State of Virginia: the Focal Point ?? In providing coverage for this year’s State Senate and House election campaign, during the past couple of weeks the media has seemed to almost focus extensively on one state: Virginia. This seems a bit absurd and there seems to be no reason for this, as we know that nationally Virginia has just as much significance as any other state.
Leighly explains, in chapter 8 of Mass Media & Politics, the tendency of the media to focus on the negative developments in campaign coverage. A study conducted by Thomas Patterson during the 1976 presidential contest indicated that the nonpresidential campaign coverage tended to focus primarily on details of the strategy and logistics behind the political battle, and who was ahead or behind in the campaign, known as the game or horserace. Instead of focusing more on the actual difference of agenda's in the candidates, and provide basic substansive information aboutthe candidates, the media emphasised major blunders or miscues that occured during campaigning.

This seemed to be precisely the case with Republican George Allen of Virginia.
Yesterday, the NY Times featured a front page article featuring the latest allegations regarding Senator Allen George. The article mentioned two former acquaintances of the Senator who had come forward to reveal George’s long of history of racial tendencies and brought various examples of the racially offensive comments he had made, such as his reason for moving to Virginia “because the blacks know their place.” The Times also mentioned a few people who had denied these accusations and come to his defense, such as his campaign advisor and former spouse. Overall the article put the Senator in a negative light, “until a few weeks ago, Mr. Allen appeared to have a solid advantage in his reelection campaign …but insinuations of racial insensitivity have hovered in the background of the Allen campaign ever since last spring” (referring to the New Republic reporting of his wearing a confederate flag pin in his yearbook picture).
The article briefly went through the string of incidents that occurred since the campaign, that had given him a lot of negative media coverage, beginning with his first campaign appearance where he referred to a young democratic college student, of Indian descent with a racially offense term as a “macaca”.
AOL news Senator Faces More Allegations of Racial Slurs on the main welcome screen provided a similar story as well, although it was more comprehensive in its featuring a greater number of people who come forward to deny the validity of the allegations, such as his college roommate.

In addition, the three major news magazines: Newsweek, Time, US News & World report have given extensive coverage to the Virginia campaign, mostly describing the negative allegations and blunders of rep. Senator George Allen.
This week’s issue (October 2nd) of Time magazine, featured George Allen as well. Joe Klein’s In The Arena column titled “Iraq? Who Cares! Say, Is Your Mom Jewish?” The article focused on Webb’s anti-war views and international policy in general in the War on Terror, but highlighted Allen’s admitting of his Jewish heritage “It was a fabulous political theatre…Allen squirming, craven and hegira from white hegira from white-bread Presbyterianism to the admission that his mother was a Sephardic Jew”

“We’ll stop including him in this column as he stops giving us material,” Time said humorously in the same issue when he once again made it to a side column that usually features a couple of non formal sentences or interesting anecdotes about developments within the government.
However, even if the macaca incident could be used to explain the extensive media coverage Senator George Allen has been receiving, it wouldn’t explain why his Democratic opponent for the US senate Jim Webb has been receiving extensive coverage as well.
Newsweek’s September 18th issue devoted four and half pages discussing the Virginia candidates, focusing on Jim Webb, such as his services to country in Vietnam, and his adamant policies against the war in Iraq that he had right from the beginning seemed the prime forces. “Webb is not a normal politician. He is a warrior with the medals and wounds to prove it.” The overage of Webb seemed rather positive and the writer portrayed him also as someone, with strong moral convictions “soldiers do their duty, regardless if whether the politicians who lead them into wars are right or wrong” who seemed to be above political stereotypes and lowly tactics, but at the same time lacked the tact, and experience greatly needed in campaign speeches and debates. On the other hand the article characterized “GOP senator George Allen Jr.,” as someone who “plays the good-ole boy superpatriot…but next to a hardened combat veteran like Webb, he can seem like a tough guy wanna-be.”

