Say What??

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/obama-israeli-palestinian-peace-talks-more-vital-than-ever-1.362344

I just couldn't believe this when I saw the King of Jordan describing the Israeli Palestinian conflict as "the core issue of the Middle East". I can't really believe that this is THE only thing thats going on. I don't know, revolutions left and right? Then again, there is so much reporting about Israel its not hard to see why he might think that!

The Dead

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/18/world/africa/18cemetery.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp

This caught my eye since Bin Ladin burial has been discussed quite a bit in the news and its something positive to see amidst the fighting. I wonder what the media wants to say about LIbya with this...

Bloggers Shut Down in Egypt

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82t3Yw4PdPw&feature=player_embedded#at=377

Blogger's getting arrested for their articles? Not cool, I think we were hoping for more from the new regime in Egypt. This is incredibly disappointing, Does Egypt still have a chance to create a real democracy for themselves?

I got kicked off facebook

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/28/business/media/28social.html?hp

As with any advent in technology, the ethics that are inherent in the innovation, lag behind and slowly come to light, the more exposure we have to the new technology. It seems the question that Social Media sites are now facing, are what to do with controversial content. As we well know, social media sites have taken on an astounding role in the events in the Middle East, the problem is that some content has viewers worried. There has been significant protest over the Facebook group "The Third Jihad", letters have been written, counter groups have been formed. But does this group violate the terms and agreements of a Facebook account? Is "inciting violence" one of the things you can get shut down for?

In the early years of Facebook, I had no network to join since my high school did not want to acknowledge the existence of such a thing as Facebook, I joined anyway, stating that I was 23 years old and went to Saint Alamo High School. Obviously the age thing was stupid, but I got kicked off after a year or two and they realized I actually went to the local Bais Yaakov. Its ok though, happy ending was that by then you could join a city network. My story isn't that monumental, but for others, like Michael Anti who a journalist who was kicked out of facebook, it matters. Anti lost many of his contact information, and his ability to communicate in a country marred by censorship - China. Anti had an account under a fake name, another violation of Facebooks rules and therefore lost his account.

So the question is - how do social media sites answer these new sensitive questions? It is very difficult to stick to standard policy when you are faced with dangerous groups like the "Third Intifada" and people like Michael Anti who are are trying to affect change. What to do...

When do Journalists Take it Too Far

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/23/world/africa/23times.html?hp

This Times article titles "4 Times Journalists Held Captive in Libya Faced Days of Brutality" was a joint account of the 4 who were arrested by government forces and spent days being shuttle around, threatened, bound, dodging gunfire and imagining their deaths. What struck me as interesting was that similar situations had occurred to three out of the four journalists - one had been arrested in Afghanistan, another shot in the back by a man he thought was an Israeli soldier. They seemed somewhat accustomed to the tribulations that a journalist covering a war zone might face.

They were seized at a checkpoint, and their driver went missing, and they comment "If he died, we will have to bear the burden for the rest of our lives that an innocent man died because of us, because of wrong choices that we made, for an article that was never worth dying for. No article is, but we were too blind to admit that."

To me, this was a truly profound admonition, mostly because it indicated that journalists sometimes think that a story is worth more than a life. In their valiant efforts to bring us the news and unleash the truth on the public, they might be compromising some other values. Are they really doing us and others a favor when they traipse around war zones? Or are they just looking for the most dramatic shot and story that will sell? It certainly sounds glamorous, but I'm not impressed by the possibility of journalists concluding that the story trumps all.

CNN's Cat Wearing a Mask

On a recent episode of the Daily Show, Jon Stewart takes a stab at CNN being the "most trusted name in news". With programs like "Reporter Roulette" and "Random Moment of the Day" Stewart says that CNN has become nothing more than "news v-jays" - playing the most popular youtube videos and letting listeners decide what news stories they want to hear in detail.

These stories are nothing more than cheap filler shots that keep viewers paying attention without costing the network anything. It is a sorry state of affairs when news becomes less news and more fun. Are viewers so distracted and finicky that they can't sit through some real information???

See the whole clip here:

http://www.newser.com/story/113078/jon-stewart-to-cnn-youre-not-even-news-anchors-anymore-youre-just-news-veejays-daily-show-video.html

Its really worth it!

How Long Can Palin Keep it Up

I am just wondering how long Palin can keep up her "un-pressiness". In an article in the Wall Street Journal, Palin was once again noted for her distinct lack of presence with the media. In a recent appearance the press was permitted to observe, but was not granted any questions. The WSJ commented on Palin's preference of Facebook and appearances on FoxNews over traditional interviews with journalists. I do not understand this perpetuation of media paranoia. I am really turned off by a candidate who is not able to have a positive appearance in the media.

