Bias, Bias, Everywhere

This entry was inspired by reading and responding to a fellow classmates blog earlier today covering bias in the media.  Some of the questions presented in her blog were to what extent the media was biased, and how that bias comes across and registers with consumers.  As I find this topic very interesting, I thought I might discuss it more here in my own EIB.

To begin, I would like to establish that humans are biased.  Mother Teresa, Ghandi, the Dali Llama, Martin Luther King Jr., Dale Earnhardt Jr., Sean Hannity, and Piers Morgan are all biased.  I know, I know, I probably upset some of you by saying that.  Oh well, it's my blog.  Anyway, every individual to have ever walked, crawled, or rolled the earth is inherently biased in one form or another.  As news is written, directed, and produced by humans, the news in biased as well.  Surely we can all agree on this fact in order to move on to more entertaining subjects, namely, just how much bias is present in the media and the affect that said bias may have on the population.  Just as Ghandi and Mother Teresa were more open minded than Hannity or Morgan, some media outlets are more apt to cover a variety of stories and interests; others still elect to remain firmly entrenched on one side of the aisle.  But so what?  Isn't it the citizens responsibility to consume the information available and then make an informed, rational decision based off of their research?  While this may be an ideal situation, it is highly unlikely.  Based off of real world observation, people often seek out news sources that validate their personal opinions, and then accept those sources as trustworthy and either unbiased or less biased than they may be.  This behavior leads to citizens voting based off of potentially flawed information and carries the potential to chip away at the foundations of democracy.  So, if bias is impossible to avoid as humans and at the same time a negative influence, how do we mitigate it?

I believe the situation calls for a varied approach, one where a major media outlet maintains bias, yet presents it evenly.  Each side is given the same operating budget and airtime, with equally capable journalists and reporters to deliver the message.  Shows such as FOX News' The Five hint at this type of reporting, but it is still presented as four members ganging up on one most of the time. The show Crossfire also comes to mind, but in that show the underlying premise is to argue and cause conflict.  I imagine more of separate shows that compliment each other, with one side presenting its case for the first 30 minutes then the other presenting its case in the next 30 minutes.  While this methodology would still allow viewers to tune in at certain times to hear their viewpoints validated, it would also increase the likelihood that they would be exposed to the other side of the coin as well.  If both sides presented at the same time I imagine more often than not it could result in a shouting match and more demagoguing.

In addition to offering a better opportunity for non straight-ticket voters to gather facts about a variety of issues, this method could also appeal to the news outlets themselves by potentially drawing in a larger base for advertising.  If we accept a general rule of liberals watching MSNBC and conservatives watching FOX, then it is plausible to think that a show offering both sides nearly simultaneously could potentially capture a large market share as well.  Or not.  I don't have any information other to validate or dispute my theory as it has never been attempted to the best of my knowledge.  Regardless, bias is alive and well in the media, and it is our responsibility to continually think of new and innovative ways to mitigate its negative influence while acknowledging its existence.  

Social media: more than a platform of information

I am sitting in a car driving home from Thanksgiving break thinking; always a dangerous moment when my mind is free to wander.  As the semester is drawing to a close, I have been thinking about our discussions throughout the semester, specifically how much social media and other forms of “the new media” have influenced our modern political arena.  While we have had multiple discussion questions posted on the impact of social media in politics, nearly all of them have been reliant on the notion of social media as a platform from which ideas are to be spread. As I was thinking about this, I began to think about other ways social media has influenced the political game.

In June of 2013, a representative of the state of California became the first sitting Congressman to vote on a bill by using social media.  Representative Eric Swalwellchose to use Vine, a social media service designed to let users post short video clips with their mobile devices.  Congressman Swalwell was certainly not the first person to use such a service in order to further his message, but he was the first politician to actually vote via social media (that I have ever been aware of).  If an active member of the US House of Representatives voting off of a social platform isn’t an example of the power of social media in politics, I really don’t know what is.

Later on in the same month there was yet another example of social media usage outside of furthering a message.  Texas Senator Wendy Davis was slotted to speak on an anti-abortion bill.  Once she received the podium, the Senator launched a 13 hour long filibuster.  While it is hardly newsworthy to speak about a filibuster on the Senate floor over abortion, it is unique that social media directly supported her filibuster.  Prior to taking the stage Senator Davis had sent out a message with her plans via Twitter.  Additionally, she asked her supporters to help her in her quest by sending personal stories and testimonials.  During the filibuster, these stories were read aloud as they were instantly streamed to her hand via social media.  As evidence to further social media involvement, Facebook and Twitter users were actively streaming their accounts of the filibuster to the world, resulting in a play-by-play account what was happening on the Senate floor.

