I am getting pretty sick and tired of hearing filler news stories on the same subject that no one should care about. What I am talking about are stories on Michelle Obama's clothes or their new dog Bo. There is no good reason as to why people would want to know or hear about this, and yet, there is so much attention given to it. I have tried my best to avoid these stories because they don't serve and good. What key issues are involved when we talk about what Michelle is wearing? None. Is there going to be a national crisis if Bo has worms and needs to go to the vet. Absolutely not. It bothers me so much that instead of doing stories on something that matters, news media is spending their time with this garbage.
People know more about Michelle's fashion sense than they do about policies on a wide variety of things. I think the news media should be more responsible in what they report, and instead of giving us fillers on things such as clothes or dogs, they should focus on other aspects like investigative journalism or whats happening in the rest of the world. If I had an opportunity to run a news station, I would never have a story on such nonsense, even if it sells. We too as citizens need to be more responsible and reject these things instead of gobbling it up. What kind of nation are we when people can name Obama's dog, but they don't know who the vice president is. Or how about people who can tell you what Michelle wore to a certain event, but don't even know what was said at that event. I believe people need to be more responsible and request better news coverage on stories that actually have an affect on the people or government.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Whitehouse Website
In class we were looking at the Whitehouse website, and many people had different opinions on it. Personally, I have conflicting views about it due to its content. I believe that it does have some useful information, however, I also believe its almost like a commercial or a tool for the Obama's administration to get reelected in the next term. The commercial part of it, for example, could be the signed legislation section, where it lists every piece of legislation that has been signed under President Obama. Another example is in the featured section, where it has a link that says "Delivering the Change." This has no informative value, but it simply makes the president look good and also makes him appear as though he is doing a great job as President of the United States of America. It has also been recently dominated by stories about the swine flu.
Here is a quote from the website section labeled "Issues." "The President arrived facing an unprecedented array of challenges, and has met them with a bold, comprehensive plan. He passed the most ambitious recovery package in history to address the economic crisis. He kept faith with the American people through a government that is open, transparent, and accountable. And he restored America's alliances abroad, as well as our American values here at home." This is another example of non-informative banter that seeks only to get President Obama elected for another term. There is also a tab on the bottom of this section that says change at a glance, where you can see all the things he has done on different dates. Again, some of these are important things that he has done, and others are just fillers that make him look good. So in conclusion, I believe that the website has some useful information, but most of it is used to ensure that Obama is reelected for another term.
Here is a quote from the website section labeled "Issues." "The President arrived facing an unprecedented array of challenges, and has met them with a bold, comprehensive plan. He passed the most ambitious recovery package in history to address the economic crisis. He kept faith with the American people through a government that is open, transparent, and accountable. And he restored America's alliances abroad, as well as our American values here at home." This is another example of non-informative banter that seeks only to get President Obama elected for another term. There is also a tab on the bottom of this section that says change at a glance, where you can see all the things he has done on different dates. Again, some of these are important things that he has done, and others are just fillers that make him look good. So in conclusion, I believe that the website has some useful information, but most of it is used to ensure that Obama is reelected for another term.
Approval Ratings
I have a pretty big problem when it comes to approval ratings for how the President is doing. I believe that it sways other people into thinking that the President is doing a good job when he or she may not be. A great example that I can think of comes out of the Bush administration. After September 11th, Bush's approval ratings shot up. After two weeks, it was raised even more. I believe this is because people hear these ratings polls and just go along with it without looking into it. I also believe that many news stations do this exact same thing, and that they should be more critical even in times of crisis. When a president has these higher approval ratings, he or she can gain more power using this as a tool.
As I stated, the Bush administrations approval rating was once at a really high level. This did not help the country because he gained much more power than he should have. He pretty much had control over congress, and the American people were willing to go along with whatever he wanted because since his approval rating was so high, he must be doing the right thing. We can look back not and see that no he wasn't doing the right thing, but congress and the American people went along with it blindly for a good period of time. I think we should do away with approval ratings for this exact reason, it doesn't benefit anyone and it skews the perception of the American people and leads to what happened in the Bush administration.
As I stated, the Bush administrations approval rating was once at a really high level. This did not help the country because he gained much more power than he should have. He pretty much had control over congress, and the American people were willing to go along with whatever he wanted because since his approval rating was so high, he must be doing the right thing. We can look back not and see that no he wasn't doing the right thing, but congress and the American people went along with it blindly for a good period of time. I think we should do away with approval ratings for this exact reason, it doesn't benefit anyone and it skews the perception of the American people and leads to what happened in the Bush administration.
Media on Presidential Affairs
It you take a look back at our past presidents, you will see one thing in common. The news media did not talk about the Presidents private lives. That is, they did not talk about whether or not they were cheating on their spouses or what was going on behind closed doors. Nowadays, it is common to hear of a cheating politician or some sleazy act done by someone with political power. This turn of action came about with the Gary Hart election in 1988. He claimed that he was a family man and that he wasn't having an affair. He almost dared the media to prove him wrong and they did after showing a photo of him with another woman who wasn't his wife. After this, affairs were fair game and the news media would harp on it in a heartbeat.
