I was disappointed with the editor of NEWSWEEK Jon Meacham in his letter to the readers this week. In his letter he gives reasons for why he feels the country is center-right and why we would need a conservative democrat if Obama is elected. He has the nerve to use FDR as an example of a conservative democrat. Really? FDR passed some of the most progressive legislation during his first 100 days in office in an effort to help bring the U.S. out of the depression. I respected his plea for bi-partisanship and cooperation between parties. But the irony is that his letter is oozing with Corporate bias.

I thought the Women’s Media Center video was very interesting but also shed light on the nature of gender and politics. I think the attack they press made on Hillary about the cleavage was ridiculous and undeserving. I think that most upsetting aspect of sexism in this campaign is there attack on Hillary’s look. The comments about her looking tired, an unattractive and reminding men of their Nagging wives are certainly out of line because the press won’t say anything about John McCain who is in his 70’s and clearly has seen better days in the look department. I still have trouble believing that with everything that has happened; after years of women fighting for the simple right to vote, fighting for entry into colleges and the workplace that we live in a society still skeptical of a woman president. I really hope it is my generation that finally wakes up and looks around and sees that society is composed of men and women, black and whites and every color in between and realizes that the government such look the same.

The fair article made some really good points about the double standard women face. While men can get old and become more distinguished, nobody wants to see a woman age. While if a man tears up at something it shows he is mature enough to be in touch with his emotions, a woman is just plain emotional. It kills me that the media are making these claims, and what is even worse is the fact that many of these comments are being made by women. Seriously?

 

On the question of ageism I think a voter should pay more attention to the age of a candidate since age could potentially deteriorate their physical and or mental health, which could potentially affect the ability of a candidate to lead unlike gender or race which have no physical or mental health effects. However, I think that every person ages differently and therefore the age of the candidate should not be the determining factor on whether or not the candidate has the ability to lead. I’m sure the Obama camp has alluded to McCain being a nutty old man. Hey they are not going to turn away the young age bias vote anymore than McCain is going to turn away the racist vote. Politics is dirty. 

I think the package by AL-Jezeera was very well written. It looked at a predominantly white working class community in the deep south and asked whether or not race truly would be a determining factor in how they voted during this election. I think a package like that will not be shown by a major American network for a number of reasons. Firstly, I think it shows just how uneducated many Americans still are, which does not put our nation as a whole in the best light. Secondly, if a major news network addresses the fact that race is a factor in determining how people vote that means the presidential candidates themselves would have to address it. As we have discussed before in class I think it is a subject neither wants to address. On one hand if McCain addresses racism he might alienate voters who would vote for him because they clearly are racist against blacks. On the other hand, if Obama addresses racism he has to admit that racism is still a divisive issue even in 2008, which contradicts his post-racism platform.

 

I found Merida’s article quite surprising. I can’t believe that Obama campaigner’s were called racist slurs and that one of the headquarters actually received bomb threats and I had never heard about those incidents until now. It truly does amaze me that racism like that still exists in 2008 and it does not help that many media outlets have turned their shoulder and pretend that it doesn’t exist.

 

The best line in Foser’s article was definitely a quote by Michael Savage he wrote, “Savage also asks, "Why are there no queries being provoked about Saddam Hussein -- I mean, Barack Hussein Obama?"’ Really? Did he really say that? That is like saying Chris Matthews and Chris Rock are the same because they both have the name Chris. That is the most ridiculous statement I believe I’ve read all month. And what is with these reporters using the just kidding or the I was only joking defensive. Completely unacceptable for a professional reporter. Oh and one more thing, if they were trying to make a joke, why not start by saying something actually humorous, hey maybe they could take a lesson from Chris Matthews errr I mean Chris Rock my bad!

 

I feel like this whole who is more full blooded American is just another way of being racist. The opening quote by Peggy Noonan about getting misty eyed over George Washington and Henry Ford? I think that being American means something slightly different for each American after all wasn’t America founded by those who wanted to be in control of themselves of their government. I think every American can appreciate America’s rich history and for each there are different aspects of that history that could bring him or herself to tears. Just because Obama’s America is not through the same lense as Peggy Noonan’s America it does not make it any less American. Also isn’t full-blooded Americanism having a mixed background. Isn’t America the melting pot?

 

Elliot’s article brought up some interesting points about the candidate’s view toward Muslims. I deep down think that Obama isn’t against the Muslims in this country in anyway but I do understand his need to distance himself from them as a political move. The last time a presidential candidate ran for office, who wasn’t a protestant Christian was JFK. He was a Catholic Christian and he still received a lot of bad publicity from people claiming he was going to take all his orders from the Pope. If Obama was a Muslim it wouldn’t be smart politically for him to admit it. He already has to deal with all the racist things said about him because he is black. I can understand him not wanting to take on religious discrimination in addition to that. I wish I could say that things like race, religion and gender don’t matter in 2008, but it wouldn’t be true. I’m 20 years old and I have already experienced discrimination first hand in the work place. My hope is that my generation is different, that my generation filled with classmates of every religion, race and gender are more tolerate then their parents and grandparents. 