Both of these examples demonstrate the power of social media’s involvement in our political system, albeit in non-traditional methods.  Most frequently candidates will spread their message far and wide by using cheap and powerful tools like Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, and YouTube.  Representative Swalwell and Senator Davis both found outside the box ways to incorporate one aspect of the new media into their political agenda, further demonstrating the intersection of politics and media.

How do you take your News, with Cream and Sugar?

Long ago, in a galaxy far, far away, humans used to get their news from one of two sources: the newspaper or word of mouth.  Next, the radio brought up to date stories and coverage into the living rooms of most American houses, followed by the TV.  Presidential fireside chats and other tactics relayed opinions as well as facts to average American families with the mass media serving as the coordinator between the politicians and the citizens.  As technology grew more robust, so did the available methods of news to be delivered and consumed.  In the mid 1990s the internet began to add a further dimension to news delivery, and in keeping with other forms of technology humans raced to adapt it to our needs; instant news delivery has become more and more prevalent as technology has increased.  Now, we have nearly unlimited options as to how we access our news, if we choose to access it at all.  With the recent addition of wi-fi, 4G LTE, and smart phones, there is no significant lag period from when a story breaks to when it is announced to the public.  Many apps even have built in text messaging services that alert users when a particular type of story breaks.  In less than a century, and for the most part in the last 20 years, the way we consume news has been dramatically altered.

At first glance, this all seems to be excellent progress, furthering our democratic notions by empowering the people with information in real time.  And for the most part, I would say that such advances have been beneficial.  Unfortunately though, like most things in life, great power comes with great responsibility.  Social media networks, blogs, and various other forms of direct person to person news sharing groups sometimes suffer from ailments of unprofessionalism or flat-out incorrect information.  The authors of many posts are regular citizens just like you and I, covering the topics they see fit in a manner they see fit, often with no first hand information about the topic.  These "reporters" are not bound by the same constraints as professional journalists working for major news networks.  Most of the time their livelihood does not depend on satisfactory performance and correct information, leaving them free to cover controversial issues in extremely partial ways.  While there are many tangible benefits inherent with the ability to truly frame issues as one sees fit, there is also an equally long list of potential pitfalls.

I mention the changes in news delivery technology and quality of sources to suggest how we elect to consume our news may have very significant impacts on the quality of information digested.  The faster news is disseminated to the people, the less time professional writers, interviewers, and editors have to check the accuracy of the story and vet its accuracy and content.  A majority of the time, major news networks have architecture in place to ensure quality content.  Blogs and social networks often times do not.  Twitter is interesting as well, combining high quality journalism with misinformed grass roots activism together under the same roof.  For those of us who do not spend hours upon hours checking what we are told via the news, complications may arise.  If people don't choose wisely how they consume their news, and through what channels they arrive at their political conclusions, they may as well be walking blind into the voting booths.  Quality news should be a positive influence in our lives, our voting habits, and our overall awareness of the world that we reside in.  For this reason, citizens should take pause to consider their consumption patterns and evaluate whether or not they are getting quality information, or information that makes them feel better by corroborating their own opinions.  While convenient, the latter of the two options does not always make for productive societies.

Citizens United

Another reoccurring topic this semester has been that of political finances and the media.  We all know that it takes an amazing amount of money to run a successful campaign, with numbers inflating higher and higher as the office sought grows in influence.  While individuals make sizable contributions to political campaigns, they often pale in comparison to those donated by corporate and private interest groups.  In the past, donations were limited by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.  In March of 2009, the political donation world was turned upside down by a case involving Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.  Eventually landing in the United States Supreme Court, the case was decided on January 21, 2010. In its holding, the Supreme Court said that significant portions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act violated the First Amendment rights.  The Court essentially said that corporations, labor unions, and Not-for-Profit Organizations had the same rights that individuals held, including in campaign donations.  This case stands as perhaps the most invasive example of governmental involvement in politics for many years.  As a result of Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, special interests groups can contribute nearly unlimited amounts of money to political campaigns.
Unlimited amounts of money leads to more and more commercials, and more exposure to the voters through a plethora of mass media channels: internet, magazines, smart phone applications, and social media networks.  How these candidates campaigns are managed plays a large role in the the content and delivery of the ads, as well as the overall feel of the campaign.  Unfortunately, many campaigns elect to take on a very negative tone towards their opponents.  Since the Citizens United case, campaign donations have been unleashed, which has in turn released a slew of negative ad campaigns that are constantly crammed down citizens throats through the various forms of the mass media.
Although there might not be a direct correlation between the increase in negative ad campaigns and the Citizens case, it is my opinion that the Supreme Court opened the floodgates so to speak.  While not walking hand in hand with the intersection of mass media and politics, one can still surmise how decisions that don't appear to affect the relationship between media and politics can certainly have a ripple effect that changes the way the game is played. The more money that is allowed to be donated to a campaign means the more money available to spend on political advertising.  The Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission may have more of a relationship to mass media and politics than appears at first glance.

