The "you" in You Tube
In its short existence of twelve months this virtual video land called You Tube has already revolutionized internet communication in a series of ways. It is a method of web multimedia communication that is becoming increasingly popular as the months roll by, with a diversity of uses that extend from people pitching auction items on eBay to kids attempting to perform their own standup comedy routines from their basement. This breakthrough in technology accommodates all video formats, and allow for You Tube clips to be posted and viewed on any web browser. In fact, the way blogs can transform ordinary citizens into journalists, You Tube can help people achieve near celebrity status. And although predominantly among users with high speed internet access, if a certain video clip is significantly appealing, it can easily achieve widespread circulation within the internet community and even wind up getting coverage in the Mainstream Media.
The You Tube technology has indeed affected the cultural and social aspects of society, but other areas in society are undergoing changes as well. In the midterms elections, You Tube played a prominent role for many Congressmen seeking a more friendly, personal method of communication with the public and, thus, many adopted video streaming as an effective way of relaying important campaign messages. But You Tube can also be accredited for the skyrocketing negative publicity for some candidates, such as the notoriety of the Macacagate incident of Senator George Allen. The video of the Senator's referall to an Indian supporter of his oponent as a "macaca"was captured on web camera, and the clip circulated quickly around the internet and soon “macaca” became a common cyber term. This also helped to launch extensive media coverage on the alleged racism tendancies of George Allen and his sordid political situation was only exacerbated by the additional racial speech implications he was accused of.
As far as these technological improvements go for the Big Media media industries,well they've definitely given them what to compete with. People are becoming increasingly self sufficient in terms of the methods they use to keep abreast of developments in the news, and less reliant on the big media. YouTube has helped to supplement a whole new dimension in news content on the internet. In the blogging community a large number of blogs are embedded with appropriate or relevant video clips. The growing availibility of news clips online helps to enhance the news gathering process overall and make internet news more palpable, as it free and instantaneous for anyone with a decent internet connection.
YouTube also helps to creates a new standard for the mainstream media. Video clips on the internet often provide access to the complete recorded versions without the editing and filtering processes done by news networks were making things more “family friendly” often downplays some of the violence like in Darfur, Lebanon or Iraq for instance. A solider can film the insurgency in Bagdad, and unlike the news networks, not have to be concerned with showing too much blood or gore. YouTube can help to improve overall truth and accuracy in the Mainstream media find it increasingly difficult to conceal bias and distortion as people will have such an extensive array of other sources at immediate access. A new standard of news will thus be likely emerge as a result.
But like any other innovation in technology, with the great liberties of You Tube comes new responsibility. Some serious ethical and legal problems are going to need to be addressed and inevitably, certain sacrifices such as privacy rights, are going to have to have to be made. The question may even arise if the benefits yielded by YouTube will be worth their stake.
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Sunday, November 26, 2006
Proud to Be a Blogger
Our media system serves to maximize profit for its owners and investors, and since tabloid journalism is perhaps one of the most effective ways of ensuring public interest, sex, scandal, disaster, and crime permeate newspaper headlines and masquerades as news on TV. When news making is a commercial industry and the primary focus is on profit, there is no telling to what degree the caliber of the news will suffer. The previous posts, in this bog refer to a multitude of evidence of flaws in this system. Election coverage is just one aspect of where poor news coverage manifests itself. Candidates are relegated to racehorses in a game with polls and strategies being reported with the care of a loudspeaker discussing the proximity of a horse from the finishing line. Rather than focusing on providing valuable information to voters, such as the policies and agendas of a candidate, the media seems to treat the whole thing as nothing more than a game, and provides coverage of only the details that would be most intriguing and eye catching to its audience-- in other words most profitable. Survey after survey reveals the degree of public ignorance and apathy regarding our political system. Citizens are more cynical of our government than ever, and voter turnout plummets yearly.
It is in a series of areas that lack competent and sufficient press coverage, but as fluff news continues to be easy and cheap to print, and people continue to be obsessed with celebrity gossip, such as Britney Spears latest divorce, there isn’t going to be much of a demand for change. The flaws in the system are ingrained to such an extent that most people aren’t even aware a problem exits. People’s preferences for news are dictated largely by what they’ve been exposed to in the media in the past, and thus the status quo has been replaced with a very warped definition of news.
As the saying goes, the media does not necessarily tell you what to think, but they tell you what to think about and how to think about it. Watching the news, or picking up a newspaper becomes almost a disheartening task for me. In a way, I feel as though I am furthering the cycle by playing the role of the naïve victim, allowing my interest to be piqued the sensational news story headlines.
But perhaps writing this piece is really part of the solution. To many people, the blogosphere has emerged as a safe haven for the series of flaws plaguing our MSM. Certainly, it is no longer solely in the hands of the Mainstream Media to dictate what it is or isn’t news. Unlike, journalists who are constantly subject to meeting the demands and pressures from above the ladder, and there work is hardly their unbridled expressions, bloggers can deliver their passions and opinions, instantaneously, unfiltered and uncensored. When news publishing is no longer orchestrated by the profit incentive, an environment of sharing and providing quality news and debates becomes feasible. People are writing from interest or passion, or genuine concern. They lack the ulterior motivations that typically govern news production in the MSM; those very same motivations that often hinder quality. When the mainstream media keeps silent about a certain event or issue, but bloggers are outraged the discord between the two mediums lays compelling evidence of flaws and corruption existing in the Big Media. As a result a new standard emerges. Journalists know their work is under tough scrutiny by the internet world.
People nation wide can comment and analyze any event, and if done adequately they can achieve significant internet fame, like the Irish Trojan blog, who acquired fame in revealing the insufficient coverage of Hurricane Katrina on his blog and helped ignite the mainstream media spurring greater coverage over the event. Now has tens of thousands of viewers visiting his blog daily. Skipping right through journalism school, and the intimidating interviews with all the hot shots of the press corps, a person can acquire fame from his own bedroom.
Blog need to be intelligent, sufficiently interesting or compelling but hardly the sensational and juicy what the mainstream media uses to attract people. People just aren’t searching for these kinds of blogs, and besides they can easily get that in Mainstream Media. As a result a new standard emerges in the news world news one with a demand and opportunity for real talent.
The Media’s Accountability
Boehlert’s Lapdogs raises some very interesting even disturbing questions regarding the way the media conducted itself during the days preceding the war on Iraq, and earlier part of the actual conflict. The media seemed too eager to repeat information strategically spoon fed by the White House, too timid and naïve to express any real cynicism or concern over the legitimacy of the war, and intentionally left out information that would indicate that significant opposition existed. Thus, they became coconspirators with the Bush administration inadvertently adopting the propagandistic and even deceptive way of relaying information to the public that lead them into supporting an unnecessary war.
