The Southern Strategy, Welfare Queens, and the Food Stamp President???

             I've always been fascinated with politics.  When I was younger, before I figured out I was gay and learned to enjoy the escape that partying afforded me, I felt that one day I would become either a lawyer or a politician.  I've always had a sense of awe and wonder when watching the governing process as well as the political shenanigans play out. 
                     So naturally I've noticed when politicians have said things that I found to be somewhat startling, untrue, or simply off the wall.  This week's reading showed me just how clever some of our politicians have been in using just the right amount of racism when speaking to the public.  
               Because when a politician speaks about a policy issue that may be impacted by race, or when in which race can be used to the politician's advantage, it requires just the right amount of racial tinged comments.  
                       Copious amounts of research has been done which shows that if a politician makes a comment that is overtly or explicitly racist, it will be far less effective for him or her.  The reasoning behind this is that more people will clearly see the racist comment, and hopefully will be turned off by it. 
                         But if a politician carefully hones the craft of effective communication, he or she can inject just enough racism into a comment so that it will go unnoticed by many people.  However, the damage will be done.  It will sink into our collective consciousness and active what is called racial priming.  Racial priming will then activate people's already held racial predispositions.  One can see how effectively a skilled politician could sway public opinion, policy, and the voters' choices by saying just a few select words in order to trigger this type of reaction amongst the people. 
                One of my earliest memories of something like this was Reagan's comments about "welfare queens."   He was speaking of welfare fraud during his campaign and felt that there were many people living on government assistance and getting rich while doing so.  Of course he never came out and said that he felt that it was African-American women he was referencing.  But it was clear to me what he meant.  But it wasn't quite bad enough to get him into hot water, nor was it bad enough to turn away the voters.  For you see, he actually touched a nerve with many voters who believed it.  His words tapped into their already previously held notions; they perceived African-American women as being lazy and far too reliant on government assistance and were gaming the system.  
            I could mention President Nixon and his "southern strategy" but that's just a bit too obvious.  Or is it?  Possibly not because it helped get him elected.  But we can see that for what it really is, can't we?     
          A more recent example of racial priming occurred during the last Republican presidential primary debates.  Newt Gingrich, while referencing our stalled economy, called President Obama the Food Stamp President.  Now those on the left immediately saw the comment for what it was and pounced.  However, there are a lot of Americans in the center and center-right that didn't catch Gingrich's somewhat veiled racist comment.  For these people, his words sunk in and activated their previously held notions whereby African-Americans are linked to the food stamp assistance program.  He tapped into their prejudices with a coded word. 
                 Like I said in the beginning of this post, there have been countless studies done which prove that when these cues are heard, it triggers this reaction, this racial priming.  I look forward to the day when politicians will no longer be able to prime the pump of racism for political gain.  Don't you?  

Why It's Okay That I'm Right and You're Wrong

      Either I'm feeling far too cynical today, or Lewis Black has somehow inhabited my body, but I feel a bit of a rant coming on.  
       This week in Mass Media & Politics, one of the questions we were asked is do we think the mass media does a good job of enlightening voters and informing them about their electoral choices.  Really?  And no, I'm not being snarky about the question itself.  It's a very valid question and one I can understand why my professor would ask.  
      What perplexes me is the idea of trying to honestly answer that without my own biases showing through.  Of course my first gut reaction would be to say, "Sure, if everyone is watching MSNBC they're informed and on top of things.  It's those dimwits at Fox and their viewers that are totally clueless." 
     Of course I can't really say that on our message boards.  It wouldn't be very kind or diplomatic of me to do so.  Nor would I want anyone calling me a dimwit. So, to my credit, I refrained.  But the question still remains unanswered. Does the media do a good job?
     One point that stuck out to me from our reading this week was from the Graber text.  She points out that there is political and structural bias with regard to the substance of coverage done by media outlets. Really? Of course there is.  But that initial first reaction is obviously just taking political bias into consideration.  Let's look at what she termed structural bias.  
      "...structural bias reflects the circumstances of news production.  Balanced reporting may be impossible when candidates' newsworthiness and willingness to talk to reporters vary or when their campaigns are linked to different issues.  Structural bias, even though it lacks partisan motivation, nonetheless may profoundly affect people's perceptions about campaigns."  Doris A. Graber 
      Well, there we go!  Finally I have found my excuse for sitting back and laughing at Fox News and their coverage of candidates and the issues.  It's not me, it's the candidates' campaigns and their links to the issues that causes by blood pressure to rise.  
     Yes, I understand that Ms. Graber is not judging the issues themselves, she is merely saying that some campaigns may be linked to issues that other campaigns are not linked to.  But, holy smokes!  Isn't that what politics is all about?  The issues?  
      I had felt a Lewis Black rant coming on.  One complete with a diatribe about Americans losing their ability to think clearly, their obsession with excess, and their ever-present need to win at any cost in the their zero-sum mentality of politics.  But thankfully I've found an outlet, or maybe a scapegoat?  I've learned that it's okay for me to know I'm right, and giggle at some candidates and what they espouse.  It's not political bias on my part. It's merely the fact that their campaigns are linked to certain issues! 
      Oh, thank you, Ms. Graber!  :)
       