Iranian Journalism-- Beyond the Prison

Lately, Iran has been the front page story of many newspapers and video segments; their "historic" breakthrough in the nuclear issue has people on both sides of the aisle talking.  What is not being talked about much lately is the state of journalism in Iran.  Most people that I know assume that all Iranian journalists are mouthpieces of the regime, simply parroting the official rhetoric handed down to them.  While this assumption may be close to accurate, very few scientific studies have ever been done to give an in depth look at what an Iranian journalist inside Iran actually goes through.  Until now.

Researchers from the Annenberg School for Communication, part of the University of Pennsylvania, have set up an entire program to look into what life is like for Iranian journalists.  During the summer of 2013, they released a report entitled Facing Boundaries, Finding Freedoms: An In-Depth Report of Iranian Journalists Working in Iran.  For the systematic study, 304 journalists at both state owned and independent media outlets responded, leading to an overall response rate of 30%.  Off to a bad start for freedom of the press, but I digress.  Much of the world seems to comprehend the often heavy handed repression journalists face through repression, harassment, and arrests.  Many can even recall some of the oppressive measures that occurred in the political aftermath of the disputed 2009 elections of incumbent president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  What is less understood are the everyday battles that Iranian journalists face such as operating within complex regulatory frameworks and governmental controls that lead to a general lack of information flow and openness.  This is precisely what was focused on in the report; the other side of the Iranian media coin.  Roughly 24 pages long, the report serves to deliver readers with a better understanding of non-traditional challenges faced by journalists living under the Ayatollah and Revolutionary Guard forces.  I will not summarize the entire article here, rather, I will pull out some of the key quotes and findings of the survey.  I recommend that anyone interested in pushing further than the tip of the iceberg read the report, I found it fairly educational as well as potentially useful as an International Affairs major.The survey showed that:

-There was little difference between journalists who worked for state-run media outlets and independent media outlets in terms of editorial freedoms and perceptions of media in society; a surprising find as I assumed that independent journalists would have greater freedoms.

-State journalists were more likely to utilize circumvention tools such as proxy servers to access censored online content than independent journalists

-55% of respondents said they "never" used social media or photo sharing sites to gather information

-The more experienced a journalist was, the less likely they were to cover controversial issues.  To me, this suggests that those who question the regime don't stay in business too long.

-Although journalists do not feel comfortable in traditional "watchdog" roles, many indicated that they felt comfortable presenting alternative strategies for governmental policies.

The Future State of the News Media

While browsing the inter-webs the other evening I stumbled upon the PEW Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism website containing an annual report rightfully entitled The State of News Media 2013.  PEW has maintained a quality reputation as a surveyor, and their studies generally hold considerable weight.  While I was not able to read the report in its entirety, there are selected issues that I would like to discuss.

The thesis of the report was simple; the media is fighting and uphill battle in their quest to act as the framers of elections, especially presidential ones.  I realize that there are many who would contend that this is not an issue saying, "what difference does it make? The politicians don't need the media to tell their stories, they can do it themselves."  Contrary to this line of thought, it is extremely important that the media be heavily involved in presidential elections.  Most citizens have no interaction with their government outside of the main stream media.  Without the media serving as an intermediary, the public is forced to accept the narratives put forth by a candidate's political campaign team.  One of the media's critical roles is that of vetting a candidate's records and statements, and if the media suffers from a loss of power to frame campaign narratives then our democratic system will surely endure harm.  Although they don't always choose to investigate all campaign statements, occasionally media presence alone is enough of a deterrent to help keep a politician from blatantly lying on the campaign trail.  

One of the reasons for media's reduced influence is that of political parroting.  The PEW study shows that"Campaign reporters were acting primarily as megaphones, rather than investigators, of the assertions put forward by the candidates and other political partisans."  In the 2000 presidential race, the media formed roughly 50% of all personal assertions present in the race.  Fast forwarding to 2012, we see that the media formed only 27% of all personal assertions or half the number of 2000.  If the media is framing less and less of the narrative, then that means that the politicians are generating the rest with the news agencies simply repeating what they are given.  Without unique and responsible investigative journalism to guide elections, politicians are able to construct abstract images of themselves with relative impunity.