The real question is not what caused the media to behave so uncharacteristically, and abandon its generally more cynical critical approach to our government, because really the media was doing what it does best-- telling people they wanted to hear.
Media scholars, analysts and researchers tend to agree that the role the media assumes in our society is not that of public advocating, and neither is it that of objective truth seeking; rather it functions to raise profits just like any other business or industry does. Eric Boehlert laments the media for being negligent in its role “… to accurately inform citizens, particularly during times of great national interest”( see more here), but such noble incentives do not exist in the first place. The de facto state of the media is most evident when the quest for truth comes in conflict with its need to maximize profit; the media’s chief concern quickly becomes that of the latter.
Thus, it is important to note the audience the media was catering during the days preceding the War on Iraq, or better phrased for our purposes- the aftermath of 9/11. Since Pearl Harbor, over a half a century ago, Americans had not experienced an attack of such magnitude on its own soil. The disheartened but angry, terror stricken but vengeance –wanting emotions and sentiments had not fully faded. Patriotism continued to soar, and people still looked to rally behind a strong leader who’d do more than provide the public with morale building rhetoric; one who promised action. Public trust and support of the government was at its heyday. Thus people allowed themselves to accept the war on Iraq. Not to say there weren’t ambivalent feelings, and people didn’t prefer a more diplomatic means of handling the conflict, but people allowed their patriotism to govern their final say. Certain details, such as there being no real evidence of ties between the 9/11 attacks to Saddam’s regime just didn’t seem to be that significant. The mood, the psychological plight of the public, was not one of cynicism and of questioning its commander and chief.
However, there then comes the unavoidable question of whether or not the media continued to build on this cycle by continuing to provide news coverage that furthered this attitude of the public, of Iraq being an unavoidable consequence of 9/11 and its support a manifestation of our patriotism. Had the media ventured and raised some real doubts in the press, perhaps the public would have shifted to embrace a more questioning, skeptical type of mindset. The media seemed to allow the propaganda put forth by the administration to reverberate and flourish. Perhaps at a certain point it was no longer reinforcing the people with what they already felt and had reached the point where it was governing and dictating people’s attitudes and opinions about the war. Rather than relay information that could’ve allowed people to doubt the war earlier on, the media didn’t want to abandon its already established take, and found it easier to continue down the path it already had established, or more sinisterly perhaps, the trap it had set for itself.
However, the media wasn’t just reporting directly to the mood of the public. It also reflected upon the opinions in our government. Democrats in Congress supported to the war, and only a minority within the government overtly voiced opposition. In the fall of 2002, 78 rcent of U.S. Senate voted in favor of the war. Thus, rather than risk offending its audience by emphasizing or hyping up anti-war opinions that at the time represented only the minority, the media actually downplayed some of the news and resorted to reporting what was popular opinion. At the brink of the war there was also a lack of a significant clash of opinions between Republicans and Democrats in Congress, and building a story or providing extensive or in depth analysis of the handful of strong anti-war opinions would perhaps cause them to be depicted with the notorious “liberal media bias” or even worse as unpatriotic. The media had no way of knowing that what then constituted the minority anti-war sentiment, would later emerge as popular mainstream opinion.
Thus, the few early voices who vocalized concern that the administration’s claims lacked substantial evidence, such as there being no Weapons of Mass Destruction, were downplayed because at the time the claims themselves were no more than speculations. News industries lacked the 0riginal intelligence report that served as the basis for Bush’s claim of nuclear weaponry. Since it was difficult to refute anything Bush said, legitimizing and giving credence to the early speculations and theories could entangle themselves in a political mess. Any such articles at the brink of the war would seem unpatriotic and overly cynical. It wasn’t until later in the war that the media began taking a different approach, but by then it was too late.
The media didn’t necessarily prefer Bush to any other administration. Unlike his predecessor, Bush emerged as a president in times of crises. The nature of the public to rally behind its leader in times of threats and wars is surely not a novelty, and neither is the tendency of the media to appeal to the public’s mainstream sentiment by providing news coverage with a tone deemed appropriate by the majority.
Thus, the media can only be held accountable to a certain extent. Fault lies in Washington-- in Congress-- within our own government for not investigating better the war being advertised by the Bush administration. Moderates with widespread appeal and competent leaders in prominent positions should have more proficiently examined the legitimacy of the war. They should have spoken up, assuming a braver stance and reported their initial ambivalence before the war even started; but only 22 percent voted against the war.
Nobody with realistic expectations could have expected the media to venture down a path that might prove unprofitable. But once significant discord existed, and legitimate authorities had begun stirring up questions, the media’s theoretical role as a public advocate could have become a possibility.
Boehlert’s Lapdogs raises some very interesting even disturbing questions regarding the way the media conducted itself during the days preceding the war on Iraq, and earlier part of the actual conflict. The media seemed too eager to repeat information strategically spoon fed by the White House, too timid and naïve to express any real cynicism or concern over the legitimacy of the war, and intentionally left out information that would indicate that significant opposition existed. Thus, they became coconspirators with the Bush administration inadvertently adopting the propagandistic and even deceptive way of relaying information to the public that lead them into supporting an unnecessary war.
The real question is not what caused the media to behave so uncharacteristically, and abandon its generally more cynical critical approach to our government, because really the media was doing what it does best-- telling people they wanted to hear.
Media scholars, analysts and researchers tend to agree that the role the media assumes in our society is not that of public advocating, and neither is it that of objective truth seeking; rather it functions to raise profits just like any other business or industry does. Eric Boehlert laments the media for being negligent in its role “… to accurately inform citizens, particularly during times of great national interest”( see more here), but such noble incentives do not exist in the first place. The de facto state of the media is most evident when the quest for truth comes in conflict with its need to maximize profit; the media’s chief concern quickly becomes that of the latter.
Thus, it is important to note the audience the media was catering during the days preceding the War on Iraq, or better phrased for our purposes- the aftermath of 9/11. Since Pearl Harbor, over a half a century ago, Americans had not experienced an attack of such magnitude on its own soil. The disheartened but angry, terror stricken but vengeance –wanting emotions and sentiments had not fully faded. Patriotism continued to soar, and people still looked to rally behind a strong leader who’d do more than provide the public with morale building rhetoric; one who promised action. Public trust and support of the government was at its heyday. Thus people allowed themselves to accept the war on Iraq. Not to say there weren’t ambivalent feelings, and people didn’t prefer a more diplomatic means of handling the conflict, but people allowed their patriotism to govern their final say. Certain details, such as there being no real evidence of ties between the 9/11 attacks to Saddam’s regime just didn’t seem to be that significant. The mood, the psychological plight of the public, was not one of cynicism and of questioning its commander and chief.
