrum. When President Obama entered the White House this past January, he made headlines with his decision to keep his personal BlackBerry in order to stay in communication with family and friends. This arrangement was made possible by a special software approved by U.S. intelligence officials that allows him to send e-mails without the risk of hackers reading his messages.
Obviously, the fear behind President Obama’s choice to maintain his personal e-mail account is that confidential data will be compromised by outside sources. FBI agents use BlackBerrys to share important information using similar software programs, but they do not have the same fame and recognition that President Obama has now. The fascination and celebrity-worship that he has encountered since his campaign make him an obvious target for the most technologically skilled hackers. In spite of these and other safety risks, President Obama cannot give up e-mail because of the role it has played in his life up until this point. Whereas previous leaders like President Clinton and President Bush barely thought about abandoning e-mail altogether, President Obama belongs to a different generation. Roger Entner, a telecommunications analyst with the Nielsen Company addressed this generational gap, explaining that, “With all due respect to Presidents Clinton and Bush, they didn’t really grow up with these mobile devices. President Obama is like so many others of his generation—this is the device that helps determine how he perceives the rest of the world.”
I think it’s admirable that President Obama wants to maintain contact with friends and former colleagues that are outside of his Washington D.C. bubble. As our President, Obama is expected to maintain an understanding of the common struggles of middle America in order to improve our quality of life. While I don’t have any personal experience being President of the United States, I can imagine that it becomes difficult to stay in touch with the backbone of our country when you’re constantly surrounded by Secret Service officers, journalists and political advisors. Hopefully maintaining his e-mail account will help President Obama maintain the sense of empathy and understanding that helped him advance to his current role as our nation’s leader.
-Sarah
The scope of e-mail’s influence also extends to the political spectrum. When President Obama entered the White House this past January, he made headlines with his decision to keep his personal BlackBerry in order to stay in communication with family and friends. This arrangement was made possible by a special software approved by U.S. intelligence officials that allows him to send e-mails without the risk of hackers reading his messages.
Obviously, the fear behind President Obama’s choice to maintain his personal e-mail account is that confidential data will be compromised by outside sources. FBI agents use BlackBerrys to share important information using similar software programs, but they do not have the same fame and recognition that President Obama has now. The fascination and celebrity-worship that he has encountered since his campaign make him an obvious target for the most technologically skilled hackers. In spite of these and other safety risks, President Obama cannot give up e-mail because of the role it has played in his life up until this point. Whereas previous leaders like President Clinton and President Bush barely thought about abandoning e-mail altogether, President Obama belongs to a different generation. Roger Entner, a telecommunications analyst with the Nielsen Company addressed this generational gap, explaining that, “With all due respect to Presidents Clinton and Bush, they didn’t really grow up with these mobile devices. President Obama is like so many others of his generation—this is the device that helps determine how he perceives the rest of the world.”
I think it’s admirable that President Obama wants to maintain contact with friends and former colleagues that are outside of his Washington D.C. bubble. As our President, Obama is expected to maintain an understanding of the common struggles of middle America in order to improve our quality of life. While I don’t have any personal experience being President of the United States, I can imagine that it becomes difficult to stay in touch with the backbone of our country when you’re constantly surrounded by Secret Service officers, journalists and political advisors. Hopefully maintaining his e-mail account will help President Obama maintain the sense of empathy and understanding that helped him advance to his current role as our nation’s leader.
-Sarah
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Michael Jackson’s Death Marked by Tweets
I have a confession to make: I have a Twitter account. I crumbled under the pressure, really; with so many references to celebrity Tweets popping up in various news articles, I felt somewhat obligated to begin “following” my favorite celebrities and organizations.
The process of checking my Twitter quickly became quite addictive. I grew fascinated with the countless personal anecdotes and photos so many celebrities posted to their profiles, feeling like I was a part of their lives in some small, insignificant way.
The love affair ended quickly. I began to grow disillusioned with the Twitter world around the time of Michael Jackson’s death. I was “following” CNN at the time, and their constant coverage of the hours leading up to the King of Pop’s death quickly began feeling superficial and disrespectful. Similarly, TMZ tweeted constant new conspiracy theories about MJ’s cause of death, each one more far fetched than the last. As the posts spilled across my computer screen, intertwined with slews of ‘RIP’ messages from famous faces, I couldn’t help but think about his children. Their father died that afternoon, but his passing was marked by a myriad of questions from strangers about drug use and foul play. It was especially disappointing to see that CNN, a typically reliable source of straightforward news, fell into the same pattern as gossip networks like TMZ and E! Online. Even President Obama made a statement about the King of Pop’s passing, garnering major attention from the press.
While mass media can be a wonderful tool, it can also be dangerous in excess. Michael Jackson’s death became a spectacle and media frenzy, with Google.com becoming temporarily inaccessible on the day of his death due to the intense number of searches.The unrestricted freedoms possessed by web-based journalists allowed for a constant exploration of the possible causes of Jackson’s death, as well as countless photo montages and music video tributes. Although the grief and overflowing love expressed by Michael Jackson’s fans was touching, the weeks following his death were mainly marked by a circus-like hysteria.
Situations like these make me wonder whether or not Twitter will have a positive effect on our society. Without the constant updates from news sources like CNN, people would have been forced to grieve for Michael in a more subdued, less gossip-oriented manner. Although instant news updates can be valuable, maybe some things--like death--are best left unexplored, at least for the first 48 hours.
-Sarah
The love affair ended quickly. I began to grow disillusioned with the Twitter world around the time of Michael Jackson’s death. I was “following” CNN at the time, and their constant coverage of the hours leading up to the King of Pop’s death quickly began feeling superficial and disrespectful. Similarly, TMZ tweeted constant new conspiracy theories about MJ’s cause of death, each one more far fetched than the last. As the posts spilled across my computer screen, intertwined with slews of ‘RIP’ messages from famous faces, I couldn’t help but think about his children. Their father died that afternoon, but his passing was marked by a myriad of questions from strangers about drug use and foul play. It was especially disappointing to see that CNN, a typically reliable source of straightforward news, fell into the same pattern as gossip networks like TMZ and E! Online. Even President Obama made a statement about the King of Pop’s passing, garnering major attention from the press.
While mass media can be a wonderful tool, it can also be dangerous in excess. Michael Jackson’s death became a spectacle and media frenzy, with Google.com becoming temporarily inaccessible on the day of his death due to the intense number of searches.The unrestricted freedoms possessed by web-based journalists allowed for a constant exploration of the possible causes of Jackson’s death, as well as countless photo montages and music video tributes. Although the grief and overflowing love expressed by Michael Jackson’s fans was touching, the weeks following his death were mainly marked by a circus-like hysteria.
Situations like these make me wonder whether or not Twitter will have a positive effect on our society. Without the constant updates from news sources like CNN, people would have been forced to grieve for Michael in a more subdued, less gossip-oriented manner. Although instant news updates can be valuable, maybe some things--like death--are best left unexplored, at least for the first 48 hours.