Just as we have discussed many times through our online learning modules, technology has served as one of the driving factors for the change in elections.  With the internet and TV present in millions of American homes, smartphones and iPads constantly updating us, and Twitter feeds tweeting in our ears, candidates are able to reach into our lives on a daily basis without the media's influence.  President Obama's usage of social mediums stands as the most recent example of the persuasive power available to a well structured campaign.  In his 2008 and 2012 races his team flooded the internet with constant pictures and updates of his purported mission and thoughts, leading to back-to-back victories for him and his team.  The tens of millions of viewers that received his messages did so directly, without the media delivering the content or screening it as was custom in the past.

Further complicating things, the study finds that there are fewer journalists today than in the past.  Massive corporate buyouts have led to the streamlining of workforces, and PEW estimates that there are fewer than 40,000 professional journalists working in the US.  In the complicated and often twisted world of presidential campaigns, fewer journalists means less coverage and fact checking.  These issues combine to set the stage for the steady decline of political influence present in today's major elections, and generally undermine the democratic system envisioned by our forefathers.  How we combat these actions remains to be seen.

Ideological Enterprises

One of the recurring themes of our Mass Media and Politics class has been that of bias.  There have been great debates and studies all over the country as to which major media outlets are conservative, which are liberal, whether or not any of them are "balanced", and just how far individual outlets swing to the left or the right.  Although there is always room for debate, FOX news is generally characterized as straying the furthest right of any major outlet, and MSNBC viewed as the far left of the spectrum.  For this EIB installment I wanted to talk a bit about how even networks such as FOX or MSNBC can part with their normal routine, when and if it is convenient.

A few weeks ago MSNBC aired a clip on one of its shows that generally would not have to tolerated all that well.  The clip was aired on the segment Morning Joe by Joe Scarborough and co-host Mika Brzezinski. Joe, generally labeled as MSNBC's sole conservative, often stands alone in his views for the major outlet, but is often tempered some.  The segment that he commissioned a few weeks ago covered Obama's campaign promises related to the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) and featured clips of Obama stating that if consumers were pleased with their healthcare plans they would be able to keep them.  For anyone who keeps up with the news, I don't have to explain that the enrollment process has been less than smooth, and millions of Americans have been notified by their insurers that they will no longer be able to keep their old plans.  The clip was essentially designed to draw attention to the differences between promises and realities of the ACA rollout, and cast Obama in a very negative light.  Scarborough has been critical of the current administration in the past, but for MSNBC to show almost a full minute of broken promises from Obama on a major show is fairly unprecedented.  

I point this out not to spark further debate over the new healthcare rollout or whether or not Obama has maintained his campaign trail and office promises, rather, to highlight the fact that anyone who says that a particular news agency is "completely one sided" is often wrong.  The mass media is generally a profit oriented enterprise more so than an ideological one; the fact that we have networks that present opposing bias is more of a strategy to gather viewers than some deep political conviction held by the CEO or CFO.  Yes, Rupert Murdoch is more conservative than liberal, but he is more business oriented than conservative.  The mass media is a multi billion dollar empire, and tactics such as bias and spin are used in order to attract various audiences to increase the amount of viewers.  The more viewers, the higher the premiums for advertisers.  All of the major networks will part ways with their normal routine when needed, especially for a short duration of time.  The Morning Joe montage got scores of conservatives viewing MSNBC that normally would not have watched, and therefore was beneficial to the company even if it temporarily alienated some liberal viewers.  This is just one example of the mass media as a corporate enterprise rather than an ideological machine.

See the clip here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3Mg-ZMeZU0

"Transpaqueness"

In October, the Committee to Protect Journalists (or CPJ) released a special report that covers many of the same elements that we have been discussing in class.  The topic covered centered around the Obama administration and its transparency, or lack thereof, with government operations.  Ironically, this is the same administration that ran on a platform of openness in government.  Much to the detriment of journalists, there was a disconnect somewhere along the line between campaign promises and actions after election.  While this is not a unique characteristic of the Obama administration, the CPJ report charges that the current leadership in Washington has taken secrecy to a new level.  Since the passing of the 1917 Espionage Act, three prosecutions had been pursued prior to the Obama administration.  Since 2008, there have been a total of 8 prosecutions, with others pending.  While it is still up for debate as to whether or not the prosecutions are warranted, the sheer volume of prosecutions is undeniable.  One of the outcomes of such a "crackdown" on informational leaks has been the creation of an informational desert, or a general lack of available information.  According to the report, journalists who used to operate in the "gray" areas between classified and unclassified information are now afraid to say anything at all for fear of arrest, and journalists are lacking quality sources as they can be subpoenaed if politically convenient.  This behavior stands as a danger to our democratic system and deserves to be monitored closely.