However, minimal coverage has been given to any other state senators. The NY Times yesterday’s metro section briefly mentioned in a few short sentences Florida republican Katherine Harris, (the descriptions paled in comparison to the amount of content featured regarding Virginia senator George Allen) and the September 25th issue of US News & World report had a brief article mentioning the Montana candidates for Senate. Other than these few exceptions that the media has tended to focus on the national issues and has seldom gone up close, profiling the candidates like it did with Virginia , with too many other states.
Evidently the thirty year old study, Paterson produced that indicating that electoral coverage is marked by an emphasis on important conflicts and strategies that occur within the campaigning and its focusing on the negative occurrences and political slip-ups still applies today. Obviously the media has failed to live up ot the expectations of the public advocate model. By focusing on the types of issues illustrated above, and failing to provide the basic political issues of the day, the media seems to be falling in line with the profit-seeker model; it focuses on entertainment values in order to attempt to glean the largest audiece possible.

A few nights ago, I had the privilege of hearing Steven Aftergood, director of the FAS program on government secrecy, speak to us and explain the importance of reducing the extent of secrecy the government can extend within itself.

He brought various examples of instances where documents were withheld by the government and after their release it became obvious that the “secrets” they contained had long since expired and had no reason to remain classified. He mentioned that one of the oldest documents that until recently had remained “classified”, dated back to World War I era and its contents discussed the ingredients for lemon juice to be used as an invisible ink. He cited a few other old documents that had been under the “classified” status and had information that had either long since expired, or never should’ve been classified in the first place. In these examples, Aftergood clearly made the case for the government being a bit extreme in terms of determining what should remain classified, but failed here to provide valid reason for anyone to be mildly concerned with these practices unless, for instance they possessed a some curiosity to uncover obsolete war plans (because other wise why should anyone care that some antediluvian documents still remain classified?)
Aftergood also mentioned the numbers involved in protecting government secrecy that had starkly risen within the past five years (government officials, classified documents, spending etc.) This I don’t think calls for any great mystery solving or scrutiny; our nation is at war and must strengthen our defense and security industries in order to succeed.

Aftergood also referred to the document that contained the CIA’s briefing of the President a month prior to the 9/11, with “Bin Laden determined to strike in the US”, which remained classified up until 2005. He left it open to discussion whether publicizing the document could’ve actually prevented the attacks, but seemed to imply that it was classified for no good reason. I personally doubt the release of this document would have many any sort of difference. For one, it wouldn’t have gotten much coverage in the media even if it were released to the press. Prior to the attacks American’s had a very solid image of the US as a dominant and invincible superpower, and would’ve been very skeptical of the idea that some Islamic extremist is actually capable of carrying out attacks in American soil. Even today, after the attacks people have occurred, people still have a hard time believing that foreign radical Muslims actually succeeded in orchestrated these attacks (- evident in the numerous conspiracy theories circulating that claim that our own government arranged 9/11.) In addition, as a general practice the government doesn’t and shouldn’t release all details about imminent threats to our country and there are many valid reasons for this that we aren’t always aware of.

However, although have great faith in our government’s dedication to protect us and promote what’s beneficial for us, as far them having unlimited freedom in extending secrecy to whatever they wish in the intelligence agencies, I believe that can leave room for abuse and this is where our the system of the checks and balances needs to step in. Aftergood brought to light the potential for government to exploit the system by using the “classified” status to conceal documents that are controversial or could be politically damaging. One of the examples he cited was the prisoners of Abu Graib. Sadly the incident will be a scar in the US military history and the fact that the government officials attempted to conceal the story under pretenses of “sensitive” or “classified” only added to the notoriety of the scandal. Therefore, it is important that we have the right to request government information through the FIA law. “The Freedom of Information of Act” is helpful in terms of limiting government power because it obliges the officials to produce the requested document unless it is among the nine categories that are exempted.

However, some other examples Aftergood brought in, I did not see as sufficient reason to condemn or petition the government against their secrecy practices. Overall, he did not make a strong enough case for me to support his agenda, and at times I felt like he didn’t provide the full context or background of the information he presented. He definitely had an agenda and wanted to make an impression on our young valuable minds. However, I would like to give him credit for diplomatically addressing us, and responding to our questions in a candid friendly tolerant way.