-Sarah
Page Turns at the Click of a Mouse
For most of my adolescent life, I dreamed of being a magazine editor. I would soak up the pages of my Seventeen Magazine subscription, eagerly ripping out my favorite stories and pinning them to the bulletin board above my desk. In the wake of the layoffs and sales troubles that the magazine industry has recently endured, I have readjusted my future plans.
It’s no secret that print journalism has encountered its share of struggles over the last few years. With the economic recession that swept across the nation last year came the demise of several several prominent magazines at Hearst Corporation and Condé Nast, including Gourmet Magazine, which shut down this past month after 75 years of publication. The demise of print journalism has also affected the newspaper industry, with the Boston Globe experiencing a major drop in sales. Though the paper has been owned by The New York Times Company since 1993, the company began hunting for a new buyer in April due to the Boston Globe’s mounting losses. In October, the New York Times Company announced that they would be holding onto the paper.
Many attribute the decline in print journalism’s popularity to the rising influence of online media, since newspapers and magazines are now available on the Internet. While some newspapers require a paid subscription in order to view their online content, many sites are free for the public, relying on revenue from advertisements to draw a profit. This is a selling point for many time pressed Americans who have five minutes to read the day’s headlines on their BlackBerries each morning. Why buy a paper everyday when you can access so much unlimited content with the click of a mouse? While I do think that there is a certain appeal to holding a paper in your hands and flipping through the pages of a magazine, I must admit that the convenience of online media outweighs the nostalgia of print journalism. The realm of news, food & culture, travel and sports sites is so complex and detailed that it makes a daily newspaper seem limited.
I believe that print journalism will be completely obsolete in the not-so distant future, as many now-terminated magazines have already begun presenting original content in a web-based forum. Publishing groups like Time, Condé Nast and Hearst have even announced that they plan to be equity partners in a new online newsstand for various publications. This service has been described as an “iTunes for magazines,” providing a wide array of themes to read about. I think this decision shows an acceptance about the changing role of journalism. In our ever-changing society, it’s important to be flexible and willing to adapt since we are constantly expanding and improving our technological capabilities. It is bittersweet to think that young girls may no longer pore over glamorous magazines or that newspapers will someday be missing from Sunday morning breakfast tables, but ultimately, I believe that the evolution of online journalism will contribute to the diversification of news sources and well-roundedness of future generations.
- Sarah
It’s no secret that print journalism has encountered its share of struggles over the last few years. With the economic recession that swept across the nation last year came the demise of several several prominent magazines at Hearst Corporation and Condé Nast, including Gourmet Magazine, which shut down this past month after 75 years of publication. The demise of print journalism has also affected the newspaper industry, with the Boston Globe experiencing a major drop in sales. Though the paper has been owned by The New York Times Company since 1993, the company began hunting for a new buyer in April due to the Boston Globe’s mounting losses. In October, the New York Times Company announced that they would be holding onto the paper.
Many attribute the decline in print journalism’s popularity to the rising influence of online media, since newspapers and magazines are now available on the Internet. While some newspapers require a paid subscription in order to view their online content, many sites are free for the public, relying on revenue from advertisements to draw a profit. This is a selling point for many time pressed Americans who have five minutes to read the day’s headlines on their BlackBerries each morning. Why buy a paper everyday when you can access so much unlimited content with the click of a mouse? While I do think that there is a certain appeal to holding a paper in your hands and flipping through the pages of a magazine, I must admit that the convenience of online media outweighs the nostalgia of print journalism. The realm of news, food & culture, travel and sports sites is so complex and detailed that it makes a daily newspaper seem limited.
I believe that print journalism will be completely obsolete in the not-so distant future, as many now-terminated magazines have already begun presenting original content in a web-based forum. Publishing groups like Time, Condé Nast and Hearst have even announced that they plan to be equity partners in a new online newsstand for various publications. This service has been described as an “iTunes for magazines,” providing a wide array of themes to read about. I think this decision shows an acceptance about the changing role of journalism. In our ever-changing society, it’s important to be flexible and willing to adapt since we are constantly expanding and improving our technological capabilities. It is bittersweet to think that young girls may no longer pore over glamorous magazines or that newspapers will someday be missing from Sunday morning breakfast tables, but ultimately, I believe that the evolution of online journalism will contribute to the diversification of news sources and well-roundedness of future generations.
- Sarah
Political Gossip Heats Up
There was a time when political figures were revered and idolized from afar. President Kennedy and Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis were icons in both the political and cultural realms of American life, with President Kennedy’s boyish charm and easy charisma making him the epitome of the ideal all-American boy turned leader. First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis (or “Jackie O” as she came to be known) also set a similar ideal for women, with a polished, classic fashion sense and poised demeanor.
In spite of the public’s love affair with the Kennedy clan, boundary lines still existed between the First Family and the rest of the country. We’ve come a long way since those days, and today we have grown accustomed to accessing detailed information about prominent political families. With media tools like Wikipedia providing educational and personal facts about politicians and the constant use of polioptics, political figures have become A-list celebrities.
This phenomenon is illustrated in part through the LA Times’ political gossip blog, Ministry of Gossip. Although mainstream politicians like Barack Obama frequently appear on celebrity blogs for television appearances, the Ministry of Gossip blog is one of the only websites entirely devoted to chronicling the gossip in and around D.C. Recent post topics include Sarah Palin’s appearance at the Gridiron Club's 2009 winter dinner, Arnold Schwarzenegger’s soon-to-be expired term as governor of California and Chelsea Clinton’s engagement to Marc Mezvinsky. Even peripheral political figures like Chelsea Clinton’s fiance and Bristol Palin’s former boyfriend, Levi Johnston, have become popular on gossip blogs. Their proximity to the political families with whom we are infatuated makes them equally fascinating to us, providing an insider’s glimpse into the exotic lives of the rich and powerful.
Although our society has rapidly moved into a period of instant gratification and constant access to celebrities, I wonder if humanizing politicians their families through gossip blogs is ultimately damaging. While Barack and Michelle Obama may be a loving, seemingly “normal” couple, they are still at the forefront of our political spectrum, representing America to nations across the globe. Is an entire blog devoted to their dog, Bo, really conducive to the sense of respect that the President of the United States should be receiving? In the same way that our professors’ profiles are not accessible to students on Facebook, I feel that snapshots from the President’s familial gatherings should remain private in order to maintain a respected position as our country’s leader.
While I know some would argue that, as voters, Americans are entitled to see and write about the inner workings of politicians’ daily lives, I feel that this attitude promotes a sense of comfort and familiarity that should be reserved for celebrities whose daily decisions do not affect the fate of our nation.
-Sarah
In spite of the public’s love affair with the Kennedy clan, boundary lines still existed between the First Family and the rest of the country. We’ve come a long way since those days, and today we have grown accustomed to accessing detailed information about prominent political families. With media tools like Wikipedia providing educational and personal facts about politicians and the constant use of polioptics, political figures have become A-list celebrities.