The report, written by Downie and reported by Rafsky, details selected aspects of what they consider to be the hostile and disingenuous treatment of journalists who cover political, national security, or other sensitive issues.  The report discusses the methodologies used by the White House to prevent the disclosure of information, as well as the administration's practice of deploying "its own media to evade scrutiny by the press."  As we have been exposed to in our  learning modules, this tactic combines misdirection of information and spin, avoiding the issues that it doesn't want to cover and focusing on the ones that cast their administration in a positive light.  As New York Times  reporter Scott Shane put it, "I think we have a real problem."  Through the creation of content the Obama administration has been able to control the flow of information by drowning out negative voices.  This action can be considered a new twist on the media's gatekeeping function (see Graber Ch.4) and has served it fairly well.  In a Politico report veteran journalists Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen posit

“One authentically new technique pioneered by the Obama White House is government creation of content—photos of the president, videos of White House officials, blog posts written by Obama aides—which can then be instantly released to the masses through social media. And they are obsessed with taking advantage of Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and every other social media forum, not just for campaigning, but governing. They are more disciplined about cracking down on staff that leak, or reporters who write things they don’t like.”

The situation that is developing due to government aggressiveness does nothing to further our democracy, and therefore should be faced with increased scrutiny.  I am a strong supporter that the general public is not prepared for a complete and total transparent government, but where to draw the lines should be constantly reviewed and evaluated by Congress, the Supreme Court, and the citizens.  Unfortunately, if the media is not able to operate effectively due to government threats (either real or perceived) then the citizens will have very limited access to the knowledge necessary for informed decision making, leading our nation towards a self defeating conclusion.  If we are to continue the American tradition of prying investigative journalism, muckraking, and holding those in power accountable, then there has to be a change in administrative attitude towards journalism.

Freedom of Information, Unless We Change Our Mind

In 1966, new legislation was passed that changed part of the operating dynamic between the government, the media, and everyday citizens seeking to know more. This new legislation was the FOIA, or the Freedom of Information Act. In its simplest form, it allowed the public, both citizens and the media, to request official government documents. The purpose of the new legislation was to increase transparency in governmental operations, while simultaneously increasing public knowledge with the hope that more informed citizens would benefit the American democratic system. Since the inception of the FOIA, individuals have been requesting thousands of documents, ranging from CIA operations to the recipe for beer brewed in the White House.

Obviously, a functional government cannot disclose all of its information to anyone requesting it at any given time. This should not need much explanation, and anyone who disagrees and thinks that 100% transparency is a viable solution could clearly benefit from a generous dose of reality. On the other hand, anyone who believes that the government should be able to withhold any information, for an unlimited amount of time, for any reason it deems necessary, is one step closer to tyranny. The question that presents itself now is where should the line be drawn? What information is necessary to produce a more informed voting population, and what information is necessary to hold close to the chest for issues of national security? I don't have a concise definition or example for either of these, but I am able to illustrate specific problems when I see them.

In 2009 the Obama administration issued Executive Order 13526, which allowed reclassification of documents AFTER a FOIA request was made. Prior to this order, any request for documentation that was not classified was required to be fulfilled. Now, the government has the ability to deny any FOIA request by simply reclassifying the material requested if it is not convenient for them to release it. For an administration that campaigned on transparency, this does not seem appropriate. Are we to believe that by a simple request that the actual material has somehow increased in sensitivity? If the information was vital to national security, then it should have been properly classified from the beginning. The government has generally erred on the side of over-classification from the start, and I am not able to see why it could become imperative to the security of our nation to reclassify documents after a request is made. To me, this seems to be more of a mechanism put in place to erect road blocks in front of journalists or citizens when they appear to head down a trail that the government does not approve. In other words, freedom of information for as long as you ask irrelevant questions. I disagree with this approach, as I am able to envision much more harm than help; especially from an administration that promised more transparency than ever before.

Different Strokes for Different Folks or Padding the Bottom Line?