Sniffing Out a Voter

     In the past few decades, candidates' campaigns have become much more specialized and strategic in their quest to appeal to, and to find voters.
     In the 1950s and 1960s, television was the only game in town.  And this game only included three networks.  Hence, campaigns' broadcast strategies focused almost all of their advertising dollars on buying air time linked to popular news and entertainment programs.  Candidates, focusing on broad ideas and messages, were attempting to reach the masses through the use of advertising on the three major networks.  It was a simpler strategy for a simpler time.
      Things began changing though in the 1960s and 1970s with the advent of cable television.  This led to narrowcasting whereby campaigns were able to buy air time on cable television programs and reach a slightly more targeted demographic.  But their messages no longer had to be so generic.  Now they were focusing on more specific groups and could hone their messages to fit the audience that was watching a more specialized cable television program.  The target audience the candidates were reaching for was no longer in the millions, but the hundreds of thousands.  By having a smaller, and more targeted audience, the candidates were able to be more specific with their messages which led to more acrimonious and sensationalistic advertising.  Does anyone remember the despicable Willie Horton ads that Bush 41 ran? 
     With the advent of the internet, the 1990s and 2000s ushered in an age whereby candidates could now focus their advertising dollars on ads linked to websites search engines.  Microcasting had been born.  With this new change, campaigns were attempting to reach a smaller and more refined demographic of tens of thousands of citizens.  This honing in on your specific target audience allowed the heated rhetoric and campaign assassinations to get into full swing. 
     But today, candidates have the opportunity to reach an even smaller, more targeted demographic thanks to the rise in social media.  This is called nanocasting.  Now candidates' ads can target more refined demographic audiences, down to a single voter.  I myself was targeted by the Obama campaign in 2012. 
    One day last year I opened up the FaceBook app on my iPad and there was a message from President Obama's campaign team.  It listed the friends I had in my friends list that lived in states that allowed early voting.  The message asked me to remind my friends to vote early, and of course for President Obama.  Given the new digital age in which we live, with citizens already worried about the NSA and what information they are tracking, I must say I find this type of advertising or outreach more than a little unsettling.  It makes me feel that my own little sphere of private space is slowly but surely continually being chipped away.  However, it is an ingenious way to reach out to voters that are within your desired demographic. 
     So what's next for campaign advertising?  How much more refined can their outreach programs become?  Do we have any space left which we can call our own?  Certainly, with the advancements in technology, we have the potential to become much more informed citizens and voters.  But are we losing our personal space along the way? 

Media as a Tool, or Tool for the Media?

It's been a long day full of schoolwork, so possibly my mind is a bit addled.  But after viewing Harvest of Shame, Triumph of the Will, and Why We Fight, I'd swear I can see a similarity between all three films.  Due to bias, they're all propaganda. 