This phenomenon is illustrated in part through the LA Times’ political gossip blog, Ministry of Gossip. Although mainstream politicians like Barack Obama frequently appear on celebrity blogs for television appearances, the Ministry of Gossip blog is one of the only websites entirely devoted to chronicling the gossip in and around D.C. Recent post topics include Sarah Palin’s appearance at the Gridiron Club's 2009 winter dinner, Arnold Schwarzenegger’s soon-to-be expired term as governor of California and Chelsea Clinton’s engagement to Marc Mezvinsky. Even peripheral political figures like Chelsea Clinton’s fiance and Bristol Palin’s former boyfriend, Levi Johnston, have become popular on gossip blogs. Their proximity to the political families with whom we are infatuated makes them equally fascinating to us, providing an insider’s glimpse into the exotic lives of the rich and powerful.
Although our society has rapidly moved into a period of instant gratification and constant access to celebrities, I wonder if humanizing politicians their families through gossip blogs is ultimately damaging. While Barack and Michelle Obama may be a loving, seemingly “normal” couple, they are still at the forefront of our political spectrum, representing America to nations across the globe. Is an entire blog devoted to their dog, Bo, really conducive to the sense of respect that the President of the United States should be receiving? In the same way that our professors’ profiles are not accessible to students on Facebook, I feel that snapshots from the President’s familial gatherings should remain private in order to maintain a respected position as our country’s leader.
While I know some would argue that, as voters, Americans are entitled to see and write about the inner workings of politicians’ daily lives, I feel that this attitude promotes a sense of comfort and familiarity that should be reserved for celebrities whose daily decisions do not affect the fate of our nation.
-Sarah
News Media Skepticism Reaches All-Time Low
It’s interesting to observe the role that news media plays in our modern society. Throughout this course, we have learned about the various media eras and the changing ways in which people have regarded news sources over time. Today, we are in the midst of the fragmented media era, with new technology like online journalism and blogging becoming increasingly widespread. Although this has led to an increased availability and diversification of news--from video bloggers responding to political policies to Twitter accounts from major news sources like CNN--the fragmented media era may ultimately be contributing to the deterioration of trust in news media.
A few months ago, the New York Times reported that trust in news media had reached a new low. Among the 1,506 people interviewed by the Pew Research Center, 63 percent said that news articles were often inaccurate. Although its no secret that trust in the media’s dependability has fluctuated since the 1980s, these recent numbers show a big increase in distrust of the overall news industry. In 2007, 39 percent of interviewed Americans said that the media typically tends to “get the facts straight,” compared to a low 29 percent today.
Interestingly enough, many of cited a lack of neutrality as their primary cause of distrust in the media. 74 percent said that news sources favor one political side in their reporting on current issues, with their biases stemming from an influence by powerful groups or interests. This statement is reminiscent of the themes of the partisan media era that lasted through the mid 19th-century. While this time period was characterized by party ownership or editorial control of newspapers, it resulted in a limited spread of knowledge and hyper-partisanship in media coverage. This control of reported news correlates with the limitation of truly unbiased news in our modern media era. Although our newspapers may not be explicitly owned by political parties, many owners of publishing companies and television networks have strong political affiliations that certainly color their portrayal and interpretation of current events. The article also specified that while negative opinion has grown among both Democratic and Republican parties since 2007, there has been a more significant increase in skepticism among Democrats. Not surprisingly, Democrats were more likely than Republicans to view CNN and MSNBC favorably, while Fox News was seen much more positively by Republicans than Democrats. This divide has always been typical, since Fox News has a reputation for being more conservative and politically biased than other networks.
I find it surprising that the percentage of Democrats calling the media untrustworthy has increased so much over the last two years. Factors like the recent, heated presidential campaign may have originally been contributing factors, but President Obama’s fixed role in the news seems like it would have a healing effect on Democratic nonbelievers. Whatever the cause, distrust in the commercial news media will surely contribute to the increased importance of news spread through blogs and raw materials like video and photographic coverage of events.
-Sarah
A few months ago, the New York Times reported that trust in news media had reached a new low. Among the 1,506 people interviewed by the Pew Research Center, 63 percent said that news articles were often inaccurate. Although its no secret that trust in the media’s dependability has fluctuated since the 1980s, these recent numbers show a big increase in distrust of the overall news industry. In 2007, 39 percent of interviewed Americans said that the media typically tends to “get the facts straight,” compared to a low 29 percent today.
Interestingly enough, many of cited a lack of neutrality as their primary cause of distrust in the media. 74 percent said that news sources favor one political side in their reporting on current issues, with their biases stemming from an influence by powerful groups or interests. This statement is reminiscent of the themes of the partisan media era that lasted through the mid 19th-century. While this time period was characterized by party ownership or editorial control of newspapers, it resulted in a limited spread of knowledge and hyper-partisanship in media coverage. This control of reported news correlates with the limitation of truly unbiased news in our modern media era. Although our newspapers may not be explicitly owned by political parties, many owners of publishing companies and television networks have strong political affiliations that certainly color their portrayal and interpretation of current events. The article also specified that while negative opinion has grown among both Democratic and Republican parties since 2007, there has been a more significant increase in skepticism among Democrats. Not surprisingly, Democrats were more likely than Republicans to view CNN and MSNBC favorably, while Fox News was seen much more positively by Republicans than Democrats. This divide has always been typical, since Fox News has a reputation for being more conservative and politically biased than other networks.
I find it surprising that the percentage of Democrats calling the media untrustworthy has increased so much over the last two years. Factors like the recent, heated presidential campaign may have originally been contributing factors, but President Obama’s fixed role in the news seems like it would have a healing effect on Democratic nonbelievers. Whatever the cause, distrust in the commercial news media will surely contribute to the increased importance of news spread through blogs and raw materials like video and photographic coverage of events.
-Sarah
Blogger Rights Around the Globe
As a Mass Media blogger, I feel a new sense of camaraderie with bloggers everywhere. There is something undeniably powerful and addictive about spewing out one’s innermost thoughts and potentially receiving instant responses from all over the world. For this reason, I felt oddly defensive when I recently read this article about people being punished for their honest blogging.
The article is a defense piece on bloggers’ rights to free speech in a world where blogs are growing increasingly vital to the spread of news. Over the past ten years, blogging has expanded from a foreign tool to a commonplace form of self-expression. The accessibility of blogs makes it easy for “normal” people to share their opinions on political affairs while simultaneously allowing prominent political characters to reach the public on a personal level. Although this is a wonderful part of our technologically-oriented society, the explicit nature of blogging can also make it a dangerous tool. This past summer, a blogger from the former Soviet republic of Georgia was met with a massive cyber attack in response to his opinionated posts. Many were furious by the interferences this blogger encountered, simply for voicing honest critiques. Blogging can be a completely uninhibited act, with a powerful sense of anonymity allowing for uncensored rants and raves, however socially unacceptable. Is it fair for outside parties to demand censorship on blogs that they find inappropriate?