While perusing the inter-webs this week, I happened to stumble upon a few discrepancies that directly correlate to the often messy intersection of politics and the mass media. What I found was essentially various covers for TIME magazine next to each other, only with different graphics and story placement in the American market versus the rest of the world. While this may not come as a shock to many others, I had never realized the level of difference in various markets. I was aware that magazines sometimes ran various stories in order to tailor their features to the local markets, but unaware of the tremendous variances within the same magazine per regions.

The September 16, 2013 edition of TIME magazine's cover showed a football player mid stride with a headline that read "It's Time To Pay College Athletes". On the same day, the European, Middle Eastern, African, Asian, and South Pacific versions featured a close up shot of a serious looking (when is he not) Vladimir Putin followed by the words "America's weak and waffling, Russia's rich and resurgent". Needless to say, this serves as a stark contrast to the American print version. You can find the story hidden in a corner of TIME's cover with an altered title, "What Putin Wants" in the US version. No mention of America's weakness, no compliments for Putin. When one looks at the various covers, very different thoughts and feelings come to mind. The rest of the world was given a cover with a feature story of international affairs, while we were given something that might be a legitimate issue on its own, but certainly not at a time when we have such development in the Syrian conflict.
Perhaps American's have no tolerance for politics anymore? Perhaps we value are sports stars more than those who set the rules for our futures? Last time I checked, the Super Bowl got quite a bit more coverage than Presidential addresses. Are we that detached from politics that we can't face cold facts, and we merely turn another cheek?  Maybe the news outlets are simply afraid of casting Putin in a favorable light as a large portion of their paying audience lived through the end of the cold war period?

Regardless of the original reasoning for a vastly different cover, the implications are clear to me. The media is not nearly as concerned about sending out a message and disseminating information as they are about turning a profit. I can only assume TIME thought that they would offend their American audience with the international version and therefor loose sales revenue, and so they chose to relegate real news to the back burner in order to protect profits. I don't necessarily mean to condemn any news outlet for making money, rather, I intend to use this as another example of the media as a corporate enterprise rather than a public servant. If they are able to serve the democracy while turning a profit, then they will certainly oblige. But, when it comes down to it, news outlets will sacrifice their role as protectors of the people and mass educators in order to increase their wealth.

Politics and the Public Eye

Gone are the days of separating business from pleasure.  In the past, many politicians have been able to keep their personal life outside of the public eye and for the most part under wraps.  In the technology driven world of today, indiscretions are increasingly prone to exposure and therefor subject to public approval.  Candidates and incumbents alike are being forced to either face the music about past actions, lie and attempt to cover them up, or simply avoid the issue until it is old news.  While politicians and government employees in general are no different than any other group of humans, they do come under a tremendous amount of scrutiny and are often subject to losing either their current job or elections as the public's opinion of their actions weighs into the equation.  But does this really serve democracy?  Should we hire and fire our political leaders based on standards of personal behavior that many civilians or businessmen do not subscribe to?  Is someone who partakes in an extramarital affair still fit to lead, or should they immediately be removed from power?  All of these questions are forced to be addressed when the media brings attention to a politician's actions, shining light on a very relevant topic of the day: Should the media stay out of personal conduct issues, or is it their role as a "watchdog" to alert the public when indiscretions arise?

Perhaps the answer to that question lies in ones own personal opinion and can be traced back to their own moral code.  While some people would quickly condemn affairs and use them to immediately disqualify any elected representative, others would surely say that it does not matter so long as they can govern.  A subscriber to the latter school of thought would surely agree that in a world with so many problems, we should bar competent individuals from setting policy and regulation just for questionable personal conduct.  The former group, of course would contend that personal and professional behavior are inseparable, and if you cannot keep one course on the straight and narrow then you cannot guide the other.  Each of these views have individual merits to stand on.  Each of these views are in direct conflict with one another, and still a matter of debate.  What is not up for debate is the level of influence the media has on citizens, and how its coverage of personal issue can mark a decisive turning point in the careers of those individuals who find themselves caught up in the latest and greatest scandal.

Unfortunately, there is no shortage of affairs in the media lately.  Anthony Weiner serves as a relevant example of media involvement in personal behavior.  After two separate "sexting" scandals, Weiner's bid for mayor seems far fetched.  While the public seemed to forgive him for his original indiscretion, the mood seems to have shifted after the second incident.  As another example of media influence, General David Patraeus resigned from his post as CIA director amid allegations of an extramarital affair during his time in the military.  Despite being celebrated as a dedicated civil servant by "both sides of the aisle", Gen. Patraeus' behavior and the potential fallout from it caused his career to end badly bruised.  A comparison of the outcomes of the Bill Clinton and JFK affairs gives clear incite into the media's role in public opinion.  Whereas both men had affairs while in office, the media chose not to cover Kennedy's affairs, leading to a far different outcome than that of Clinton.  While the verdict is still out on whether or not the media should be involved in questionable personal conduct issues of officials, their influence has been clearly demonstrated when they choose to become involved.