            With Harvest of Shame, I was able to see the great ER Murrow's last piece of special correspondence.  It focused on the plight of the American migrant worker during 1960.  And I'm not ashamed to admit that while viewing it, a tear or two or three quietly slipped down my cheeks.  Workers, both adults and children alike, were crammed into trucks Auschwitz style en route to the next farm to pick the growers' harvests.  They frequently had nowhere to sleep, and when they did, their beds were either made of straw or had holes eaten into them by rats.  "Communities" in which they lived often only had one spigot for water and no restrooms.  What I saw were people who were barely existing, but certainly not "living." Throughout the entire piece, Murrow, in my opinion, was simply reporting on the conditions under which these people lived.  He interviewed migrant workers as well as the prosperous growers.  It was only until the last sixty seconds of the episode that bias entered when he said, "The people you have seen have the strength to harvest your fruit and vegetables.  They do not have the strength to influence legislation.  Maybe we do."  I'll never forget this particular piece of journalism. It was compelling and informative.  Yet, it did show bias, and thus lands in the propaganda pile.  But I don't necessarily think that's an awful place to be, either. 

            The Third Reich came marching back with Triumph of the Will.  Grand marches blared, pastoral scenery swept by, and soldiers marched by, as I, the viewer, was invited through the most spectacular use of propaganda, to witness in awe the majesty that was Adolf Hitler.  Wow, talk about bias and misleading!  I realize that it's hard for me as an American to view this piece objectively.  Hitler of course, is one of the greatest evils ever visited upon man.  But I think the film served the purpose it was created for.  Germany had been ravaged during WWI.  And then they suffered their economic collapse during their runaway inflation.  They were completely and utterly destroyed.    I can see how a populace would look for a virtual "savior" and want to feel pride in their country again. Triumph of the Will perfectly fit the bill for what the evil Fuhrer wanted.   

            And then I watched excerpts from Why We Fight. There are some great films that were released during the latter half of the 1940s: Miracle on 34th Street, Oliver Twist, Little Women, Sunset Blvd., and especially All About Eve.  I swear, if you've never seen that movie, do so now!  You'll never hear such quick wit and incredibly timing.  They just don't write scripts like that anymore.  But I digress.  There's one thing that always seems to be a constant theme that runs through most of those films though.  Everything is very...."whitewashed"? You know, the real America is rarely showing during films from that era.  I somewhat got that same feeling while watching Why We Fight.  Sure, the US was on the "right" side during the war.  Director Frank Capra did a great job of letting us know why we needed to be in that fight though. Most Americans at the time did not want us to get involved in what they viewed as Europe's war. So Capra did as he was asked and produced a series of short films aimed at gearing America up for war and bolstering our confidence.  Propaganda.  But as I stated earlier, that's not always a bad place to land. 

            So, can the media be a useful and good tool, when it's being used by the government?  Or are we being tools ourselves when we let the media deliver a message they know to be propaganda and we "buy in?" Actually I'll answer yes to both questions.  And I don't think that's such a horrible arrangement.  

"Managing" the news?

