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??

I thought the Cliff Kincaid article was rather interesting. I think it is interesting that Fox news withheld comments Jesse Jackson made that would put Obama in a good light when they have not been hesitatent about reporting rumors that clearly damage Obama’s image. On the flip side I think it is interesting that Kincaid makes a comment about the inability of Fox news or Matt Drudge to say anything about Obama’s connection to Frank Marshall Davis. Kincaid clearly believes having a communist “mentor” early on in his life would potential effect his current ideology. I think it is a stretch of him to think that just because the media has not brought up Davis they are all pro-Obama trying to conceal some dark past. What I don’t understand is the significance of this Davis connection. Even if Davis was an avid communist supporter that doesn’t mean that Obama’s affiliation with him makes him a communist. I bet if any of us looked into our past we would find associations maybe even friendships with people who had extremely different political and religious beliefs than us. So what is the big deal?

 

It is interesting that 15,000 angry letters appeared the day after main stream media took shots to question Obama’s patriotism. It really does show that there is a new era of online political activism. The most fascinating part of the article however, is the fact that Blue State Digital has created an online letter format so an upset reader just has to enter their zip code and name to send a pre written letter of complaint about what the newspaper had published. They don’t have to even write out what they are complaining about. I think this is interesting because it gives a majority of people who may have been angry about something that was written in the past but who were too lazy to actually write a letter of complaint a way to send a complaint in three simple clicks. So in that sense it makes it even easier for lazy people to complain. On the other hand it is an easy way to mobilize a large portion of the blogosphere to create a positive change. I did find it interesting that half the letters sent did not use this pre-text they wrote the body of the letter themselves. It is difficult to say whether or not this new online letter format inspired those people to take action though.

The “Who is Barack Obama” E-mail was very angering. I know that the e-mail is blatantly ridiculous but it scares me that people maybe not educated about the candidates enough to know that will look at it as factual. What drives me the most crazy is the statement about him being a Muslim. Why in a country founded by those seeking religious freedom, that has no national religion, and laws protecting the establishment of religion would the religion of a presidential candidate possible matter? I think that in 2008 it is pathetic for this democratic nation to have prejudice against an entire religion just because they don’t understand it.

I think there was an interesting choice of video clips of the VP debate posted on TPM. I particularly liked the one of Palin’s response what we should do about countries with nuclear weapons and she just goes off saying can we talk about Afghanistan a minute into her response. Obviously TPM is a left leaning site and is therefore going to post clips that make Palin look like she doesn’t know what she was talking about, but from someone who watched the whole debate those clips weren’t hard to find. 

Ironically I thought the Vice Presidential debate was much more entertaining to watch than the presidential debate (quite possibly due to all the hype surrounding it beforehand).  I think Biden was a more powerful speaker and I think he really stuck it to Palin when he talked about McCain’s healthcare plan being the “ultimate bridge to Nowhere.”

The Shelter article along with the recent class discussions has made me start to rethink the power of independent media. With so many journalists flooding the airwaves of main stream media with their horseracing coverage, leaving the actual reporting to the independent bloggers it often left me asking so what? The real information is out there but it is hidden behind the New York Times and CNN and Washington Posts of the country. Where  do I find it? Is it even being read by anyone anyway?

 

Shelter’s article discussed the power of networking and information sharing sites like youtube and facebook. It is encouraging to know that 2/3 of people under the age of 30 are getting information in this way. I read in one of my other classes that of all the people using the internet in the U.S. nearly ¼ are 17 or younger. I am happy to know that the information posted on these blogs is actually finding a way to an audience; a younger one but a growing one nonetheless. When I stopped and think about it only two weeks ago I was sitting in a Park Lab surfing youtube with my cousin who was up visiting me for the weekend. I showed her some of the clips we had seen in class regarding Palin and in turn she showed me a half dozen clips that I had never seen. I forget sometimes that we have that ability to seek out information and share it that easily via the Internet.

 

I remember hearing about the huffintonpost  story. I happen to agree that in today’s day in age everything a politician says is on the record. Yes, her article did not portray Obama in a favorable light, but just because she is a supporter does not mean everything she writes about him has to be favorable. Isn’t that the point of objective reporting? Being able to separate your bias from reporting on the situation for what it is. I don’t think every journalist going into campaign territory has to identify themselves as journalists, but in this case they all knew she was a journalist for the huffingtonpost. Bottom line if Obama didn’t want the comment he made to be heard, then he shouldn’t have said it.

 

I expected the audio of Bill Clinton calling the reporter of vanity Fair a scumbag to be much worse. I didn’t read the vanity fair article so I’m not sure whether or not the reporter was honest or completely did fabricate the story. Now I’m saying that even if he did do dishonest reporting that warrants the former president calling him those names. It is just the way Fowler’s article made it sound like he was just sitting there calling this guy all these names, when in fact you listen to the audio you hear a man obviously upset and disappointed he was portrayed like that and it is hurting his wife’s campaign so he got carried away and made some comments he should not have made.

 

I think the way that Fowler worded her question made it a loaded question because she wanted to get a certain type of response. It wasn’t exactly professional but I’m not sure if I would consider it unethical. I have seen journalist ask questions that almost reinstate an attack someone else made about the person in order to get a really emotional response. I remember watching Diane Sawyer ask Martha Stewart “Why do people hate you?” during a sit down interview after Stewart was accused of insider trading. Honestly what kind of question is that? I think Stewart answered with an I don’t know, which is really the only way to answer a loaded question like that without seeming completely vain or admitting to flaws.

I made an executive decision not to watch any of the after debate coverage because I knew it would bother me more than the actual debate.  From the readings we did for class it was easy to predict that it would be a lot of coverage about the body language or the way a candidate was standing rather than anything factual about what was actually said. I checked TPM today, which only confirmed this statement. There is a video posted on TPM about a commentator on MSNBC going on for two minutes about how John McCain did not make eye contact with Obama. Was he angry? Was he trying to belittle his opponent? What I want to know is what questions like that have to do with the actual debate. I think this is a classic case of large media refusing to actually make a point of addressing the issues for whatever reason and instead choosing to conveniently play the “who looks like they won” card. What I found most upsetting was that an independent site like TPM played into it by posting readers own comments about McCain’s lack of eye contact. One reader actually said that McCain could not look at Obama because he was afraid of him. Really??

Frankly I was disappointed with the Friday night debate. I think the both candidates said a lot of the same things. Both agreed that the economy was in crisis, both blamed the other for the situation and both promised to cut spending to solve the problem. This is not at all surprising in fact I believe this is quite typical of politicians. What was upsetting was watching Jim Lehrer ask his questions. None of the questions asked actually called out either politician on their previous records. It should not be left to the politicians to call out the voting records of their opponents. I think if Lehrer asked questions pertaining to each candidates individual record the debate would have been much more informative and entertaining for the public to watch.