Timing is important, terminology is everything

The topic today is all about words. Often overlooked or taken for granted, words can (and do) play a significant role in the media as well as the political arena. When we peruse our local newspaper at breakfast or read the AP's "10 Things To Know For ________" before bed, we might benefit from pausing  a moment to consider not only what has been written, but also how it was written. Every word has a specific definition, and the selection of one word over another has the potential to influence the audience before a sentence has even been completed. Journalists today must traverse an increasingly thin line between reporting a story, remaining true to their own world views, and remaining politically correct. This often results in selective wording choices which have an effect on the overall story presented, whether intentional or not.

I remember just a few short years ago learning that most of the major news outlets had a "stylebook" that governed the way their writers reported. While this may come as no surprise to the politically involved individual, I recall being quite intrigued after learning this interesting bit of information. I suppose that I had always assumed that contributing writers wrote whatever they felt appropriate and submitted the article to the parent company for editorial corrections. These corrections, at least in my mind, were merely grammatical in nature, and did not alter the content or underlying tone of the work being presented. This of course proved false, as many stories are edited for content and terminology. All the stories that run in news corporation "X" must conform to the rules and regulations laid out in that particular companies stylebook. It is these rules that I find fascinating as they can lead be used to influence the agenda setting functions of the media as well as imparting or preventing bias.

Examples are always helpful for me, so let's illustrate how various terminology can change the way a story reads, and therefore the political thoughts and/or actions that may stem from it. The Associated Press has a strict policy on the term "terrorist", they simply don't use it. They have essentially taken the stance that terrorism is a unique term that is applied by one entity onto another, and only the writers of history make that distinction. Take for example the American Revolutionary War. Do you often think of our country as being founded based on terrorism? I don't. But if definitions are universally upheld, that is precisely what happened. British colonists rebelled from the crown and by the use of force broke away to form what is now the United States of America. If the past 200 years had unravelled differently, it is very possible that British textbooks could have called all Americans terrorists. For this reason, the AP refuses to label groups such as Hezbollah or al-Qaeda "terrorist" groups, relying on other terms such as "militant organizations". It is very easy to see how one's opinion could be biased (whether intentional or not) by a sentence reading "the terrorist group _______ began an offensive in Northeast Africa" as opposed to "the militant group _______ began...".

Additional examples of how terminology may be more important than we initially understand are plentiful. The BBC generally elected to use the term "crime" to report atrocities in Libya and Syria, while simultaneously describing similar events in Egypt as a "tragedy". In both instances the military was used to oppress civilians with resulting loss of life, but the different terminologies elicited different reactions from readers.

All of this is to illustrate a simple point: the terms we use to describe actions, groups, or events can be as important as the actual sentence itself. By various media outlets focusing on stylebook compliance, journalists may be subjected to producing biased articles in way or another. The same can be said about media outlets that do not have stylebooks. Perhaps when we read or listen to stories we should consider what terms are being used, and what alternatives could have been employed in their place.

Syrian Electronic Army Targeting Major Media Outlets

It seems as though a group of hackers known as the Syrian Electronic Army have been targeting major media outlets lately, accessing their servers and altering code for a variety of unspecified reasons. Over the past few months, the group known as SEA or the Syrian Electronic Army Soldiers claimed to have hacked into well known media outlets throughout the UK and US in addition to Columbia University and Human Rights Watch. On Wednesday, August 28, the group was able to infiltrate the powerful media outlet The New York Times homepage for roughly 20 hours and redirect visitors to a virtual coat of arms for the SEA as well as cause other issues. In another cyber assault, the SEA managed to take control of the domain name of Twitter . In a potent example of the effects of the new media outlets, the Syrian Electronic Army used Twitter to claim responsibility for both cyber assaults, while the hacks were first reported by Twitter users accompanied by screenshots of the domain registration changes.  The message was first delivered through Twitter on both accounts, and while the NY Times website was down they used their Twitter account to keep readers updated on the progress. 