However, there then comes the unavoidable question of whether or not the media continued to build on this cycle by continuing to provide news coverage that furthered this attitude of the public, of Iraq being an unavoidable consequence of 9/11 and its support a manifestation of our patriotism. Had the media ventured and raised some real doubts in the press, perhaps the public would have shifted to embrace a more questioning, skeptical type of mindset. The media seemed to allow the propaganda put forth by the administration to reverberate and flourish. Perhaps at a certain point it was no longer reinforcing the people with what they already felt and had reached the point where it was governing and dictating people’s attitudes and opinions about the war. Rather than relay information that could’ve allowed people to doubt the war earlier on, the media didn’t want to abandon its already established take, and found it easier to continue down the path it already had established, or more sinisterly perhaps, the trap it had set for itself.
However, the media wasn’t just reporting directly to the mood of the public. It also reflected upon the opinions in our government. Democrats in Congress supported to the war, and only a minority within the government overtly voiced opposition. In the fall of 2002, 78 rcent of U.S. Senate voted in favor of the war. Thus, rather than risk offending its audience by emphasizing or hyping up anti-war opinions that at the time represented only the minority, the media actually downplayed some of the news and resorted to reporting what was popular opinion. At the brink of the war there was also a lack of a significant clash of opinions between Republicans and Democrats in Congress, and building a story or providing extensive or in depth analysis of the handful of strong anti-war opinions would perhaps cause them to be depicted with the notorious “liberal media bias” or even worse as unpatriotic. The media had no way of knowing that what then constituted the minority anti-war sentiment, would later emerge as popular mainstream opinion.
Thus, the few early voices who vocalized concern that the administration’s claims lacked substantial evidence, such as there being no Weapons of Mass Destruction, were downplayed because at the time the claims themselves were no more than speculations. News industries lacked the 0riginal intelligence report that served as the basis for Bush’s claim of nuclear weaponry. Since it was difficult to refute anything Bush said, legitimizing and giving credence to the early speculations and theories could entangle themselves in a political mess. Any such articles at the brink of the war would seem unpatriotic and overly cynical. It wasn’t until later in the war that the media began taking a different approach, but by then it was too late.
The media didn’t necessarily prefer Bush to any other administration. Unlike his predecessor, Bush emerged as a president in times of crises. The nature of the public to rally behind its leader in times of threats and wars is surely not a novelty, and neither is the tendency of the media to appeal to the public’s mainstream sentiment by providing news coverage with a tone deemed appropriate by the majority.
Thus, the media can only be held accountable to a certain extent. Fault lies in Washington-- in Congress-- within our own government for not investigating better the war being advertised by the Bush administration. Moderates with widespread appeal and competent leaders in prominent positions should have more proficiently examined the legitimacy of the war. They should have spoken up, assuming a braver stance and reported their initial ambivalence before the war even started; but only 22 percent voted against the war.
Nobody with realistic expectations could have expected the media to venture down a path that might prove unprofitable. But once significant discord existed, and legitimate authorities had begun stirring up questions, the media’s theoretical role as a public advocate could have become a possibility.
Sunday, November 19, 2006
Sacrificing For Democracy or Sacrificing Democracy?
Our very first amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances” Being able to freely criticize our government is the very function of freedom of speech that constitutes our democracy. Citizens in a self-governing society depend on freedom of speech to determine whether or not to elect a government candidate or support a particular policy. Freedom of speech fosters an environment of contrasting opinions and individuality but at the same time of tolerance and acceptance. The only way people can make educated decisions is through being able to freely discuss, debate, and listen to the differing perspectives. Being able to voice criticism or concern against the government also helps to prevent government officials from keeping secret illegitimate or unethical practices. The government does not have the option of strengthening its authority through the suppressing of contrasting ideas or opinions.
Thus, the allowing of differing ideas and opinions about our government to circulate freely and uncensored is an essential aspect of our democracy.
In fact, from the literal interpretation of the text of the First Amendment it would seem evident that the speech of any individual or group of people should never be silenced. Restricting expression at any point should be precisely the “abridging” of these freedoms that is declared unconstitutional. Yet, many have made the case for the restricting of freedom of expression during war, and as Chief Justice William Rehnquist stated, at times of war the balance between freedom and order must shift “in favor of order.” However, it is difficult to understand how this essential aspect of our democracy could be restrained, even if temporarily. What could possibly constitute a legitimate reason for the abrogating of this freedom?
The restricting of all speech or press that could theoretically be defended as the most effective means of ensuring victory, and thus any information that could be counterproductive to the war effort should be censored. This, however, would leave room for exploitation, as the government could easily use the pretense of war and outlaw any form of opposition that could harbor its own interests, and not necessarily that which pertains to the overall success of the war. Even what might appear as a legitimate public concern, such as boisterous opposition having the potential to inflict damage on the war effort through its negative effects, like causing a dearth in army enrollment, or strengthening the enemy resolve, could just be a means for the government to prevent voters from being not be swayed to replace the incumbent officers with more competent ones. Furthermore, the war interests that are being so carefully protected, who says they are legitimate in the first place, or that the original reasons for being engulfed in the particular conflict still hold true?
The government could even go as far as to make a case for all basic information such as a growing death toll, lack of progress, and growing hostility among other countries to be banned on the grounds that these bits of information harbor the war effort. And even if a legitimate war existed, and the restricting of information was essential to bolster support and expedite its victory, the cons of sacrificing freedom of speech would outweigh the pros. Restricting freedom of speech would not only be manipulating public opinion but it would constitute a major threat to the existence of our democracy. It would also be very hypocritical of a government that does not hesitate to characterize its wars as a “mission to spread democracy”.
“Operation Iraqi Freedom” is what has been used by the administration to refer to the “war on Iraq.” In this war, especially, debate needs to be encouraged and people should be exposed to the clashing of opinions and uncensored news not only because it is our tax dollars being spent, and our fellow country men being sacrificed, but because of the hypocritical aspect in it. Even the images, specifically designed to incite people against the war, such as clips with grotesque images of civilian casualties in Iraq (click here to see) should not be censored. And as expanded upon above, once the government begins regulating the expression of opinion it is treading on dangerous ground, as it now has tremendous opportunities for exploitation.