About the Bloggin' World
I came across an interesting blog today http://www.brendanloy.com/2006/09/911-conspiracy-theories-full-of-false-facts.html In this post the blogger summarized in a few short paragraphs why the 9/11 conspiracy theory is not based on fact, and is based on circumstantial and manipulated evidence, such as taking quotes out of context and arguments that could easily be refuted with counter evidence, and facts produced by scientific investigations.
The particular blogger who published his post gained a lot of fame through his post about hurricane Katrina, that evolved into the most number one ranked blog about the issue on the net. He was receiving as many as thirty thousand comments a day. Thus, it would make sense for his readers to have very high expectations for him as a blogger and probably would seek his opinion about other issues just because he argued and presented his opinion so adequately in the past.
Because he published his post only three short hoy=11

Congress, the Media, and Press Conferences

Members of Congress tend to view the media attention as essential for advancing their political careers. They feel that their popularity and electoral success heavily depends on positive press coverage. Thus, most political institutions have been redesigned to allow maximum media coverage by making them more accessible and convenient for reporters.
The media tends to focus primarily on the members of Congress who are in formal positions of leadership. Studies and analysis of stories featured in the Vanderbilt Television New Archive between 1872 and 1984 illustrated that leadership, extreme views, opposition to the president, scandal are all associated with increased coverage of government officials in the legislative body.
Government officials may attempt to publicize certain events, issues, or agendas that it feels is politically beneficial through press conferences, daily briefing (presidential usually) and other methods. Press conferences in general serve as a means for government officials to garner media attention easily, and portray a particular meaning or interpretation about events. Reporters find this type of news easy and cost effective to produce, and thus will attend these conferences. However, ultimately does the media fulfill its role in society as a linkage institution, that effectively communicates news of the government to the American people, or does it merely regurgitate back to the public what it has been strategically spoon-fed by government officials?

Let’s look closely at the following press conference. On September 5, 2006, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, Asst. Democratic Leader Dick Durbin of Illinois and other congressional Democrats arranged a press conference on global security in order to respond to President Bush’s speech on global terrorism, and demonstrate that despite the successes he has claimed, he has overwhelmingly failed in the war on terror, citing evidence such as the death toll in Iraq, the dwindling popularity of US worldwide, and the growth of terror networks around the globe. It served to formally introduce a report drafted by the Third Way, evaluating Bush success in the War on Terror.


General Wesley Clark, was the first one to speak after Senator Reid gave a brief introduction. Clark’s main focus was to highlight how the Bush administration and Republican leadership in Congress had failed in keeping America safe. He strongly emphasized the failures in Iraq, labeling its invasion as “a distraction from what we were trying to accomplish in Afghanistan” and “counterproductive in winning the War on Terror.” Clark also criticized the lack of diplomatic tactics used by the administration, saying that the real way to win the war is not by talking to tough about our enemies but by “strengthening relations with other countries …and talking to people you don't necessarily agree with” and criticized Bush’s failure to have direct talks with North Korea and Iran. He summarized by saying that the Bush administration was making America less safe, and a new leadership in Congress was much needed, declaring Democrats as far more suitable leaders “to curb the threat of nuclear proliferation”. The next series of speakers seemed to emphasize the same issues as Clark; Senator Carper, Senator Durbin and U.S. Representative Steny Hoyer all stressed Bush’s disastrous foreign policy, the administration’s failure in keeping the American people safe, and the debacles of the war in Iraq. Senator Thomas Carper tried to convey Democrats as the party that has always backed the war on terror and identified himself as someone who seeks bipartisan solutions but the Bush administration making this endeavor impossible.