These parties extend from disgruntled readers to government figures, as well. Many governments across the globe block access to major websites such as Blogger, Twitter and YouTube. This past summer one of my friends studied abroad in China and was shocked to find that her access to websites like PerezHilton.com and Facebook was blocked, forcing her to receive news updates through e-mails from friends and family. This blatant act of government-imposed censorship seems completely foreign to me; after all, Article 19 of the Declaration of Human Rights has been imprinted in my brain since my seventh grade history class. "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers,” the Article reads. Free speech is a commonly praised and precious aspect of American society and bloggers across the country should feel fortunate to have such unlimited communicative rights.
I can’t help but wonder, however, whether or not the value of our right to free speech is lessened by its lack of universality. Can honest commentaries on American politics and foreign affairs be as influential without a strong readership from citizens of other countries? The scope of our blogging powers may be wide, but if it only extends to our American borders, is it being unfairly limited?
-Sarah
The article is a defense piece on bloggers’ rights to free speech in a world where blogs are growing increasingly vital to the spread of news. Over the past ten years, blogging has expanded from a foreign tool to a commonplace form of self-expression. The accessibility of blogs makes it easy for “normal” people to share their opinions on political affairs while simultaneously allowing prominent political characters to reach the public on a personal level. Although this is a wonderful part of our technologically-oriented society, the explicit nature of blogging can also make it a dangerous tool. This past summer, a blogger from the former Soviet republic of Georgia was met with a massive cyber attack in response to his opinionated posts. Many were furious by the interferences this blogger encountered, simply for voicing honest critiques. Blogging can be a completely uninhibited act, with a powerful sense of anonymity allowing for uncensored rants and raves, however socially unacceptable. Is it fair for outside parties to demand censorship on blogs that they find inappropriate?
These parties extend from disgruntled readers to government figures, as well. Many governments across the globe block access to major websites such as Blogger, Twitter and YouTube. This past summer one of my friends studied abroad in China and was shocked to find that her access to websites like PerezHilton.com and Facebook was blocked, forcing her to receive news updates through e-mails from friends and family. This blatant act of government-imposed censorship seems completely foreign to me; after all, Article 19 of the Declaration of Human Rights has been imprinted in my brain since my seventh grade history class. "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers,” the Article reads. Free speech is a commonly praised and precious aspect of American society and bloggers across the country should feel fortunate to have such unlimited communicative rights.
I can’t help but wonder, however, whether or not the value of our right to free speech is lessened by its lack of universality. Can honest commentaries on American politics and foreign affairs be as influential without a strong readership from citizens of other countries? The scope of our blogging powers may be wide, but if it only extends to our American borders, is it being unfairly limited?
-Sarah
Sarah Palin: Unwilling Media Starlet or Skillful Career Woman?
Throughout the past year, Sarah Palin has been a key character in various political blogs and media outlets. When John McCain announced that the Alaska Governor would be his vice presidential running mate in August 2008, news sites around the world exploded with nonstop Palin coverage. No aspect of her life went unexamined, with everything from her political opinions to her teenage daughter's pregnancy becoming front page material.
Today, the once-mysterious vice presidential candidate has become more accustomed to the exploitative aspects of political fame. This summer, she announced that she would be resigning as governor of Alaska in a supposed attempt to shield her family from the invasive press.
In spite of her recent career change, Palin has been more active than ever in the public eye, taking on a major commercial tour to promote her newest campaign: a book about her life. The book, entitled Going Rogue, discusses her vice presidential campaign and experience under the media's scrutinizing gaze. Going Rogue discusses now-infamous moments from the campaign, including Palin's botched interview with Katie Couric and prank call from a radio DJ pretending to be Nicolas Sarkozy. Palin lines the book with innocent explanations for why she was portrayed as a “villain” by the evil, biased media. Clips of some of Palin’s biggest bloopers can be found on YouTube.com, along with various other montages chronicling Palin's most unflattering moments. With the sheer amount of anti-Palin websites and groups scattered across the Internet, I would venture to say that Palin opponents are as passionate and dedicated to their cause as Obama supporters. It makes it difficult for Palin to truly argue that her poor public image was a result of biases in the media; the power of the fragmented media era is that interview clips and unedited answers are available to the public at the click of button.
Although Palin has publicly spoken out against the media attention her and her family have received throughout the past year, her recent actions have given a different message. With her new book has come a media blitz and major tour of press circuits across the country. Palin has appeared on the Oprah Winfrey show and has made several public statements about her recent feud with David Letterman regarding comments he made about her daughter. Her actions clearly contradict her supposed disapproval for media frenzies, with her new book and publicity tour reading as a hungry quest for increased fame. It makes me wonder whether or not she was ever really in it for the politics; was her campaign truly a quest to remodel America's values and policies, or was it merely a stepping stone to fame? Her recent behaviors are more representative of an aspiring B-list celebrity on a quest for higher fame than a devoted politician fighting for social change. The ease with which she dropped her responsibilities as governor of Alaska and embarked on a media tour suggest an ultimate desire for public attention; the supposedly "private" politician turned author even has her very own Twitter account! In this day of the fragmented era, is it even possible for public figures to maintain any semblance of privacy, or are they all eventually destined to become fixtures of the media industry?
-Sarah
In spite of her recent career change, Palin has been more active than ever in the public eye, taking on a major commercial tour to promote her newest campaign: a book about her life. The book, entitled Going Rogue, discusses her vice presidential campaign and experience under the media's scrutinizing gaze. Going Rogue discusses now-infamous moments from the campaign, including Palin's botched interview with Katie Couric and prank call from a radio DJ pretending to be Nicolas Sarkozy. Palin lines the book with innocent explanations for why she was portrayed as a “villain” by the evil, biased media. Clips of some of Palin’s biggest bloopers can be found on YouTube.com, along with various other montages chronicling Palin's most unflattering moments. With the sheer amount of anti-Palin websites and groups scattered across the Internet, I would venture to say that Palin opponents are as passionate and dedicated to their cause as Obama supporters. It makes it difficult for Palin to truly argue that her poor public image was a result of biases in the media; the power of the fragmented media era is that interview clips and unedited answers are available to the public at the click of button.
Although Palin has publicly spoken out against the media attention her and her family have received throughout the past year, her recent actions have given a different message. With her new book has come a media blitz and major tour of press circuits across the country. Palin has appeared on the Oprah Winfrey show and has made several public statements about her recent feud with David Letterman regarding comments he made about her daughter. Her actions clearly contradict her supposed disapproval for media frenzies, with her new book and publicity tour reading as a hungry quest for increased fame. It makes me wonder whether or not she was ever really in it for the politics; was her campaign truly a quest to remodel America's values and policies, or was it merely a stepping stone to fame? Her recent behaviors are more representative of an aspiring B-list celebrity on a quest for higher fame than a devoted politician fighting for social change. The ease with which she dropped her responsibilities as governor of Alaska and embarked on a media tour suggest an ultimate desire for public attention; the supposedly "private" politician turned author even has her very own Twitter account! In this day of the fragmented era, is it even possible for public figures to maintain any semblance of privacy, or are they all eventually destined to become fixtures of the media industry?
