Media, Money and Politics
We discussed this topic a bit in class, but I said that I would post a blog topic too, so here goes: do you think that stories end up being covered in traditional media (newspapers, radio, television) due to the political persuasions of reporters and editors, or due to economic considerations, or due to a combination of both? What evidence do you have to back up your conclusions?
posted by Crosby | 11:29 PM
23 Comments:
First post! I'm not really that sure about this one. Its really hard to know if people are persuading opinions or newscasts to take certain views. However i do think some of this does go on. Fox news sometimes does stories that are a little biased toward other views. But other newscasts probably do that too you just don't hear about them as much. Also there are certain news networks that are more dedicated to the truth than others.
I think that a combination of political persuasions and economic considerations cause certain stories to become national sensations and others to simply fade away. For example Obama wants to create a “National Citizen Service Corp” which would “• Expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots and double the size of the Peace Corps.” I don’t think Americas want nor need hundreds of thousands of people helping their communities. I personally don’t think my community needs government workers to come in and help with anything and another thing this all will be paid for by taxes. Also, what “help” are these people going to be doing? Last, community service is a punishment used on people who commit misdemeanors and minors who commit crime. So why is a punishment becoming mandatory? “Obama and Biden believe that middle and high school students should be expected to engage in community service for 50 hours annually during the school year or summer months.” The point I’m trying to make with all this is that the media doesn’t ask any of these questions. It seems obvious that the media is supportive of Obama and most of their viewers are too, with the exception of Fox News and a few others. News networks that ask in-depth questions tend not to do so well in ratings compared to networks that run pointless human interest stories and therefore most simply don’t ask them.
Here’s the source of my
Info:
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/NationalServicePlanFactSheet.pdf
@zivenc2012 - Did you know that AHS used to have a service graduation requirement? I'm wondering how you would feel about that.
As far as Ms. Crosby's original post, according to this study, newspapers don't slant their stories so much based on the reporter's or the owner's political persuasions, but based on their readers'. In other words, they give their readers what they want in order to sell more newspapers.
Karl,
No, I did not know that Arapahoe had a community service requirement and I don’t think it was too popular seeing how it is no longer in use. I think that people improve their communities on there own and forcing them to improve their community doesn’t work too well. If a community is in good shape it doesn’t need a community service program and if the community is in bad shape then a community service program won’t fix it alone and may not make any real difference.
The readers basically dictate the stories that are to be run. If the readers did not, then article would have no public intrest and this would cause the writer and company that produced the article to go out of business.
@zivenc2012 - Actually, feelings were pretty mixed. Some people were very happy to see it go, others were very disappointed. Periodically there is talk of bringing it back.
If community service alone won't fix a community that's "in bad shape," what does it take to fix such a community? Or is there no way to fix bad communities?
How do you define a "bad" community? Is Littleton/Centennial a good or bad community? How about Highlands Ranch? Aurora? Mapleton? Denver? Would everyone agree? If they disagree, who decides?
@austind2012 - that's a very "market-based" approach to this. Do you think that's always true, or is it possible that media can be subsidized by someone with an agenda?
What are your thoughts about the "media elite" we keep hearing about in political campaigns (ironically enough, we hear via the media)? If the readers dictate the stories, then the media elite aren't really "elite" - the readers must generally approve of the media. Is that what you think?
@treyjb2012 - I missed this line the first time around, "Also there are certain news networks that are more dedicated to the truth than others."
Interesting. Which ones? On what basis did you make that determination?
Well lets just say Madtv and the Onion are far less dedicated to the truth than say CNN. Thats what I'm talking about. Its not like i did a bunch of research or anything i just used common sense.
I'm not sure most folks would count Madtv and The Onion as "news networks" . . . :-)
But, even if you do, some people would say that sometimes they get closer to the truth than MSM (mainstream media) . . .
=] No I agree with that and sometimes they are. They sometimes analyze things in ways that the main stream media does not. Since they try to find the faults with everything they are often more truthful than others. I see your point.
Karl,
I think that if a community is in bad shape it’s because of the people in the community. If one wants to improve a community he should make local companies raises wages or he should improve the local education system. I don’t think that making high school kids pick up trash after school is going to do any major improvement. Of course if the people still don’t change and take individual initiative in their communities then I guess there isn’t anything anyone can do.
For every community there is a different definition which depends on how poor or uneducated people are. If the people aren’t educated past high school on average then I don’t think you can hold them to the same standards as people who are. I don’t know statistics for Littleton or Centennial or Highlands Ranch or Aurora or Mapleton or Denver so I can’t answer that. Its highly doubtful there would be universal agreement on any subject so no, not everyone would agree. I think that the facts decide.