Yahoo news recently wrote “How is it that more than a year has passed without seeing one casket, one dead soldier or one maimed civilian? When Democracy Now’s Amy Goodman asked CNN’s Aaron Brown why they weren’t showing footage of casualties, Brown responded that it might be in poor taste. It’s poor taste when the electorate is informed of the realities of war, but not when TV reels off the hundreds of violent acts that are considered routine on an evenings programming." This is an excellent and at the same time frightening question. Is the banning of the displaying of the flag-draped coffins really because the ad politicizes war casualties and is an insult to the families of the troops killed in Iraq. or is it because the administration recognizes its tremendous potential to exacerbate the already widespread opposition and further alienate the public against the war? If it is the latter, it is a powerful illustration of how the government can circumnavigate in order not to outright abrogate free speech, and strengthens the case for freedom of expression never to be compromised: the potential for exploitation. The only exception is when free speech directly compromising national security, which would include the relaying of war plans, instructions of how to build nuclear weapons etc. Limiting the right of the public to criticize the government or its policies will never have a constitutional basis. The Alien and Sedition Acts, although a scar on our history, will hopefully serve as a historical lesson to prevent the abrogation of our First Amendment rights from every being repeated.
Our very first amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances” Being able to freely criticize our government is the very function of freedom of speech that constitutes our democracy. Citizens in a self-governing society depend on freedom of speech to determine whether or not to elect a government candidate or support a particular policy. Freedom of speech fosters an environment of contrasting opinions and individuality but at the same time of tolerance and acceptance. The only way people can make educated decisions is through being able to freely discuss, debate, and listen to the differing perspectives. Being able to voice criticism or concern against the government also helps to prevent government officials from keeping secret illegitimate or unethical practices. The government does not have the option of strengthening its authority through the suppressing of contrasting ideas or opinions.
Thus, the allowing of differing ideas and opinions about our government to circulate freely and uncensored is an essential aspect of our democracy.
In fact, from the literal interpretation of the text of the First Amendment it would seem evident that the speech of any individual or group of people should never be silenced. Restricting expression at any point should be precisely the “abridging” of these freedoms that is declared unconstitutional. Yet, many have made the case for the restricting of freedom of expression during war, and as Chief Justice William Rehnquist stated, at times of war the balance between freedom and order must shift “in favor of order.” However, it is difficult to understand how this essential aspect of our democracy could be restrained, even if temporarily. What could possibly constitute a legitimate reason for the abrogating of this freedom?
The restricting of all speech or press that could theoretically be defended as the most effective means of ensuring victory, and thus any information that could be counterproductive to the war effort should be censored. This, however, would leave room for exploitation, as the government could easily use the pretense of war and outlaw any form of opposition that could harbor its own interests, and not necessarily that which pertains to the overall success of the war. Even what might appear as a legitimate public concern, such as boisterous opposition having the potential to inflict damage on the war effort through its negative effects, like causing a dearth in army enrollment, or strengthening the enemy resolve, could just be a means for the government to prevent voters from being not be swayed to replace the incumbent officers with more competent ones. Furthermore, the war interests that are being so carefully protected, who says they are legitimate in the first place, or that the original reasons for being engulfed in the particular conflict still hold true?
The government could even go as far as to make a case for all basic information such as a growing death toll, lack of progress, and growing hostility among other countries to be banned on the grounds that these bits of information harbor the war effort. And even if a legitimate war existed, and the restricting of information was essential to bolster support and expedite its victory, the cons of sacrificing freedom of speech would outweigh the pros. Restricting freedom of speech would not only be manipulating public opinion but it would constitute a major threat to the existence of our democracy. It would also be very hypocritical of a government that does not hesitate to characterize its wars as a “mission to spread democracy”.
“Operation Iraqi Freedom” is what has been used by the administration to refer to the “war on Iraq.” In this war, especially, debate needs to be encouraged and people should be exposed to the clashing of opinions and uncensored news not only because it is our tax dollars being spent, and our fellow country men being sacrificed, but because of the hypocritical aspect in it. Even the images, specifically designed to incite people against the war, such as clips with grotesque images of civilian casualties in Iraq (click here to see) should not be censored. And as expanded upon above, once the government begins regulating the expression of opinion it is treading on dangerous ground, as it now has tremendous opportunities for exploitation.
Yahoo news recently wrote “How is it that more than a year has passed without seeing one casket, one dead soldier or one maimed civilian? When Democracy Now’s Amy Goodman asked CNN’s Aaron Brown why they weren’t showing footage of casualties, Brown responded that it might be in poor taste. It’s poor taste when the electorate is informed of the realities of war, but not when TV reels off the hundreds of violent acts that are considered routine on an evenings programming." This is an excellent and at the same time frightening question. Is the banning of the displaying of the flag-draped coffins really because the ad politicizes war casualties and is an insult to the families of the troops killed in Iraq. or is it because the administration recognizes its tremendous potential to exacerbate the already widespread opposition and further alienate the public against the war? If it is the latter, it is a powerful illustration of how the government can circumnavigate in order not to outright abrogate free speech, and strengthens the case for freedom of expression never to be compromised: the potential for exploitation. The only exception is when free speech directly compromising national security, which would include the relaying of war plans, instructions of how to build nuclear weapons etc. Limiting the right of the public to criticize the government or its policies will never have a constitutional basis. The Alien and Sedition Acts, although a scar on our history, will hopefully serve as a historical lesson to prevent the abrogation of our First Amendment rights from every being repeated.
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
The Subjectivity In Determining Objectivity (
Objectivity is not something that can easily be attained and, in fact, some even argue that it is not humanly possible. The way we perceive even mundane events is filtered through our religious, social, and political preferences; all information we process is stored in context with other information, thus typically involving stereotyping, the forming of preconceived notions and the discriminating of certain facts
Journalists are trained to be committed towards objectivity and professionalism, but this is a very difficult undertaking; the overall consensus among media analysts is that objective fact model is not in sync with the nature of news coverage, and that the profit seeking model seems to be the most accurate representation of reality. Providing coverage of one issue over another, the terminology and rhetoric used to describe a particular event, and the extensiveness of the coverage of a particular news event are all examples of mundane reporting, that can be inadvertentlytake a stance, without the provision of any analysis.
Which brings us to Al Jazeera; in Aljazeera.Net - About Aljazeera it declares its commitment to "cover[ing] all viewpoints with objectivity integrity and balance” and “present[ing] diverse points of view and opinions without bias or partiality.”
Indeed, Al Jazeera’s very basis is unlike any other perfessional news organization in the Arab world. Since it is not linked directly to the government, it does not face the censorship and harsh restrictions typical among the other news networksm and thus is not compelled to produce information strategically spoon fed by the government. It also embraces Democratic principles by encouraging interactive feedback and bringing in more than one viewpoint on an issue in order to foster debate. In fact, Aljazeera.net English goes as far to describe its purpose as "to cater to people with diversified interests from continents poles-apart and offer a versatile content of news and information."