-Sarah
Friday, December 11, 2009
Hope for the Fragmented?- End of the Semester
Throughout the course of the semester we have been talking about the future of the media in today's world. Being in what Darrell M. West calls the fragmented media era-- the era of bloggers and online news-- we have to wonder what is next for the mass media. West himself suggests scenarios in which the media either becomes increasingly more fragmented, or reacts conversely by re-forming together and distilling back into fewer main sources. Personally, I think it more likely that the fragmented media will continue to become more and more fragmented; the popularity of blogs and the accessibility of news and entertainment online is too convenient and stimulating for the masses to die out any time soon. However, does the fragmented media necessarily have to be a bad thing? In my recent blogging I've talked about important things, such as the exposition of bullying through online video sharing or the use of Twitter for social change, that demonstrate how positive and useful the widespread accessibility of the fragmented media can be. Yes, it's true that now that just anyone can start a blog, it might become harder to find reliable sources, but this also works positively: because it's now so easy for anyone to access and spread media via the internet, stories that might not have been shared can now become publicly available. I think that in order to keep functioning in the fragmented media era we have to become smart about knowing our sources and finding credible information, and also learn how to use the widespread accessibility of the internet media to our advantage instead of simply seeing it as dangerous.
-Miranda
-Miranda
Social Networking = Social Change?
In addition to connecting people, social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter can also serve as tools for social change. A friend sent me this article about an activist’s website and tweets that helped raise awareness about his video exposing the horror of homelessness in America.
This got me thinking about the potential of social networking sites to motivate people and raise awareness about social issues. For example, the “Groups” function on Facebook started out as a way for friends to connect and share information—I remember being a part of silly groups like “Med O Lark Summer Camp 05!” and “I love chocolate!” when I first got Facebook—but now there are a lot of groups that exist for social change. Almost every major environmental organization, for example, has a Facebook group, as do political and other social organizations: check out these groups for Greenpeace, MoveOn.org and Unicef to get an idea. In addition to groups, Facebook also fairly recently introduced the “Causes” application. You can choose to become a supporter of a certain cause and receive updates on progress, participate in discussions with other supporters and find out about events (in addition to letting all your friends see that you support that cause.) I think it’s heartening that social networking websites are starting to be used for more than just posting silly party pictures , and with the number of active users on Twitter and Facebook, there is certainly great potential for rallying activism if causes use these sites to their advantage.
This got me thinking about the potential of social networking sites to motivate people and raise awareness about social issues. For example, the “Groups” function on Facebook started out as a way for friends to connect and share information—I remember being a part of silly groups like “Med O Lark Summer Camp 05!” and “I love chocolate!” when I first got Facebook—but now there are a lot of groups that exist for social change. Almost every major environmental organization, for example, has a Facebook group, as do political and other social organizations: check out these groups for Greenpeace, MoveOn.org and Unicef to get an idea. In addition to groups, Facebook also fairly recently introduced the “Causes” application. You can choose to become a supporter of a certain cause and receive updates on progress, participate in discussions with other supporters and find out about events (in addition to letting all your friends see that you support that cause.) I think it’s heartening that social networking websites are starting to be used for more than just posting silly party pictures , and with the number of active users on Twitter and Facebook, there is certainly great potential for rallying activism if causes use these sites to their advantage.
WhiteHouse.Gov- A Polioptic Analysis
Thinking about guest speaker Joshua King’s lecture, I decided to go explore the White House website and see what principles of “polioptics” I could uncover in President Obama’s “Photo and Video” section. The link takes you directly to a scrolling slide show of Obama’s “Photos of the Day” from the past month. These pictures have clearly been selected and formulated to depict a broad range of things—both “normal,” everyday-type images and shots of Obama in meetings or at speeches. Knowing what I now do about polioptics, I find it difficult to look at any picture of the President and/or his family without thinking about how planned it must be. Even the picture of Bo, the family dog, looking happy in front of a White House Christmas tree, I now know has been expressly taken and chosen to portray Obama in a certain way--- in this case, a normal, pet-loving, Christian family man. Another interesting thing about this photo section is the number of images depicting the apparently fairy-tale-esque relationship of Barack and Michelle Obama. There are pictures of them doing everything from waltzing gracefully at the Nobel Banquet to smiling with their daughters, always looking happily in love. Again, the inclusion of these images is clearly with the aim of showing Obama as a wholesome, caring man, a good husband and father. The video section shows a similar breadth; there are many videos of Obama’s speeches and conferences, but also many of him doing other, “normal” things, like lighting a Christmas tree or this one of him visiting an Allentown, PA factory to “take the temperature on what Americans are experiencing during these challenging economic times.”
This video is clearly supposed to show working viewers that Obama cares about their experience. Like everything else in this section, though, it has clearly been expressly formulated, as Joshua King suggested with his lecture on polioptics, to project a pre-determined image of President Obama; nothing is candid, and every move he makes has been pre-planned.
-Miranda
This video is clearly supposed to show working viewers that Obama cares about their experience. Like everything else in this section, though, it has clearly been expressly formulated, as Joshua King suggested with his lecture on polioptics, to project a pre-determined image of President Obama; nothing is candid, and every move he makes has been pre-planned.
-Miranda
Don't Post Your Bullying Videos on MySpace...
With blogs and internet publishing tools available to everyone, more and more people are posting their stories and opinions for the world to see. Blogs and social media can be a great resource for connecting and sharing, but in the recent case of 15-year-old Alexis Xanders, they can also help bring justice.
This article and video popped up on my CNN.com home page yesterday:
This poor girl’s assailants apparently thought it would be funny to videotape themselves beating her up—maybe to show everyone in their social networking communities how “tough” they are--- and post it online. Through the use of MySpace, Xanders herself gained access to the video and posted it on CNN.com’s iReport—a tool for readers to post their own news. Many people are concerned with the danger of so much information being accessible on social networking sites like MySpace—however, this is an example of a situation in which public accessibility to a user’s videos actually helped this bullying victim get help. The use of iReport also highlights another advantage of the digital age as far as news and media reporting goes: anyone can do it, even a 15-year-old. Through the use and sheer availability of sharing resources online, Xanders was able to share her story with the world and ultimately land her assailants in court. While we can’t hope that everyone instance of bullying and harassment will be so conveniently video taped and posted online, this case is a real testament to the potential of social media as a tool for illuminating crime and helping prevent future incidents.
-Miranda
This article and video popped up on my CNN.com home page yesterday:
This poor girl’s assailants apparently thought it would be funny to videotape themselves beating her up—maybe to show everyone in their social networking communities how “tough” they are--- and post it online. Through the use of MySpace, Xanders herself gained access to the video and posted it on CNN.com’s iReport—a tool for readers to post their own news. Many people are concerned with the danger of so much information being accessible on social networking sites like MySpace—however, this is an example of a situation in which public accessibility to a user’s videos actually helped this bullying victim get help. The use of iReport also highlights another advantage of the digital age as far as news and media reporting goes: anyone can do it, even a 15-year-old. Through the use and sheer availability of sharing resources online, Xanders was able to share her story with the world and ultimately land her assailants in court. While we can’t hope that everyone instance of bullying and harassment will be so conveniently video taped and posted online, this case is a real testament to the potential of social media as a tool for illuminating crime and helping prevent future incidents.