          There are reports that show that over 75% of News Outlets' "hard news" coverage originates straight from the politicians. What in the world are we letting happen here?  We all know that politicians live for the spin!  They spin to advance their agendas, they spin to increase their public presence,  they spin to increase their poll numbers and win re-election.  Have our news stations become nothing more than washing machines permanently set on a spin cycle???
            And just why is that percentage so high?  Those same reports also indicate that only 1% of news coverage originates from actual investigative journalism.  Really?  One freaking percent?  And you may ask, "Why is that?"  From what we've learned in our Mass Media & Politics class, it is because the news outlets are concerned with the almighty dollar.  They merge and acquire one another in the hopes of turning larger profits.  They report on "soft news" a la Miley's twerking and skip the "hard news" that we need, in order to attract a wider audience and hold their attention.  So we're missing out on the actual "news" in order for mega-news corporations to earn more profits! Nice, isn't it?
             But I realize, reporters must let the politicians speak, and have sources of information by which they gain pertinent information to provide to the public.  But why aren't the vast majority of the journalists REALLY questioning these reporters with the facts surrounding the issues?  Case in point, the government shutdown and the looming debt ceiling crisis. 
             Every channel appears to be trotting out various members of Congress, who I'm sure have been told by their party leadership to stay on-point.  They are all regurgitating the same quotes, the same statements!  We are learning nothing if we keep letting the politicians and the news organizations continue to feed us this fodder!  Well-crafted and coordinated sound bites have become our news, and it is harming our nation and doing a grave disservice to our citizens.
              News organizations have become so dependent upon little five minutes capsules of coverage that they don't have time to really delve into the issues.  The news has become so fragmented that it leaves not time for real questioning of the whirling dervishes, oops, the "spinning" politicians.
              So where does this leave the American citizen who is wanting the news, wanting actual reporting free of the spin or at least news with a spin meter?  We are left to our own devices.  We are left to feel comfortable in watching or reading our favorite journalists and their work, but we must also seek out other outlets that do provide the context, the background surrounding the issues. You know, the FACTS.  From former Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they're not entitled to their own facts. So true.  But today, we have to really SEARCH for those facts because the media and the politicians aren't providing them for us. 
              So it's up to us.  It's our responsibility to search out the sources that will provide us with the facts, not just the opinions.  I have Rachel Maddow, Chris Hayes, and Jeremy Scahill. 
               Who do you have, and why?  

Need to Know?

            This week we took a look at two very different scandals; the sadistic torture of detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison and massive release of classified materials by WikiLeaks.  The conundrum being, how do you weigh the right of American citizens to know about highly controversial subject matter versus the interest of national security. 

             If you've read any of my posts before, you'll know that I'm not one to shy away from voicing my opinion, enjoying satire and irony, or stirring the proverbial pot.  However, this seemingly irreconcilable dichotomy has me stumped.  I can honestly say that I see both sides of the issues.  And I can assure you, for an outspoken Progressive, this is a pleasant surprise! Sarcasm is fun too!

             So with Abu Ghraib, we learned of the atrocities that were committed in our names during the Iraq War; a war that never should have begun and was a continuation of our ill-conceived Middle East policies.  Certainly we deserved the right to know what happened in that prison, but at what cost?  By releasing the photos depicting Iraqi men in shameful situations, did we exponentially increase the number of future jihadists, hell-bent on bringing down the "great satan?"   Or was it a necessary exposure to the truth that we must bear at any cost so that we are prompted into demanding a  revision of our combat engagement policies and hopefully regain our integrity on the international diplomatic stage?

             The scandal involving WikiLeaks is somewhat similar but has a bit more of a focus on journalism.  Like the Abu Ghraib scandal, information pertaining to war atrocities committed by our service members was released by WikiLeaks.  With both scandals, the American public needed to learn the truth.  But again, this truth may come at the same cost.  Has the safety of our allies and sources been compromised by the releasing of this information?  Have we further inflamed the hatred for America that many in the Middle East already feel for us? 

             So the question is where do we draw the line?  Where do we say, "At this point, releasing any more information will serve no further good and only cause harm."  Or is that even a statement that we should be willing to make.  As compelling and fascinating as this situation is, and as much as it deserves an answer, I sadly have none.
           
            

Ave Maria or Ave Rachel Maddow?

     This week in Mass Media & Politics, we focused on truth in reporting, gonzo journalism, manufactured consent and he said she said journalism. I'm no longer a Christian, but having grown up in an evangelical home, I've heard many times that, "the truth shall set you free!"  So I'm posting a thank you today to Ms. Rachel Maddow for giving me my own set of rainbow colored truth wings and why that is so important. 
     Did you know that journalists have a code of ethics they are supposed to follow?  I didn't.  It covers everything from verifying the reliability of your sources, to giving a voice to the voiceless, as well as avoiding stereotyping by race, gender, age, religion, sexual orientation, etc. Its five main goals are to:
1.  Seek truth and report it. 
2. Minimize harm. 
3. Act independently
4. Be Accountable. 
      By my accounting, Ms. Maddow has certainly followed these guidelines while employed by MSNBC.   
     Another example of her journalistic integrity is that she refuses to fall back into the fake refuge of allowing he said she said arguments during her programming segments.  Two opposing viewpoints may be expressed during her program and she does allow them equal time.  However, she will call bulls*%t on a guest and present them with the facts when the situation calls for it.  In this way, she lets her viewers know the facts, not just the spin from a guest, and doesn't leave her viewers having to guess at the truth. This is yet another reason why she is my favorite television journalist. I wish more journalists followed her lead.
     So kudos to you, Ms. Maddow.  Keep shining on.  