It is important to note that while the traditional mainstream media did write reports on the attacks by the SEA, they were first notified and discussed via Twitter. To me this stands as a clear indication of how technology has changed many of our traditional news sources, and in many ways allows consumers to pick and choose what we are exposed to. Twitter is fast rising to the top of the list as a major player in the modern news market, with users following who they find entertaining, intelligent, or simply wrong. The SEA's decision to hack into major news servers shows how quickly politics such as the civil war raging in Syria can overlap into the various agencies who deliver our news, further blurring any lines separating politics from the media outlets that report the issues. 

The Syrian Electronic Army has been utilizing the new media in order to further its political agenda. Through the effective utilization of technology they have managed to alter media outlets messages (at least temporarily) and spread their specific cause and message worldwide through managing their Twitter account. Today, they were able to hack into the US Marine Corps website and display a message warning visitors of consequences to be faced if the US attacked Syria. While this attack did not target a media outlet, it will almost certainly be promulgated through outlets such as Twitter or Facebook. 

For more details see:

http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/new-york-times-hacked-syrian-electronic-army-suspected-8C11016739

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/27/tech/web/new-york-times-website-attack/index.html

http://nation.time.com/2013/09/02/syria-hackers-hit-marines-site/

AJAM- No Longer Just Something That Grows Between Your Toes

America seems to be stuck in a rut when it comes to news. Whether we are complaining about media bias, spin, lack of investigative reporting, or plain old celebrity gossip, there is no shortage of criticisms directed toward the main stream media. But what can be done about it? Has the gnashing of teeth towards the agenda's of MSNBC or FOX News contributed to any significant programming changes? If it has, it is difficult to see, and I must have missed it in between Kim Kardashian's show and the latest from Geraldo Riviera. Perhaps what is needed is a new entrant into the crowded arena of multi million dollar news outlets, a fresh face to stir things up a bit.

One week ago today Al Jazeera America launched a new news outlet on Al Gore's failing Current TV channel. While they already had an Al-Jazeera English outlet, this will be the first to specifically cater to the the American market. With promises like "six minutes of commercials per hour" to start with and in depth news analysis rather than just glossing over important issues then new contender stands poised to make significant ripples in our current news lineup; if America gives it a chance.

Many Americans view Al-Jazeera as a "terrorist" news organization, or sympathetic to the jihad cause at minimum. Based in Doha, Qatar, AJ has had a long history of covering stories from different angles than those traditionally found in Western media coverage, such as airing Bin-Laden speeches. This conjures up deep seated hatred and fear in the hearts of many Americans, whether it is justified or not. For this reason, the future of AJAM is already in jeopardy before it even begins. Maybe the six minutes of commercials are all they could actually contract with vendors? Multiple advertising firms have already said they would not work with AJAM due to its negative image in many households. Although they have deep pockets to sustain their network for quite some time, it will prove interesting to see if AJAM can operate a successful American branch by offering something that the other competitors seem to have forgotten, namely news.

It is still too early to tell what effects AJAM and their preposed offerings will have on other domestic news agencies, but I am excited to see what happens. Maybe it will be the swift kick in the pants to reset the current state of the media, or maybe it will fall on its face and fail miserably only to retreat back to the Middle East. Whatever the outcome, I look forward to a new contender in the world of news agencies, and hope that they are able to follow through with their promise of delivering in depth, fact based news and wish them good luck. They will probably need it.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2013/08/2013820104744903852.html

Introductions and Icebreakers: Let's Get This Thing Going

First things first, welcome to the blog.  I would also like to take a moment to openly state my severe dislike of the word "blog".  I feel as though it automatically reduces the credibility of any information presented in said blog, and to that end I will be referring to this running commentary as an Electronic Information Board, or EIB.

Now that we have the housekeeping notes in order, on to the introduction.  This EIB will be dedicated to random musings on the mass media of today, and how it effects various issues in the political realm.  While it may not be the opening topic of your Saturday night dinner or the quickest way to obtain a date for that upcoming high school reunion, this subject warrants a certain degree of attention in all of our lives.  Whether you are actively involved in politics, just interested in politics, or simply choose to ignore it all, you are still affected by what goes on around you.  For this simple reason it behooves us to remain educated in the the daunting worlds of both domestic and foreign politics.  But how do we stay up to date on such a diverse and dynamic topic?  What sources do we draw on for pertinent information from which to form our own opinions?  These are the questions that introduce the mass media into our equation.

Through this EIB I will post content related to the intersections of mass media and politics; sometimes relevant, sometimes comical, but generally good to know.  I hope that you will enjoy the information gathered for your reading or viewing pleasure, but more importantly I hope that we all learn about the inseparable nature of media and politics.

OH! I promised you and icebreaker.  It's Media!

Enjoy your stay.