-Miranda
No More Newspapers or Textbooks?
In the digital age, more and more people are turning to the internet to get their news. There are many advantages to the internet as a news resource—the ability to be constantly updated, and the opportunity for reader feedback, for example—but what does this mean for the future of print newspapers? According to this New York Times article, newspaper sales have been steadily declining over the past few years, and recently, the rate at which they are decreasing has accelerated. The article claims that not all of this decline in circulation is due to people turning to the internet for news instead, but there is no denying that this is a huge factor. Are we heading in the direction of a world without print newspapers? Many news websites are incredibly reliable, thorough, easy to use and are a great resource for getting news fast, but is America truly ready for the newspaper---a huge part of our collective past—to become obsolete?
The same issue pertains to books: with the invention of the Kindle—an electronic device that downloads and stores the text of up to 1500 books and displays them on a screen designed not to cause eye strain like a normal computer screen—many have voiced the concern that the end of paper books is near. The Kindle has many practical advantages—it is incredibly environmentally friendly, saving millions of pages, and for students, it’s much easier to carry one Kindle than four huge textbooks. However, there are disadvantages: the Kindle does not have a color screen, making it difficult for things like textbook diagrams and maps to translate well, and the library of books you can download is not completely comprehensive. This New Yorker reviewer points out more of the pros and cons of the Kindle. While I recognize that it’s practical, I can’t help being a little scared by the potential power of technology like the Kindle—does this mean the eventual end of libraries and bookstores? I know that day is still a long ways away, but with things like the rise of internet news and the Kindle now available, we can feel it getting closer and closer all the time.
-Miranda
The same issue pertains to books: with the invention of the Kindle—an electronic device that downloads and stores the text of up to 1500 books and displays them on a screen designed not to cause eye strain like a normal computer screen—many have voiced the concern that the end of paper books is near. The Kindle has many practical advantages—it is incredibly environmentally friendly, saving millions of pages, and for students, it’s much easier to carry one Kindle than four huge textbooks. However, there are disadvantages: the Kindle does not have a color screen, making it difficult for things like textbook diagrams and maps to translate well, and the library of books you can download is not completely comprehensive. This New Yorker reviewer points out more of the pros and cons of the Kindle. While I recognize that it’s practical, I can’t help being a little scared by the potential power of technology like the Kindle—does this mean the eventual end of libraries and bookstores? I know that day is still a long ways away, but with things like the rise of internet news and the Kindle now available, we can feel it getting closer and closer all the time.
-Miranda
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Political Humor: Blowing Off Steam
Political humor has likely been around since the start of politics themselves. It serves both as an outlet for creators and audiences or readers to vent their political frustration and blow off steam and as a friendly way to nudge people into considering political issues. In a performance theory class I took this semester we talked about the “pressure valve” theory as an explanation for the existence and function of comedy in societies; i.e., comedy functions as a way for societies to release any built up tension or frustration in a healthy, harmless way. I think this theory can definitely be applied to political humor: politics are very serious, important and often controversial and troubling, so naturally an outlet for people to release their worries and frustrations about politics is necessary. I would even make the argument that political humor becomes more prevalent and heightened in times of heightened political stress or tension. For example, John McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin as a running mate during last year’s presidential election caused an extreme reaction among American voters, and at the same time, Tina Fey’s comic Saturday Night Live impression of Palin skyrocketed to instant and lasting fame.
Almost all political humor is a little biting, as this clip is-- not overly harsh, but definitely edgy. I think this is necessary because, again, humor serves as a place for its participants to voice things that viewers or readers may not. The advantage of humor is that it can go overboard without being considered serious or extreme. Political humor historian Gerald Gardner, as quoted in an NPR article on political humor, says “You can make a case for the fact that humor — at least in politics — is most effective when it is drawing a little blood. Mind you, it shouldn't be a battle-ax, it should be a rapier.” However, I do think that in addition to being an outlet for release of frustrations, political humor can also serve as a tool for instigating people to think about issues they may not have considered otherwise because they are presented in a different, friendlier format.
-Miranda
Almost all political humor is a little biting, as this clip is-- not overly harsh, but definitely edgy. I think this is necessary because, again, humor serves as a place for its participants to voice things that viewers or readers may not. The advantage of humor is that it can go overboard without being considered serious or extreme. Political humor historian Gerald Gardner, as quoted in an NPR article on political humor, says “You can make a case for the fact that humor — at least in politics — is most effective when it is drawing a little blood. Mind you, it shouldn't be a battle-ax, it should be a rapier.” However, I do think that in addition to being an outlet for release of frustrations, political humor can also serve as a tool for instigating people to think about issues they may not have considered otherwise because they are presented in a different, friendlier format.
-Miranda
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Leonardo DiCaprio Wants You to Vote
If the Jonas Brothers told you to do something, would you do it? The use of celebrity endorsement to sell products has been used for decades, but a more recent phenomenon is the presence of celebrities in political and other public service announcement spots. Last fall, a sarcastic PSA featuring big-name celebrities like Jennifer Aniston, Leonardo DiCaprio and Dustin Hoffman urged viewers to vote by aggressively talking down to them, making you feel like an idiot if you don’t vote:
The ad also uses humor to lighten the mood and make it seem like it’s the simplest thing in the world to vote. The approach of this particular PSA is different than many like it; usually, celebrity PSAs feature earnest, smiling celebs talking about how easy or important it is to get involved, such as this PSA for DoSomething.org. :
The contrast between these two clips is remarkable: everything from color, sound, and style to content and tone is different. I think that the dramatic approach of the “Don’t Vote” PSA is a sign of the political times; it uses an old tactic—celebrity endorsement—in a new way, shocking its viewers into thinking differently. We can read the changing approach in these types of announcements as an indication of the urgency surrounding last fall’s election that was not present before. Another notable thing about this voting PSA is that it was not the only one of its kind: many different PSAs featuring celebrities appeared around election time last fall, all encouraging viewers to vote. This one, for example, has a happier and more hopeful tone but the same message:
Perhaps the level of celebrity activism surrounding the 2009 election impacted the voter turnout, and perhaps it didn’t, but what is more important here is the fact these PSAs even exist. Their sheer creation and attitude are a testament to both the urgency of the political situation and the perceived power of celebrity.
-Miranda
The ad also uses humor to lighten the mood and make it seem like it’s the simplest thing in the world to vote. The approach of this particular PSA is different than many like it; usually, celebrity PSAs feature earnest, smiling celebs talking about how easy or important it is to get involved, such as this PSA for DoSomething.org. :
The contrast between these two clips is remarkable: everything from color, sound, and style to content and tone is different. I think that the dramatic approach of the “Don’t Vote” PSA is a sign of the political times; it uses an old tactic—celebrity endorsement—in a new way, shocking its viewers into thinking differently. We can read the changing approach in these types of announcements as an indication of the urgency surrounding last fall’s election that was not present before. Another notable thing about this voting PSA is that it was not the only one of its kind: many different PSAs featuring celebrities appeared around election time last fall, all encouraging viewers to vote. This one, for example, has a happier and more hopeful tone but the same message:
Perhaps the level of celebrity activism surrounding the 2009 election impacted the voter turnout, and perhaps it didn’t, but what is more important here is the fact these PSAs even exist. Their sheer creation and attitude are a testament to both the urgency of the political situation and the perceived power of celebrity.