Sharon Burke, member of Third Way, a group founded by Democrats who support gun control, and Director of a National Security Project spoke last and introduced a report titled “In the Neo Con: The Bush Defense Record by the Numbers.” Based on numerical evaluations of several factors ranging from the condition of American military, to the nuclear programs in Iran, and North Korea, she declared the report as revealing troubling numbers and that the evidence in the report did not “match the tough talk of the President” In the end when questions were taken, Reed carefully dismissed a question by a news reporter who began by saying “Senator Reid I was hoping you could expand on the”- possibly because he thought she might raise a question that would put him in an uncomfortable position, and thus responded by saying “lets take someone from the right for a change.” The following question was directed to Senator Carper asking him to explain how he would implement diplomatic tactics in dealing with tyrannical regimes, and ones that supported terrorism. Carper responded to this by referring to countries who were tyrannical but did were not necessarily allied with other belligerent regimes, and explained how we could use this to our advantage in fighting the war on terror. He also carefully tied in the mistake of the Bush administration in not using this method, and called it a “roadmap to war”. Someone asked Reid if he would call the administrations’ depiction of terrorism as a “scare tactic”, and Reid answered by bringing in Iraq.

The various questions that were raised seemed to have a common pattern in which they were addressed. Reid and Carper who answered most of the questions always managed to strategically tie in the failures of the administration and Iraq even if it had nothing to do with the question asked. This is a common tactic used by the government officials in press conferences whose goal is to convey a specific point even if it means reemphasizing it over and over again. In fact, throughout the conference the series of speakers merely restated what his predecessor had said. However, this didn’t strengthen their views but if anything the issues they raised began to lose their poignancy because they’d mentioned so many times. Also, although the conference was titled “global security” the absence of a single act of terrorism on American soil in five years was not acknowledged nor mentioned during any of the speeches since the essence of the conference was to shed the administration in negative light, and convince the public that new leadership was needed, and thus ultimately bolster enough support for a democratic majority party in congress. The speakers also failed to identify any other useful tactic that would be implemented, other than a more diplomatic approach in fighting the war.

Obviously, the nature of the meeting was for the Democrats to politically strengthen their parties agenda, like most conferences tend to be opportunities for, and gain support for a Democratic congressional majority, by listing convenient failures of the Republicans the Bush administration, or areas that they subjectively interpreted as failures.
Thus, by carefully selecting the information that will be presented and accentuated in a conference, as well as bringing these points in whatever questions are raised, is a method, politicians use to get the media to report what they deem politically beneficial.

NETWORK, 1976

Network, features a harsh but justified look at the inner workings of the media industry. It reveals the pitfalls and shortcomings of television networks through shedding light on some of the corrupt individuals who form the backbone of the television networks.
The film focuses primarily on Howard Beale, played by Peter Finch, who is a veteran news anchorman for UBS-TV, and is fired because his superiors blame him for the plummeting ratings of the network. Howard transforms himself from a retiring anchorman, insane and threatening suicide, to a celebrated, prophetic talk show host. He does this inadvertently through expressing rage about political atrocities being committed and telling his viewers the stark undisguised truth the way he sees it, on what should’ve been his last show. Due to the mass attention this draws, he is rehired and delivers daily harangues and on his Howard Beale show, becoming an instant celebrity simply for telling people exactly what they want to hear.

However, although Howard is in need of psychiatric treatment, his superiors aren’t mildly concerned to say the least. Their only care is that he earns high ratings and boost shares for the unpopular network. Max Schumacher, one of the few characters who seem to possess any moral convictions, is fired and removed from post because he opposes the industry’s exploitation of Howard.
Max, seems to represent the few individuals with an actual regard for ethics, and morality in the field that get crushed from above do they dare voice any opposition

Diana Christenson, played by Faye Dunaway represents the cold hearted apathetic nature, and relentlessness typical of someone in such a demanding, high-ranking, position in the field, where the only way to succeed is to ensure that your only allegiance is to the industry.

Harold, ironically is used in the film to convey to the people, that news and television is junk; TV is relegated to a mere tube that connects people to tabloids and other cheap means of “news” and entertainment, to keep people from falling into boredom, until they lose all their individuality and cannot think for themselves

The film is inherently dismal and ominous, but at the same time features many elements of humor and comic relief and thus it is enjoyable, as well as intriguing.
The cast does a remarkable job portraying each of the characters, and it is the success of the cast, combined with the incorporation of well created dramatic elements such as satire, allegory, hyperbole, and irony that the film expertly conveys its intended meaning. Although, this film was produced over thirty years, it features a timeless message about the news and the media, and is relevant to our decade more than any other that has preceded it.