Since there is a huge discrepancy between the Arab and Western system of values and ideologies, there no doubt exists a clashing of views as to what constitutes fair and objective news coverage, and to the vast majority of Americans, Al Jazeera’s coverage is far from objective. Countless arguments and evidence have been amassed where Al Jazeera provides coverage that was considered blatantly anti-American. Many refer to it as a mouthpiece for al Keida--a means of providing propaganda disguised as professional news. Government officials such as former secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, and current secretary of state Condoleezza Rice, have harshly criticized Al Jazeera saying that it has emerged as even more anti-American since 9/11.
Al Jazeera’s claim of Jews knowing in advance of September 11 and thus not attending work at the World Trade Center the day of the attacks infuriated many. There was no evidence to support this claim, and yet it was broadcasted as a serious, substantial piece of news in the Al Jazeera’s news network. More recently, they’ve been denounced for using the term "martyr" in newscasts to describe Palestinian suicide bombers who have killed Israeli civilians. But Al-Jazeera denies anything unfair or biased about this, and contends that the term is used for all Palestinians who die fighting a "cause," not just suicide bombers.
Objectivity is not something that can easily be attained and, in fact, some even argue that it is not humanly possible. The way we perceive even mundane events is filtered through our religious, social, and political preferences; all information we process is stored in context with other information, thus typically involving stereotyping, the forming of preconceived notions and the discriminating of certain facts
Journalists are trained to be committed towards objectivity and professionalism, but this is a very difficult undertaking; the overall consensus among media analysts is that objective fact model is not in sync with the nature of news coverage, and that the profit seeking model seems to be the most accurate representation of reality. Providing coverage of one issue over another, the terminology and rhetoric used to describe a particular event, and the extensiveness of the coverage of a particular news event are all examples of mundane reporting, that can be inadvertentlytake a stance, without the provision of any analysis.
Which brings us to Al Jazeera; in Aljazeera.Net - About Aljazeera it declares its commitment to "cover[ing] all viewpoints with objectivity integrity and balance” and “present[ing] diverse points of view and opinions without bias or partiality.”
Indeed, Al Jazeera’s very basis is unlike any other perfessional news organization in the Arab world. Since it is not linked directly to the government, it does not face the censorship and harsh restrictions typical among the other news networksm and thus is not compelled to produce information strategically spoon fed by the government. It also embraces Democratic principles by encouraging interactive feedback and bringing in more than one viewpoint on an issue in order to foster debate. In fact, Aljazeera.net English goes as far to describe its purpose as "to cater to people with diversified interests from continents poles-apart and offer a versatile content of news and information."
Since there is a huge discrepancy between the Arab and Western system of values and ideologies, there no doubt exists a clashing of views as to what constitutes fair and objective news coverage, and to the vast majority of Americans, Al Jazeera’s coverage is far from objective. Countless arguments and evidence have been amassed where Al Jazeera provides coverage that was considered blatantly anti-American. Many refer to it as a mouthpiece for al Keida--a means of providing propaganda disguised as professional news. Government officials such as former secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, and current secretary of state Condoleezza Rice, have harshly criticized Al Jazeera saying that it has emerged as even more anti-American since 9/11.
Al Jazeera’s claim of Jews knowing in advance of September 11 and thus not attending work at the World Trade Center the day of the attacks infuriated many. There was no evidence to support this claim, and yet it was broadcasted as a serious, substantial piece of news in the Al Jazeera’s news network. More recently, they’ve been denounced for using the term "martyr" in newscasts to describe Palestinian suicide bombers who have killed Israeli civilians. But Al-Jazeera denies anything unfair or biased about this, and contends that the term is used for all Palestinians who die fighting a "cause," not just suicide bombers.
Monday, November 13, 2006
The Nazi-Propagandist Distortion of Reality
The German propaganda historic archive shows a series of evidence of Nazi propaganda. Examining the propganda implemented in documents, news articles, cartoons, ads, billboards, and speeches can help provide a greater understanding as to why Hitler was so effective in swaying public opinion and stimulating the masses to embrace his ideologies that had started out as radical, but ultimately became widely appealing replacing the status quo. Hitler’s effective exploitation of propaganda was the primary reason for his success as a leader. From the begining his campaigning ads targeted and exploited precisely the emotive appeal. He catered to the frustrated, anger and embitterned.
The imagery and rhetoric he implemented was extremely potent. This one ad which shows numerous desperate hands receiving food, was said to be one of the most effective ads. (Unfortunately I couldn't upload it, i will try again )Many other series of advertisements were effective in terms of characterizing Hitler as a strong competent leader who would grant them respite from all their social, and economic sufferings, that permeated the post-World War I era.
Hitler’s campaigning catered particularly to the hungry and embittered proletariat. Through his craftiness and duplicity, he expertly channeled basic mundane issues, such as the widespread dire need of food, jobs, and security toward invigorating anti-Semitism. Disgust with the Third Reich government, and the need of social and economic reform, would not have so overwhelmingly resulted in the hatred of Jews, were it not for Hitler implementing a casual-effect relationship between the two otherwise unrelated entities. Hitler used the classic scapegoat appeal; he expertly channeled the widespread anger and frustration with social injustices and used it to dig up and a revitalize a hatred of Jews that dated back centuries via creating hyperbolic images and caricaturized drawings of Jews as a notorious hooked nose, money hungry, sleazy group of people out to dupe the Aryan race.
The Nazi campaigning and the messages and information put forth once they were elected illustrate the potency of propaganda. Propaganda can legitimize even the most sinister of agendas. A mere argument for bread and work transformed into a quest for preserving the Aryan race and obliterating the entire Jewish people.. The only way these aspects of Hitler’s agenda could have been implemented was through expertly intertwining this with the widespread social suffering.
One particularly interesting article Hitler wrote is where he realizes, that not everyone will greet and embrace the new status quo in the ideal way, and people will likely question and even object to the new anti-Semitic attitudes and restrictions; thus he implements an iota of “rational” persuasion. In this article (the anti-Semitic arguments ) ten responses are provided as counterarguments to the most common objections among Germans to the new anti-Semitic measures. It used the pretense of “counterargument”, but in reality was a sick and twisted form of providing information. The entire core of the argument is not based on reason, or on any objective evaluation of the claim of a “Jewish problem” Rather it builds on already established myths, provides warped anecdotal evidence to suggest reality, and contains “philosophical” argument that are inherently flawed. It almost screams propaganda, and anyone with half a brain would’ve realized the article for what it was. Yet, people bought into these arguments as well and embraced the values that were put forth.