 

"Fair and Balanced?"

     While focusing on the consolidation of media outlets and the Fairness Doctrine this week, I began thinking of what we really are provided by the major news outlets. Are our needs being met by the majors?  Are they reporting the news, or are they interpreting the news for us.  Are we getting a "fair and balanced" approach?  
      Of course I am using Fox's slogan, and it would be far too easy for me to rip on that company's "news" department.  But what type of format would I really like to see take shape?  Do I want the media outlets to simply report the news, free of opinion, and free of explanation?  
     Being a political junkie, I don't mind doing the extra digging to find sources which include studies and facts.  However, I unfortunately don't think most Americans want to take the time to become better informed by spending the extra amount of energy that is required to do so.  So just how do the seemingly lazy Americans become better informed on the important issues of the day?  Can the journalist "explain" the news in a non-partisan manner?  Do I want them to?  
     A recent article from the HuffPost examines this dilemma in light of the Affordable Care Act and the public's incredible ignorance regarding its specifics.   http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/18/obamacare-and-the-media_n_3950692.html?utm_hp_ref=politics
     Poll after poll has shown that the majority of Americans favor the components of the bill when asked.  However, if they are asked if they approve of the ACA or Obamacare, they are overwhelmingly against it.  Why the disconnect? 
     First, I think the Obama administration has failed miserably in the PR dept regarding the specifics of the bill. But back to the question, should journalists explain the specifics, or is that being partisan?  Chuck Todd, whom I have a great deal of respect for, believes they should explain the components of the bill.  And I think he's right.  Simply pointing out that kids can stay on their parents' insurance until they're 26 is not being partisan, it's pointing out a new fact.  I don't have a problem with that. I wonder if they're discussing this and other components of the bill on that fair and balanced news network? Nah, I doubt it.
 

The Mass Media: Shaking Their Jelly Roll

     So during the crisis in Syria, apparently the mass media felt we needed a break from the real life version of reality and gave us a slice of the new American "reality" via Miley Cyrus and her inability to properly twerk. 

     It's bad enough that we actually have to source our news stations and news journalists' work.  But now we're being prompted to watch some poor, misguided youngster try to shake her jelly roll?  Aren't there just about a million other stories out there that qualify as hard news that we need to be hearing about?  Again, how about Syria?

     And while we're on the topic of Syria, why can't we get more reporting on the DETAILS?  I'd like to hear more about Syria and their relationship with Iran and Russia.  I'd like to hear more about the insurgents.  Are they really riddled with Al Qaeda?  Would we really be helping out the same denomination of the radical element of Islam that perpetrated the 9/11 travesty?  And what about their chemical weapons?  One day, reportedly Assad was responsible for their use. The next it may have been used by his government, but not directly authorized by the Syrian president himself.  The next day we hear something different.  

     So come on, mass media.  Do your job.  Do the digging, the real investigative reporting, and find out the truth to the important stories.  The American people deserve no less than your best!

Slacktivism: Action or Futility?

Slacktivism:  actions performed via the Internet in support of a political or social cause but regarded as requiring little time or involvement, e.g., signing an online petition or joining a campaign group on a social networking website.