-Miranda
College Cyberbullying?
Free speech is one of the core democratic values on which America prides itself, and thanks to the internet, more and more people are finding it easier than ever to make their own voices heard. But when happens when free speech crosses the line? These days, we hear many stories about “cyberbullying”: teens being harassed by peers over the internet, and the equivalent for college students also exists in the form of college gossip websites. The “College Anonymous Confession Board” or CollegeACB provides school-specific anonymous discussion boards where students can post comments or topics to their peers. More often than not, these topics are mean and degrading: “Hottest Freshman Girls,” and “greek b****es” are some of the tamer ones I came across. Brown does not have a CollegeACB board, but I searched around the boards of different schools that some of my friends attend and was shocked at the level of horrible things that people had written. A lot of posts are simply titled with a person’s name—as in “Joe Schmo- a**hole?”—and then followed with a slew of comments bashing that person. One thread I found on Yale’s board had 37 comments, all discussing how much the posters hated a particular girl. In my opinion, college gossip websites like this are a brand of cyberbullying and are likely more hurtful than actual, face-to-face insults. Anonymity and being “safe” behind a computer makes people feel liberated to be meaner because no one will ever know it was them, which is why cyberbullying is so hurtful. My freshman year at Vassar before I transferred to Brown, I had a friend who was a subject of discussion on a gossip website (“boredatvassar.com", which has since been disabled by Vassar: read about it here.) People on the website had insulted her looks and her personality, calling her everything from easy to a know-it-all. She tried her best to laugh at the comments and make it seem like she thought it was ridiculous instead of hurtful, but it was clear that the comments really hurt her. Free speech is all well and good but the anonymity makes it difficult to tell where the line is drawn between free speech and harassment; face-to-face, someone can be accused of verbal abuse, but on the internet the lines become blurred and relative anonymity makes it difficult to prevent or punish. As CBS new’s Larry Magid says in an article about how to handle cyberbullying, “We need to be careful to draw the line between harmful harassment and constitutionally protected speech. Just as in the fight against terrorism, those lines can easily be blurred.”
-Miranda
-Miranda
Inappropriate Use of Twitter by Medical Students and Professionals
Reading this Time.com article about medical students using social networking sites like Twitter to post inappropriate things about their patients made me ask myself about the general potential of sites like this to violate privacy: not only that of their users, but of unwitting people in users’ lives as well. The idea of medical students posting tweets about their patients really disgusts me—not only is this a blatant violation of patient confidentiality policies, but it seems to me a selfish use of social networking sites that suggests the poster cares more about their own social-network personality than they do about the health or comfort of their patient. The American Medical Association website section on patient confidentiality laws says of implied consent:
“…[M]edical personnel directly involved in a patient's care or treatment generally have access to the medical record. Even if the patient has not expressly authorized disclosure of his or her medical record, such consent is implied from the patient's acceptance of treatment or hospitalization.”
However, the consent discussed here refers to the patient’s allowance of medical professionals to have access to their records—not random internet surfers. I did some research on Twitter and on Facebook to see whether this article has any basis in fact:, and found many Facebook groups for medical students, (such as this one for international med students) a lot of which include discussion boards where members can post questions about difficult patients. Similarly, a quick twitter search of key phrases like “my patient” or “diagnose” turned out a surprising amount of posts. Many of these don’t use patient names, but I still think that a lot of them would be considered breaches of privacy because they reveal critical information, like age and physical symptoms. With the technological resources available today, virtually anyone on Twitter who wanted to could figure out where the doctor or student who posted a tweet was located, where they worked and, theoretically, who the patient in question might be. Some of the tweets that I found the most disgusting are students or medical professionals making fun of their patients:
littlemissnikki says “oh btw my penis implant patient is 75. admitting diagnosis was erectile dysfunction”
while doxadeo says “Today, my delirious alcohol withdrawal patient exposed himself and peed all over his bed... while we were rounding on him! lol...”
Patients with serious problems like alcohol addiction should not be publicly mocked, and certainly not by their doctors. This is clearly an awful breach of patient confidentiality as well as just pure disrespect on the part of the doctor who posted it. Additionnally, I found a few conversations between medical students discussing problems diagnosing patients, such as this one:
@Halimshariff My case study is about an 82 year old male with ongoing shortness of breath, leg swelling, chest pain, and fatigue.
@jennakharrison the patient has chf,
@Halimshariff I guess it is pericarditis. I have to explain why his symptoms occurred and how his condition improved after surgery.
@Halimshariff Jon gave me the answer. I just need help explaining what the hell is going on (swollen legs, high BP, etc.). You rock at this!
Again, it’s unclear where the lines are drawn in terms of patient confidentiality because no names are named, but I know that if I were the patient in question I would certainly feel uncomfortable with my doctor posting private information about my symptoms and problems on Twitter. A lot of times, medical problems are sensitive—we often don’t even want to describe symptoms or issues to our friends, let alone have them shared all over the internet.
- Miranda
“…[M]edical personnel directly involved in a patient's care or treatment generally have access to the medical record. Even if the patient has not expressly authorized disclosure of his or her medical record, such consent is implied from the patient's acceptance of treatment or hospitalization.”
However, the consent discussed here refers to the patient’s allowance of medical professionals to have access to their records—not random internet surfers. I did some research on Twitter and on Facebook to see whether this article has any basis in fact:, and found many Facebook groups for medical students, (such as this one for international med students) a lot of which include discussion boards where members can post questions about difficult patients. Similarly, a quick twitter search of key phrases like “my patient” or “diagnose” turned out a surprising amount of posts. Many of these don’t use patient names, but I still think that a lot of them would be considered breaches of privacy because they reveal critical information, like age and physical symptoms. With the technological resources available today, virtually anyone on Twitter who wanted to could figure out where the doctor or student who posted a tweet was located, where they worked and, theoretically, who the patient in question might be. Some of the tweets that I found the most disgusting are students or medical professionals making fun of their patients:
littlemissnikki says “oh btw my penis implant patient is 75. admitting diagnosis was erectile dysfunction”
while doxadeo says “Today, my delirious alcohol withdrawal patient exposed himself and peed all over his bed... while we were rounding on him! lol...”
Patients with serious problems like alcohol addiction should not be publicly mocked, and certainly not by their doctors. This is clearly an awful breach of patient confidentiality as well as just pure disrespect on the part of the doctor who posted it. Additionnally, I found a few conversations between medical students discussing problems diagnosing patients, such as this one:
@Halimshariff My case study is about an 82 year old male with ongoing shortness of breath, leg swelling, chest pain, and fatigue.