Hitler’s success was due to an audience that was growing increasingly more susceptible to the powerful hyperbolic images, the metaphoric rhetoric, and the twisted facts called ‘information”, that constituted propaganda. In fact, it would be a flawed and naïve way of thinking that the Nazi strength of power was derived exclusively from the cleverness and expertise of their propaganda. Effective propaganda is impossible without recipients who will adopt what is being suggested. Adults cannot be coerced into adopting beliefs, nor forced to conceptually embrace values that were put forth via propaganda. Yes the information was manipulated and distorted, but even when an audience can distinguish between objective fact-based messages and information full of lies or exaggeration that is inherently appealing, they will tend to prefer the latter. People allow themselves to be seduced by propaganda because it offers them a way of coping. They persist in adherence to certain already established preferences or beliefs despite all the evidence to the contrary; they are willing copartners in this process of self deceit.
There is no better evidence of this than the Germans allowing themselves to enter and participate in the Nazi ideology fantasy world.
The German propaganda historic archive shows a series of evidence of Nazi propaganda. Examining the propganda implemented in documents, news articles, cartoons, ads, billboards, and speeches can help provide a greater understanding as to why Hitler was so effective in swaying public opinion and stimulating the masses to embrace his ideologies that had started out as radical, but ultimately became widely appealing replacing the status quo. Hitler’s effective exploitation of propaganda was the primary reason for his success as a leader. From the begining his campaigning ads targeted and exploited precisely the emotive appeal. He catered to the frustrated, anger and embitterned.
The imagery and rhetoric he implemented was extremely potent. This one ad which shows numerous desperate hands receiving food, was said to be one of the most effective ads. (Unfortunately I couldn't upload it, i will try again )Many other series of advertisements were effective in terms of characterizing Hitler as a strong competent leader who would grant them respite from all their social, and economic sufferings, that permeated the post-World War I era.
Hitler’s campaigning catered particularly to the hungry and embittered proletariat. Through his craftiness and duplicity, he expertly channeled basic mundane issues, such as the widespread dire need of food, jobs, and security toward invigorating anti-Semitism. Disgust with the Third Reich government, and the need of social and economic reform, would not have so overwhelmingly resulted in the hatred of Jews, were it not for Hitler implementing a casual-effect relationship between the two otherwise unrelated entities. Hitler used the classic scapegoat appeal; he expertly channeled the widespread anger and frustration with social injustices and used it to dig up and a revitalize a hatred of Jews that dated back centuries via creating hyperbolic images and caricaturized drawings of Jews as a notorious hooked nose, money hungry, sleazy group of people out to dupe the Aryan race.
The Nazi campaigning and the messages and information put forth once they were elected illustrate the potency of propaganda. Propaganda can legitimize even the most sinister of agendas. A mere argument for bread and work transformed into a quest for preserving the Aryan race and obliterating the entire Jewish people.. The only way these aspects of Hitler’s agenda could have been implemented was through expertly intertwining this with the widespread social suffering.
One particularly interesting article Hitler wrote is where he realizes, that not everyone will greet and embrace the new status quo in the ideal way, and people will likely question and even object to the new anti-Semitic attitudes and restrictions; thus he implements an iota of “rational” persuasion. In this article (the anti-Semitic arguments ) ten responses are provided as counterarguments to the most common objections among Germans to the new anti-Semitic measures. It used the pretense of “counterargument”, but in reality was a sick and twisted form of providing information. The entire core of the argument is not based on reason, or on any objective evaluation of the claim of a “Jewish problem” Rather it builds on already established myths, provides warped anecdotal evidence to suggest reality, and contains “philosophical” argument that are inherently flawed. It almost screams propaganda, and anyone with half a brain would’ve realized the article for what it was. Yet, people bought into these arguments as well and embraced the values that were put forth.
Hitler’s success was due to an audience that was growing increasingly more susceptible to the powerful hyperbolic images, the metaphoric rhetoric, and the twisted facts called ‘information”, that constituted propaganda. In fact, it would be a flawed and naïve way of thinking that the Nazi strength of power was derived exclusively from the cleverness and expertise of their propaganda. Effective propaganda is impossible without recipients who will adopt what is being suggested. Adults cannot be coerced into adopting beliefs, nor forced to conceptually embrace values that were put forth via propaganda. Yes the information was manipulated and distorted, but even when an audience can distinguish between objective fact-based messages and information full of lies or exaggeration that is inherently appealing, they will tend to prefer the latter. People allow themselves to be seduced by propaganda because it offers them a way of coping. They persist in adherence to certain already established preferences or beliefs despite all the evidence to the contrary; they are willing copartners in this process of self deceit.
There is no better evidence of this than the Germans allowing themselves to enter and participate in the Nazi ideology fantasy world.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Propaganda in the Child’s WorldA few weeks ago the Vatican released “John Paul II: Friend of All Humanity. Read about the movie
This film will clearly have an appeal to children; although it serves as an educational film, created with the purpose of informing its viewers about the life of the late pontiff, it’s only thirty minutes long, and has friendly cartoons such as a talking pen, a diary named Matteo and two snow-white birds telling the story.
In fact, the backbone of the film has many elements of propaganda. Beginning with its title, the film plays on the emotions; “A friend to all”-who could find flaw or resist a title so endearing? These words are emotional persuasion; they invite the individual to adopt a certain stance or attitude about the pope. The kind looking eyes, warm smile and silver haired features of the cartoon pope also are effective in terms of gaining emotive appeal and stirring affection among it viewers.
This imagery is especially potent, not only because it casts the pope in a favorable light, but because it as a vivid and appropriate symbolic image for all of Christianity. Thus, perhaps his positive characterization in the film is intended not only to elicit respect and affection for the pope among its audience, but to extend this view to encompass the religion and value system overall.
Symbols provide a tangible vivid representation of an idea or cause and they tend to be most attractive to those who are less capable for abstract thought; thus children. Younger audiences also tend to be far more susceptible to the emotive appeals of propaganda, and thus, his story is far more effective as a vivid, animated, children's film than it would have been a straight forward, fact based, documentary.
This film may also be preaching religious tolerance. “Friend to all” may be an ideal religious and politcal attitude that it may be suggesting to its viewers. Whether this would constitute it is legitimate propaganda(if such a thing even exists) is open to debate, but it may very well do some good in a world of chaotic religious struggles and clashing value sytems and ideologies.
