Saturday, February 26, 2011

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

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

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!

Tuesday, February 15, 2011

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.

Wednesday, February 9, 2011

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.

Sunday, February 6, 2011

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.

Wednesday, February 2, 2011

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?