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/