2012 Elections

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703961104576148281855759622.html?KEYWORDS=presidential+candidates

For my paper, I am reading a book about TV campaign advertising. Though I have not finished the book, the preliminary findings suggest that TV advertising is highlighted by candidates more than necessary. Thorough experiments by the authors imply that viewers are not all that affected by TV advertisements, though they do serve to solidify the partisan groups of Democrat and Republican. The book discusses the differences between advertising that slurs the other candidate and advertising that promotes the candidate.

This article about Obama caught my eye since it indicated the interest that parties have in TV advertising and the money that is spent running these televised campaigns. I am shocked by the money that is spent, knowing that the effect is not all that significant. I believe that dollars could be far better spent.

I suppose that the argument for the appropriation of these dollars would be ensuring a candidate is elected that will be able to implement significant changes for America and the international community. Still, I am unconvinced. It seems to me that the intensity of TV advertising is a spoiled luxury for Americans.

Using to Your Advantage

In a recent article in the NY Times, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi was reported to have invited international journalists into the country to confirm for the world that the Col still retained control over Libya. His plan backfired however when journalists spotted the neighborhoods that bore clear signs of unrest. City workers painting over anti-government slogans and the many injured and killed during the clashes.

This reminded me vaguely of the Red Cross visits to Nazi camps in WWII. There, the Nazis were successful in manipulating the system to maintain their image. I am please that el Qaddafi was less successful in his endeavors and that the journalists get to be the revealers of truth. I believe this is a situation where journalists can take on the "watchdog role" for the international community, and play a vital role in exposing the real situation in Libya and other Mid East countries.

Full Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/27/world/africa/27libya.html?_r=1&hp

Times Agrees to Withhold Info

A CIA operative has been charged with murder in Pakistan after what was called a "botched attempted robbery" by the times. What I found interesting was the Times agreement to withhold certain information:

"The New York Times had agreed to temporarily withhold information about Mr. Davis’s ties to the agency at the request of the Obama administration, which argued that disclosure of his specific job would put his life at risk. Several foreign news organizations have disclosed some aspects of Mr. Davis’s work with the C.I.A."

This seems like a mature interaction between the press and the government when it comes to sensitive information!

The Agenda

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/15/us/politics/15obama.html?ref=todayspaper

- I am just noticing the agenda of the NY Times today. Yesterday in class we talked about the differences in the reporting on Obama's budget, and here again, the budget seems to be at the forefront of the Time's mind...and its coming to the forefront of my own. Should we fight the agenda? I would like to assume that the media reports the issues of importance, but I know reporting is much more political than that, and additionally, what is at the top of one person's agenda, might be at the bottom of someone else's.

Do we let the media decide what's important?

If not, how can we tell which issues are truly urgent and which are not?

Hypocrisy in Iran

The NY Times reported on Feb 14th of the detainment of 30 or so supporters of the opposition to the current Iranian leadership - including journalists. Though Ahmadinejad had seemingly positive sentiments of the changes in Egypt, Iran is clearly not supportive of similar movements in its own country. This censorship of media that could propagate anti establishment sentiments, is a clear, and disturbing indication of Iran's suspicions. Like Egypt shutting down the internet, Iran has recognized the forum that would encourage riots in its own country and is seeking to silence the voice of opposition.

Mad Men Politics

A recent reading for class from Time magazine examined the game- changing role of TV in the Kennedy-Nixon election. I had recently been watching season one of the hit TV show Mad Men which follows the lives of the men and women working for and advertising agency in the late 50s early 60s. In the 12th episode, "Nixon vs Kennedy" the agency is involved in the Nixon campaign. Presidential ad campaigns have made their way to TV and the agency is trouble shooting how to compete in this form of media. The solution? Buy up the ad time for a different product of theirs (laxatives) leaving enough air time for Nixon ads, but no time left for Kennedy ads. I was struck first of all, by the simple brilliance of it. But then became more disturbed as I thought about what this meant for the public that would not be aware of these decisions, but whose politics would be influenced by an ingenious coup over the television networks. I am sure that we are still subjected to these influences by advertising, and that kind of scares me.

feel good post

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/02/01/cnnheroes.roth/index.html

The conflict in the Middle East is never far from my mind. The politics are crucial, but I have a lot of faith in the simple human actions and individual meetings, to help foster some accord between Israelis and Palestinians.

Revolutions are Blurry

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/02/20112112719651683.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/02/world/middleeast/02egypt.html?hp

The first link is to Al Jazeera which thus far has had the best live coverage of the revolts in Cairo. Many of the videos are amateur, shot from cell phones and rife with shaky shots and tarmac, but they are successful at illustrating the story of a people taking on their government. However, even with technological advances, the facts of the revolution are still rather unclear to me. Egypt wants a new, democratic government, they do not want Mubarak who was allied with Israel and the US. Obama wants Mubarak to transition. Israel is a little worried. AL Jazeera likes flashy headlines.

The question I am really left with is - what do I think? I believe I should support the will of the public, fighting against an autocratic government. And yet, I am concerned by the possible changes in relationship to Israel and US. In their quest for democracy , could Egypt deny itself a relationship with two of the most democratic countries?