Monday, November 06, 2006
Defining Propaganda…
Defining propaganda is precisely what O’Shaunessy refers to in Politics and Propaganda as a “maddeningly elusive task.”
Propaganda could be defined based on what seems to be illustrated by history; since is no scientific, systematic method of determining an accurate definition, and any approach would be arbitrary, perhaps the easiest way to define the term would be on basis of how it has been used in the past. But then, O’Shaunessy indicates how “propaganda” would then conjure images exclusively of authoritarian or totalitarian governments, attempting to manipulate pubic knowledge or opinion, and this would not do the term justice, for the “propaganda” has evolved to encompass so much more. It is not a term that can be defined in any one way, and thus O’Shaunessy paints a multilayered definition of the term, using competing definitions, and illustrating how it can manifest itself in various forms.
The term overall seems to defined as a an advocating of any agenda, even one that is legitimate, through the use of emotional appeal, rather than a rational or informative one, in order to convince a multitude of people to embrace a specific ideal, or cause that they would not necessarily otherwise support. It is distinguished from persuasion or communication, not only because of the emotive appeal, but because it also implies an element of deception; propaganda can be replete with hyperbolic language or images, can withhold relevant information, and obscure the overall objective truth. Propaganda also relies on the subjective interpretation of the viewer, and thus whether something is determined to be propaganda or not can vary with its audience.
We’ve heard it all…but Bush threatened by impeachment???
The fact that American midterm elections are receiving foreign coverage in the first place should already be an eye catcher. The typical routine event of the electing and reelecting Congressmen, occurring every four years is not something that should be of great interest to countries tens of thousands of miles away; yet election coverage has managed to make its way to the news headlines of countries like Germany, Great Britain, and… Al Jazeera. Unsurprisingly, the nature of the news coverage has been far from positive.
Since 2003, Bush has been emerging among European countries and the Middle East, as notoriously wicked and corrupt, even characterized as a threat to world peace. evil President and crooked. His growing unpopularity around the globe could be attributed to his war in Iraq, and foreign affairs policy overall. Thus many have come to view the approaching elections, and the Republicans likely defeat, as indicative of Bush’s failure as President and his losing of faith in the American people. The election is seen as significant because the Democrats would be less likely to grant the President the freedoms the Republicans have and would alter his foreign affairs policy, and even end the war on Iraq.
Sandy Shanks in her reporting for Al Jazeera suggested that Bush’s chances of impeachment will be a strong possibility if the Democrats gain control of the House and Senate
“If the Democratic party seizes congress or senate, or both, the sycophantic congress will disappear. This might even open the door for impeachment - which would never happen under this Republican legislature”
Thus, Shanks concludes, Bush’s great desperation and dire need to maintain control of the house and Senate stems from fear of losing his job
.
“There is much discussion in the US about whether the Bush White House has broken our laws and is trying to make our revered constitution an anachronism.
Impeachment is a very real threat if the Democrats gain control of congress, and there is little doubt that Bush is a bit worried about that. All of which brings us to Iran, and the head-shaking is noted”.
These last few sentences can barely even be characterized as manipulation of the truth; they are an outright lie. The unabashed claim of Bush on the verge of impeachment screams propaganda. Even though there has been no evidence to support this, and it barely fits under the category of speculation, Shaunessy explains that propaganda has an element of self deception, telling people what they want to hear, truth can be painful and annoying, and thus self deception proves as a useful and necessary strategy. Is this the radical Islamic way of coping with Bush’s Presidency? His being on the road to impeachment is perhaps a more effective way of coping with reality, then him lasting for another four years. The writer, in essence is just telling people what they want to hear; whether it is true is irrelevant.
What more effective method of legitimizing the President as a criminal and illustrating just how hateful and how wrong what he is, than creating falsified claims of him risking being tried for “high crimes and misdemeanors” by his own country men. There is also a fantasy role in propaganda where people necessarily believe them because they are willing partners in the self-deceit process, fully conscious and aware. Propaganda is hyperbole, and many researchers even believe that when given the opportunity people do not want to know the truth; when they can distinguish between new sand propaganda they seem to prefer the latter. This article to the average follower of Al Jazeera as his/ her primary news source is just a confirmation of what they are feeling already, and further encourages validity to the claim of George W. Bush characterized a as a defiant criminal.
The fact that American midterm elections are receiving foreign coverage in the first place should already be an eye catcher. The typical routine event of the electing and reelecting Congressmen, occurring every four years is not something that should be of great interest to countries tens of thousands of miles away; yet election coverage has managed to make its way to the news headlines of countries like Germany, Great Britain, and… Al Jazeera. Unsurprisingly, the nature of the news coverage has been far from positive.
Since 2003, Bush has been emerging among European countries and the Middle East, as notoriously wicked and corrupt, even characterized as a threat to world peace. evil President and crooked. His growing unpopularity around the globe could be attributed to his war in Iraq, and foreign affairs policy overall. Thus many have come to view the approaching elections, and the Republicans likely defeat, as indicative of Bush’s failure as President and his losing of faith in the American people. The election is seen as significant because the Democrats would be less likely to grant the President the freedoms the Republicans have and would alter his foreign affairs policy, and even end the war on Iraq.
Sandy Shanks in her reporting for Al Jazeera suggested that Bush’s chances of impeachment will be a strong possibility if the Democrats gain control of the House and Senate
“If the Democratic party seizes congress or senate, or both, the sycophantic congress will disappear. This might even open the door for impeachment - which would never happen under this Republican legislature”
Thus, Shanks concludes, Bush’s great desperation and dire need to maintain control of the house and Senate stems from fear of losing his job
.
“There is much discussion in the US about whether the Bush White House has broken our laws and is trying to make our revered constitution an anachronism.
Impeachment is a very real threat if the Democrats gain control of congress, and there is little doubt that Bush is a bit worried about that. All of which brings us to Iran, and the head-shaking is noted”.
These last few sentences can barely even be characterized as manipulation of the truth; they are an outright lie. The unabashed claim of Bush on the verge of impeachment screams propaganda. Even though there has been no evidence to support this, and it barely fits under the category of speculation, Shaunessy explains that propaganda has an element of self deception, telling people what they want to hear, truth can be painful and annoying, and thus self deception proves as a useful and necessary strategy. Is this the radical Islamic way of coping with Bush’s Presidency? His being on the road to impeachment is perhaps a more effective way of coping with reality, then him lasting for another four years. The writer, in essence is just telling people what they want to hear; whether it is true is irrelevant.