           These days it seems we are all pressed for time.  Be it schoolwork or time devoted to a paying job, we all feel like we are running short of time.  Yet surely we still hold our own beliefs near to our hearts.  Surely we still wish to "make a difference". Thus in this new digital age, we have been given a new route or avenue by which we can express ourselves and let our views be known. 
          "Just click here!"  "Send a message to Washington!" If you're like me, you've seen countless numbers of these messages attached to news articles in your Facebook news feed.  I'll admit to clicking on many of them. I've signed online petitions and added my name to lists in order to voice my agreement or displeasure with a specific action taken by an elected official. But what has this really gotten me?  Has it really accomplished anything other than, as my granddaddy would have said, "keepin' my pressure up?"
          Actually it has.  By making me aware of certain news items, I have become more informed and have taken the time to take the only steps I know that are available to me in order to make that difference. Thankfully I can say that I have done more than just the random click here and there. I have contributed to campaigns, held meet and greets for my local state representative in my home, and placed phone calls and written to my state and federally elected officials. But I have done those things only because I am quite passionate about my political beliefs.  I find almost everything related to the political world fascinating. 
          But what about the armchair activists and slacktivism?  Have they been led by mass media outlets to believe that by making that random click of the mouse they are becoming engaged, making a difference?  Are these outlets being misleading?  I've gone back and taken a look at a few of the pages I've liked on Facebook and their calls to action. Almost every one begins with asking a reader to add their name to a petition.  The next click invariably leads to a plea for money.  I noticed that a few pages stopped at this point, but almost all of them actually went further and urged their readers to contact their state or federal representatives within the government and to let their voices and viewpoints be heard.  And I think that is an honorable and a good thing.
          So slacktivism occurs only when the reader allows it to.  Will the reader take more than just a few seconds to click on a prompt and call a senator's office or write him or her a letter?  The burden and responsibility lies with the reader. 
          How far do the readers take it?
          How far do YOU take it? 

FACEBOOK AS SOCIAL NEWS MEDIA & CONSEQUENCES

         If you're like me, you have your news mixed in with the personal happenings of your friends on Facebook.  It all began innocently enough. I'd see a news post deposited into my news feed by a friend, found it interesting, clicked the link, and read the article.  While on the outlet's page, it asked me to "like" their page to begin receiving content similar to what I just read.  "Sure," I thought. Why not?    

        And before I knew it, I was receiving more news updates in my Facebook news feed than I was alerts about what my friends and family were up to. For a short while, It was quite nice to get short stories and reports centered around issues that I cared about, particularly civil rights for the LGBT community and the ongoing fight for marriage equality. But then it ballooned into articles focused on sensible gun control measure, environmental issues, states' adoption of the controversial stand your ground laws, etc. etc.

        Now, I'm not saying that all of these topics are not near and dear to my precious, liberal heart, but where did the fun in Facebook go?  I had let this plethora of tiny news outlets drop their little bombs of information into my news feed and make it much more difficult to communicate with my friends and family. And of course, these outlets being highly politicized, never failed to trumpet the latest musings from those on the far, far right, which frequently proved to be irritating to downright rage inducing. 

       So for now, I've made a promise to myself.  I will delete almost but not all of these outlets from my news feed. I have many other reliable sources of journalism to which I can turn to remain informed.....and hopefully regain a small measure of peace from the drumbeat of political polarization.

 From Russia With Love?

So with Russia apparently embroiled in a gay panic, what would you do as an American Olympian athlete?  Would you go and stay silent. Obviously you've worked your tail off to qualify for the tremendous honor of competing at the games, but would you feel like you'd sold yourself out to a degree?  And what about boycotting Russian products like Stoli?  Many gay bars have begun refusing to serve that vodka any more.  Is that a good idea?  Certainly every country can make their own laws, but this is the Olympics.  And what about the media's coverage of this?  I haven't really seen much on the major news outlets.  Of course I've seen quite a few articles in the smaller ones like HuffPost and Edge.  Do you think the American media is doing enough to shine the light on Putin's horrible mistreatment of their gay citizens? And what about the dangers posed to the gay athletes that may make the trip to Sochi?  Has the media done enough to spread the word?  If I was there and wanted to wear my rainbow colored t-shirt, I certainly wouldn't expect arrest as a fair outcome.  But then again, look at what the Russian government did to the punk band Pussy Riot. Two of those poor ladies have been sent away for quite some time just for speaking out against their own government. It's a sad state of affairs for dissenters in Russia these days. Is our own media doing enough to shine the light on these injustices???

Allen