If you think back on President Kennedy, you would see that he was a borderline sex addict. He even had an ambition to sleep with every woman in Hollywood. Then if you look at a recent president, President Clinton, there is a huge gap between him and Kennedy. What he did was heard across the world, and if this was some years ago, nothing would have happened. It is my opinion that the media should not produce stories on these things because it doesn't help anyone. Personally, I don't care about the presidents private and sexual life, as long as he's doing his job right I have no problem with him.
If you think back on President Kennedy, you would see that he was a borderline sex addict. He even had an ambition to sleep with every woman in Hollywood. Then if you look at a recent president, President Clinton, there is a huge gap between him and Kennedy. What he did was heard across the world, and if this was some years ago, nothing would have happened. It is my opinion that the media should not produce stories on these things because it doesn't help anyone. Personally, I don't care about the presidents private and sexual life, as long as he's doing his job right I have no problem with him.
Jon Stewart's Crusade
Every one knows that Jon Stewart is a comedian rather than a journalist. However, he has done some things that I believe all journalists should know about. Jon appeared on CNN on the segment named Rapidfire, and was discussing partisan hackery with the hosts. He ends up making a fool out of the hosts and tries to set them straight. He states that the show is hurting America because their show is helping politicians and corporations rather than the average citizen. He also states that the show is part of the politicians strategy, and that the show is disingenuous.
The hosts claim that their show produces debates among different parties to show their different sides on issues. Jon claims that this is not true, and that it is theatre. He claims that what they do is not honest, and that it is partisan hackery. Jon states that the show has a responsibility to the public discourse, and that they are failing miserably. Jon tries to at the very least put this out there, and took a stand on an issue he felt very strongly about. And it was pretty entertaining to watch.
The hosts claim that their show produces debates among different parties to show their different sides on issues. Jon claims that this is not true, and that it is theatre. He claims that what they do is not honest, and that it is partisan hackery. Jon states that the show has a responsibility to the public discourse, and that they are failing miserably. Jon tries to at the very least put this out there, and took a stand on an issue he felt very strongly about. And it was pretty entertaining to watch.
Indeed Hippies need to back off
After reading a post on Dans media blog, I came across a post about legalizing marijuana. Dan states that this may be a possibility during Obama's run as president, there are things the "hippies" should do in order to help this process go along. He does not think the hippies should rise up and be heard, and I agree. He believes that the hippies need to "keep quiet and stay out of the way," which I am in total agreement with. A great point that he has made is that the loudest voices for the legalization of marijuana are perfect examples of why it should remain illegal. He states "how can you be swayed to think that marijuana is a harmless drug when the hippies protesting its illegality are unemployed, smelly, and have yellow teeth."
Although not all hippies are unemployed, smell bad, and have bad teeth, some are. He makes this point when he says that most of the people who do smoke marijuana are normal citizens, and that to them, the plant is nothing more than something that relaxes them and makes them "silly." But he equates a small number of outspoken drunkards during prohibition to these outspoken hippies of today. If this small number of drunks raised as much stink as these hippies do, maybe alcohol would still be illegal. I agree with Dan that these outspoken hippies are not helping their cause whatsoever. I also agree with his suggestions as to what they can do instead of leading the fight for legalization, which are pretty hilarious.
Although not all hippies are unemployed, smell bad, and have bad teeth, some are. He makes this point when he says that most of the people who do smoke marijuana are normal citizens, and that to them, the plant is nothing more than something that relaxes them and makes them "silly." But he equates a small number of outspoken drunkards during prohibition to these outspoken hippies of today. If this small number of drunks raised as much stink as these hippies do, maybe alcohol would still be illegal. I agree with Dan that these outspoken hippies are not helping their cause whatsoever. I also agree with his suggestions as to what they can do instead of leading the fight for legalization, which are pretty hilarious.
Fox vs CNN
Watching both the Fox news channel and the CNN news channel, I was able to make some distinctions between the two. Fox is easily recognised as being very right wing. CNN on the other hand appears to be liberal. I don't think that they cover the same events in the same way. CNN critiques the government on a regular basis, which was evident during the Bush administration. Fox seems to go along with what the government does and backs it most of the time. The reason for this is personal agendas, and of course the people who control the stations. This is good because you can see both sides of a story if you watch both CNN and Fox.
As to what coverage I like better, I prefer CNN to Fox. CNN, as I said, is more critical of our government and what it's doing. You would never hear a story on Fox about Arabic men being abducted and thrown into jails without a lawyer, however, you would hear a similar story like this on CNN. I prefer objective coverage, and that is what I perceive CNN to be. I simply dislike a news station that doesn't question things and just goes along with everything.
As to what coverage I like better, I prefer CNN to Fox. CNN, as I said, is more critical of our government and what it's doing. You would never hear a story on Fox about Arabic men being abducted and thrown into jails without a lawyer, however, you would hear a similar story like this on CNN. I prefer objective coverage, and that is what I perceive CNN to be. I simply dislike a news station that doesn't question things and just goes along with everything.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