I enjoyed reading the article on Matt Drudge. In the article one GOP operative said in reference to Drudge, “If those tools are not part of the Republican vehicle for message delivery, that’s crippling.” Last time I checked Matt Drudge was a person, a person entitled to change his views and opinions as people often do. The fact that the anonymous GOP operative refers to Drudge as a tool of the republican vehicle is upsetting. Can a person who associates more with one party than the other never be critical of the party he/she associates with? The majority of the article tries to analyze why Drudge appeared “easy” on the democratic candidate Obama after being critical of the 2004 democratic candidate John Kerry. One said that he supports Obama because he has a strong libertarian streak why others said Obama brings people to the site. Either way I think that both statements are missing the point. I think it isn’t about how Drudge makes Obama appear on his site, it is the fact that he has so much power driving the national narrative of presidential politics. For a reporter who admits that only 80 percent of his stories are actually true it is incredible that he has the ability to influence what main stream media choose to cover. To top it all off he declines to comment about his site just furthering adding to the intrigue people have about him and his site.

Sarah Palin makes the cover of NEWSWEEK this week in the article entitled the Palin Problem. Although I was pleased that Newsweek mentioned other interviews conducted wit Palin such as Katie Couric’s interview. They more or less just repeated what was said rather than showing any true analysis. The article reinstated the fear that Palin is too inexperienced for the job. So much for being a watchdog.  

I liked the article by Howard Kurtz. Isn’t that what the media is suppose to do? Play the referee function sometimes. I just think that it is interesting that two bloggers were the ones to call CBS out on the accuracy of the story. I think the most interesting part of the article was a quote from Scott Johnson, “One of the things about a blog is we sometimes act as a clearinghouse for information from readers with an interest in an esoteric area.” I think that this is where the biggest potential for blogging lies. With the internet there is a much broader, much more diverse user base and the likelihood of finding those interested in and knowledgeable about obscure topics in the blogosphere is much higher than in the newsroom. I think it is a good thing for journalists to have not only an editor but the entire blogosphere pressuring them to be factual and accountable.

 

I really liked the open secrets.org. It is definitely a site I will be frequenting in the future. I love all the charts and mathematical break downs of contributions and groups. I also thought the revolving door section was interesting because I never really thought about how congressional members slip in and out of the public and private sectors of Washington and where their political influence really comes from.

 

I liked the clickocracy debate. I think that the ability to donate to candidates with just three simple clicks of the mouse and the ability for anybody to blog about his or her own political preferences gives more pull to typical grassroots organizations. I think the internet alone can very easily diminish or enhance a potential candidate’s chance of winning and I think this frightens many campaign managers but for better or worse this new political medium is not going anywhere.

 

I really appreciated the John Stewart “Baracknophobia” clip. Absolutely hilarious! Sometimes I think Journalism needs more people with John Stewart’s sense of humor to actually do the job of pointing out all the garbage that main stream media likes to pretend is actual news. I also watched the Fox News Madrassa segment. First of all the average America did not know what a Madrassa was let alone what the curriculum at one would be. If you don’t believe me just take a look at the American public school system of the inner cities and poor rural areas. Second, So what if Obama was raised a Muslim. Just because someone is raised a certain religion does not necessarily mean that accept every single extremist doctrine of that religion’s affiliation. We have Christian extremists right here in the U.S.A. that I don’t often agree with. Third, where did this whole he loves terrorists come from? Fox news seriously can’t make the assumption that all Muslims are terrorists and believe that they are really being fair and balanced can they?

I thought the Dean-a-Palooza article was particularly entertaining to read since it was written as a narrative of what the author witnessed on the campaign trail. My favorite quote was when he wrote that after the last 8 years of the unpopular Bush presidency the American people were willing to throw themselves behind anything that resembled a human i.e. Howard Dean. He describes Dean as sort of a rock star in appearance and in the way he drew crowds. I always thought that when it came to political reporting it was the fault of the reporter for not asking questions of substance, I didn’t realize that sometimes the reporter had to shout over or win the attention over half a dozen other reporters just to ask one question. I think the best example of that in the reading is when Taibbi tries to ask Dean a question about small businesses and is upstaged by a reporter inquiring whether or not Dean paints his own homes. I think Taibbi also made an interesting point writing how even when Dean gave the reporters an opportunity to ask meaningful questions like his stance on Non-violent drug offenders, the press core failed to respond. I believe American politicians are far from perfect but it is even more depressing that the press time and time again fails to ask the tough issue-based questions. We have already seen that politicians typically will not bring up controversial topics on their own for fear of offending people. So my question is if they won’t and the press won’t, then who will??