Ziven, what about community service, like volunteering in a Hospital, or helping out in a church daycare center, it might not make a big difference statistics- wise , but it might make a difference on a personal level.
@kailynw - Your point is echoed by the starfish story.
@ziven - I think picking up trash is too narrow a definition of community service.
I'm curious as how you'd "make local companies raise wages."
I'd also be interested to hear more on your thoughts about people being held to different standards based on their socioeconomic status and/or level of educational attainment.
I would standardize wages for an area and set employment quotas so that everyone can live a decent life and that everyone who can work will be employed.
Well it’s not like one can hold a Harvard graduate that lives in the suburbs to the same standards as a High School dropout living in the inner city slums as far as excepted achievement goes.
@ziven - That sound a lot like communism, or perhaps socialism. I'm always unclear on the finer points of those two, better ask Crosby. Is that your preferred form of government?
But isn't the "American Dream" basically built on the concept that everyone has the same chance at success, but also that everyone has to earn it? (No concepts like royalty or inherited privilege, at least theoretically.) And aren't schools under No Child Left Behind pretty much held to the standard that all kids can achieve, no matter their socioeconomic status of their parents education level?
Karl,
I prefer a national conservative government or a socially conservative but socialist government, in other words, I prefer a government that either will be beneficial to the people or will not get involved. However, I strongly disagree with modern American liberals and socialists on issues such as illegal immigration and abortion rights. However, this does not mean I can’t support a strong and positive central government.
If the “American Dream” is built upon the ideal that everyone has the same chance at success, then I think it has failed. I guess, but the No Child Left behind Act is widely touted as a colossal failure.
@ziven - I'm thinking if you're setting wages and quotas, that's not going to be a conservative government (at least as we currently define it). And a government that doesn't get involved is more libertarian, but then you run into trouble on the abortion issue (and I imagine quite a few others). I'm thinking you're going to have to go with a socialist government with conservative social values.
NCLB may be widely touted as a failure by many folks, but many conservatives would disagree (or would lay the blame on places other than the law). In either case, it is still the law of the land. And while the American Dream may not be as successful as we'd all like, don't you think a majority of Americans would still profess to believe in it?
As far as supporting a "strong and positive central government," what do you do when the folks in charge of that government disagree strongly with your views. Do you still support it? And how does that match up with our Constitution, and the very strong wishes of the framers for distributed power?
Interesting comments. Regarding communism and socialism, neither are forms of government - they are ways of organizing an economy. The government that fits with theoretical Marxist communism is no government at all because Marx viewed government as an instrument of oppression. The government that fits with Soviet-style communism is a totalitarian government which controls all aspects of life - social and economic. The government that fits with socialism (think Sweden here) is democratic republicanism because the people are in charge. Thus socialists and capitalists elect their leaders, but economic decisions are more centrally directed in a socialist economy. That is why many people are calling the proposed "bailout" of the U.S. financial system a move toward socialism - because elected representatives appear to be seizing more economic power for the government.
zivenc - you wrote: "I prefer a government that either will be beneficial to the people or will not get involved. However, I strongly disagree with modern American liberals and socialists on issues such as illegal immigration and abortion rights. However, this does not mean I can’t support a strong and positive central government."
So - would you still favor a strong central government with broad, unchecked power if the people in charge of that government were liberals or socialists? Remember what I asked you all to think about in class the other day: when advocating for broad powers to be given to the government, are you o.k. with those powers being in place regardless of who is in charge of the government?
Sorry for the confusion with economic systems and forms of government - this is why I don't teach social studies. I'm still thinking that "democratic republicanism" like in Sweden, with conservative social values, is perhaps closest to what Ziven is advocating for (but could be wrong about that).
Ms. Crosby's last comment said much better what I was trying to say in the last paragraph of my previous comment: "So - would you still favor a strong central government with broad, unchecked power if the people in charge of that government were liberals or socialists? Remember what I asked you all to think about in class the other day: when advocating for broad powers to be given to the government, are you o.k. with those powers being in place regardless of who is in charge of the government?" Yeah, that's what I meant.
Karl,
I think that many Americans want to believe in the American Dream but as the rich get richer and the poor get poorer it becomes harder to believe.
I think that the government should put the health and welfare of the people first so if the government fundamentally follows that then I won’t have a problem. What I meant by central government is the Federal government such as Congress, Supreme Court, President, ECT. I did not mean a dictatorship of the President.
Crosby,
No I would not support a large powerful government that is Marxist. Most Liberals and socialist are Marxists and I strongly disagree with Marxism. No I am not ok with anyone in charge of government having broad powers. If a communist or dictator came into power than those broad powers could be used against the people. With great power comes with great responsibility.
Post a Comment
<< Home