@jennakharrison the patient has chf,
@Halimshariff I guess it is pericarditis. I have to explain why his symptoms occurred and how his condition improved after surgery.
@Halimshariff Jon gave me the answer. I just need help explaining what the hell is going on (swollen legs, high BP, etc.). You rock at this!
Again, it’s unclear where the lines are drawn in terms of patient confidentiality because no names are named, but I know that if I were the patient in question I would certainly feel uncomfortable with my doctor posting private information about my symptoms and problems on Twitter. A lot of times, medical problems are sensitive—we often don’t even want to describe symptoms or issues to our friends, let alone have them shared all over the internet.
- Miranda
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Barack Obama is Following Me on Twitter!
President Barack Obama’s section on the White House website includes links to how you can find him on Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, Flickr, YouTube, iTunes and Vimeo. That’s four social networking sites and three video/audio hosting sites, plus his main governmental website, not to mention the countless articles and fansites created about him by bloggers, fans and networkers across the world. Looking at his incredibly planful and thorough use of the internet resources available to him, two questions spring into my mind:
1. In this internet age, is the hippest and most technologically current candidate always going to be more likely to win? and
2. Does the availability of social networking sites to politicians foster a greater sense of celebrity around them, or does it make them seem more normal and accessible?
I’ll start by addressing the first, and (in my opinion), easier question. Remembering the campaign process and the outcome of the recent presidential election, I think it’s clear that Obama’s success, while he gained an advantage in many different ways and from many different groups of voters, was largely attributed to his popularity within the younger generation. And I think it’s no coincidence that he was also the candidate that was the most connected and dedicated about staying current and using all forms of media and internet networking to help with his campaign. We are entering a new age for politicians; there’s all this new internet technology available, and clearly the candidates who stay the most knowledgeable about how to use it to their advantage are going to be the ones who succeed with this generation. It’s not just Obama who’s using the internet to his advantage—John McCain’s website has links to his Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, too—but McCain is not as connected as Obama, and neither, it seems, are many other politicians. While I by no means think the use of technology and internet is the deciding factor for politicians in elections, I definitely think it is a crucially important element of any campaign, and Obama’s many web pages and resources will back me up on this one.
Now, on to the second, and probably more interesting question. Throughout the 2008 political campaign season, and even still today, many people commented on the fact that the mania present among fans of Barack Obama surpassed that of normal political supporters and became more of a celebrity-culture-type obsession. John McCain’s team even ran an ad series mocking Obama’s celebrity and comparing him to Paris Hilton and Britney Spears:
Looking at Obama’s Facebook and flickr pages, it’s clear that he’s trying to send out the message that he’s a normal guy, just one of us: his Facebook page looks like anyone else’s, right down to his “Interests” (“basketball, writing, spending time w/ kids”) and his “Relationship Status” (“Married to Michelle Obama,”) and his flickr page is chock-full of images of him looking like a family man, playing basketball and visiting a general store with his daughter. However, I wonder whether, for all of his effort to come across like a normal guy, Obama’s extensive use of popular social networking sites actually feeds the celebrity mania that surrounds him. These days, the public has access to things and information about the president they would never have had access to even 10 years ago when Clinton was president. The internet also allows for the fast and wide spread of posts, videos and websites from fans, which only adds to and builds the culture of fandom. For example, I’m sure everyone remembers the video "I've Got A Crush on Obama" video posted by a non-affiliated fan:
The video quickly became viral and circulated the web; even when Obama wasn’t trying, his presence on the internet nevertheless raised public awareness of him, even if it was in a goofy, music-video way. During this past election, among my generation, it became “cool” to like Obama and to share and post your opinions about it— maybe, in this case and others, the popularity of this video even became more about the medium of YouTube and the music video than the actual political subject matter. Constant access to seeing what politicians are up to and seeing them use the same websites that we do creates a sense that they’re just like us, but also allows more readily for people to become obsessed with politicians the way they are with movie or TV celebrities because of this constant, current exposure.
-Miranda
1. In this internet age, is the hippest and most technologically current candidate always going to be more likely to win? and
2. Does the availability of social networking sites to politicians foster a greater sense of celebrity around them, or does it make them seem more normal and accessible?
I’ll start by addressing the first, and (in my opinion), easier question. Remembering the campaign process and the outcome of the recent presidential election, I think it’s clear that Obama’s success, while he gained an advantage in many different ways and from many different groups of voters, was largely attributed to his popularity within the younger generation. And I think it’s no coincidence that he was also the candidate that was the most connected and dedicated about staying current and using all forms of media and internet networking to help with his campaign. We are entering a new age for politicians; there’s all this new internet technology available, and clearly the candidates who stay the most knowledgeable about how to use it to their advantage are going to be the ones who succeed with this generation. It’s not just Obama who’s using the internet to his advantage—John McCain’s website has links to his Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, too—but McCain is not as connected as Obama, and neither, it seems, are many other politicians. While I by no means think the use of technology and internet is the deciding factor for politicians in elections, I definitely think it is a crucially important element of any campaign, and Obama’s many web pages and resources will back me up on this one.
Now, on to the second, and probably more interesting question. Throughout the 2008 political campaign season, and even still today, many people commented on the fact that the mania present among fans of Barack Obama surpassed that of normal political supporters and became more of a celebrity-culture-type obsession. John McCain’s team even ran an ad series mocking Obama’s celebrity and comparing him to Paris Hilton and Britney Spears:
Looking at Obama’s Facebook and flickr pages, it’s clear that he’s trying to send out the message that he’s a normal guy, just one of us: his Facebook page looks like anyone else’s, right down to his “Interests” (“basketball, writing, spending time w/ kids”) and his “Relationship Status” (“Married to Michelle Obama,”) and his flickr page is chock-full of images of him looking like a family man, playing basketball and visiting a general store with his daughter. However, I wonder whether, for all of his effort to come across like a normal guy, Obama’s extensive use of popular social networking sites actually feeds the celebrity mania that surrounds him. These days, the public has access to things and information about the president they would never have had access to even 10 years ago when Clinton was president. The internet also allows for the fast and wide spread of posts, videos and websites from fans, which only adds to and builds the culture of fandom. For example, I’m sure everyone remembers the video "I've Got A Crush on Obama" video posted by a non-affiliated fan:
The video quickly became viral and circulated the web; even when Obama wasn’t trying, his presence on the internet nevertheless raised public awareness of him, even if it was in a goofy, music-video way. During this past election, among my generation, it became “cool” to like Obama and to share and post your opinions about it— maybe, in this case and others, the popularity of this video even became more about the medium of YouTube and the music video than the actual political subject matter. Constant access to seeing what politicians are up to and seeing them use the same websites that we do creates a sense that they’re just like us, but also allows more readily for people to become obsessed with politicians the way they are with movie or TV celebrities because of this constant, current exposure.
-Miranda
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Hello hello!
Hi everyone! Welcome to our Mass Media blog for our class, Political Science 1110. We are excited to explore issues surrounding mass media throughout the semester here with you all!
- Miranda and Sarah
- Miranda and Sarah
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)