What more effective method of legitimizing the President as a criminal and illustrating just how hateful and how wrong what he is, than creating falsified claims of him risking being tried for “high crimes and misdemeanors” by his own country men. There is also a fantasy role in propaganda where people necessarily believe them because they are willing partners in the self-deceit process, fully conscious and aware. Propaganda is hyperbole, and many researchers even believe that when given the opportunity people do not want to know the truth; when they can distinguish between new sand propaganda they seem to prefer the latter. This article to the average follower of Al Jazeera as his/ her primary news source is just a confirmation of what they are feeling already, and further encourages validity to the claim of George W. Bush characterized a as a defiant criminal.
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
Plummeting Ratings, & He Doesn’t Seem to Care
A CNN poll conducted in the end of August on 1,033 Americans by Opinion Research of CNN (with sampling errors of plus-or-minus 3 points) indicated that the majority of Americans disapprove of Bush: 57 percent to 42 percent. The poll also indicated that the opposition among Americans to the war in Iraq had reached a new high, with only about a third of respondents saying they favor it, (35 percent of 1,033 adults polled say they favor the war in Iraq; 61 percent say they oppose it) -- the highest opposition noted in any CNN poll since the conflict began more than three years ago. Despite the growing opposition to the war, President Bush said the U.S. will not withdraw from Iraq while he is president. "Leaving before the job is done would be a disaster," the president said. (Full story) Bush dismissed a question about his popularity during a news conference a few days later "I don't think you've ever heard me say: 'Gosh, I better change positions because the polls say this or that,'" he told reporters. "I've been here long enough to understand, you cannot make good decisions if you're trying to chase a poll." See the Fox News Video where Bush adamantly defends his stance in the war in Iraq and his overall dismisses the validity of the poll results in an interview with Sean Hannity.
Recently his ratings have plummeted below the 40th percentile (See the list of poll reports) CNN reported a 37 to 58 percent approval rating, and The New York Times rather than evaluating the polls and discussing what his growing unpopularity can be attributed to, focuses how his visit to Texas, where he is typically “greeted at a campaign rally like a man whose public approval ratings are 73 percent, not 37 percent” is a strategic tactics he has implemented to bolster support for his party. The Times shows his visit is a desperate attempt to cast his administration in a positive light, hoping that the deafening applause surrounding him and overwhelmingly positive response he is receiving will indicate that contrary to poll results and what is being portrayed by the media, he is a popular, successful President ultimately aiding Republicans in their attempt to retain congressional majority.
Bloggers and the mainstream media seem to agree that the cause of the President’s low ratings is due to the war in Iraq; in fact the two have almost become synonymous. The Iraq war and the NY’s Time’s recent publication of the Intelligence’s evaluation and conclusion which stated that not only hasn’t the war in Iraq aided our fight in the war on terror but has exacerbated it has angered many. The war originally had received widespread support, a common occurrence in wartime when people tend to rally behind a president, but many now feel the war was a mistake to begin with, and some even feel “deceived.” Evidence of weapons of mass destruction was one of the major factors Bush cited as reason for declaring war on Iraq, but now we know this was based on poor inconclusive intelligence. In addition, many feel he consistently framed Iraq in context with 9/11, indirectly implying a link between the two when there was no evidence of a connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Keida, who orchestrated 9/11. Overall, people are dissatisfied with the rising death tolls of American soldiers, and the scores of civilians killed in terror attacks, while there being no exit strategy in sight. For many it rings familiar bells of Vietnam. Even Republicans in Congress are beginning to doubt him, and many openly voice their opinions against the war.
The Iraq war has had such a devastating effect upon the way the majority views his presidency that despite the economy’s record highs on Wall Street and the falling gasoline prices, support for the President continues to hover below the forty percentile.
A CNN poll conducted in the end of August on 1,033 Americans by Opinion Research of CNN (with sampling errors of plus-or-minus 3 points) indicated that the majority of Americans disapprove of Bush: 57 percent to 42 percent. The poll also indicated that the opposition among Americans to the war in Iraq had reached a new high, with only about a third of respondents saying they favor it, (35 percent of 1,033 adults polled say they favor the war in Iraq; 61 percent say they oppose it) -- the highest opposition noted in any CNN poll since the conflict began more than three years ago. Despite the growing opposition to the war, President Bush said the U.S. will not withdraw from Iraq while he is president. "Leaving before the job is done would be a disaster," the president said. (Full story) Bush dismissed a question about his popularity during a news conference a few days later "I don't think you've ever heard me say: 'Gosh, I better change positions because the polls say this or that,'" he told reporters. "I've been here long enough to understand, you cannot make good decisions if you're trying to chase a poll." See the Fox News Video where Bush adamantly defends his stance in the war in Iraq and his overall dismisses the validity of the poll results in an interview with Sean Hannity.
Recently his ratings have plummeted below the 40th percentile (See the list of poll reports) CNN reported a 37 to 58 percent approval rating, and The New York Times rather than evaluating the polls and discussing what his growing unpopularity can be attributed to, focuses how his visit to Texas, where he is typically “greeted at a campaign rally like a man whose public approval ratings are 73 percent, not 37 percent” is a strategic tactics he has implemented to bolster support for his party. The Times shows his visit is a desperate attempt to cast his administration in a positive light, hoping that the deafening applause surrounding him and overwhelmingly positive response he is receiving will indicate that contrary to poll results and what is being portrayed by the media, he is a popular, successful President ultimately aiding Republicans in their attempt to retain congressional majority.
Bloggers and the mainstream media seem to agree that the cause of the President’s low ratings is due to the war in Iraq; in fact the two have almost become synonymous. The Iraq war and the NY’s Time’s recent publication of the Intelligence’s evaluation and conclusion which stated that not only hasn’t the war in Iraq aided our fight in the war on terror but has exacerbated it has angered many. The war originally had received widespread support, a common occurrence in wartime when people tend to rally behind a president, but many now feel the war was a mistake to begin with, and some even feel “deceived.” Evidence of weapons of mass destruction was one of the major factors Bush cited as reason for declaring war on Iraq, but now we know this was based on poor inconclusive intelligence. In addition, many feel he consistently framed Iraq in context with 9/11, indirectly implying a link between the two when there was no evidence of a connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Keida, who orchestrated 9/11. Overall, people are dissatisfied with the rising death tolls of American soldiers, and the scores of civilians killed in terror attacks, while there being no exit strategy in sight. For many it rings familiar bells of Vietnam. Even Republicans in Congress are beginning to doubt him, and many openly voice their opinions against the war.
The Iraq war has had such a devastating effect upon the way the majority views his presidency that despite the economy’s record highs on Wall Street and the falling gasoline prices, support for the President continues to hover below the forty percentile.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)