oops..

this is the link to the article discussed in my last post.

contradictions..

This article from media matters is really interesting.. and shows just how absurd these media pundits are.. and how they influence voters. First of all, i walked into one of my classes the day after the election, and i overhear one of my classmates sort of sighing and says to one of his friends something like.. yay Americans.. we voted for an Arab president.. a socialist. Now, if class wasnt about to begin, I would have sais something to him.. But this is exactly the kind of thing I thought college students would be able to understand and be informed about. yet, with the media consistently addressing these issues as the truth, some people are bound to finally accept the claims they hear over and over again. Anyways, Fox News had consistently claimed Obama was gonna distribute the wealth, he is a socialist etc.. but now that he is in the office.. he is been running as a "fiscal conservative." Like, they are very opposite, and rediculous that in a two week time, Obama could flip from one to the other.. and still win. Yet, it is on the news.. something people view as credible. Bozell on Fox claimed Obama will never get any left-wing policies done, becasue that isnt the kind of campiagn he ran on... well if he didnt run a left-wing campaign.. and you calimed before he was pushing socialist policies.. what kinda of campiagn did he run on? contradictory.. and i dont like it.

absurd view..

an article in media matters covered The View's discussion of Proposition 8. Elisabeth Hasselbeck saying a Sweden Priest was jailed for not wanting to perform a same-sex marriage. The women on the show were discussing how religious officiant's would be prosecuted for the "discrimination" aspect of not performing the same-sex marriages. But in fact, the court itself made it clear that religious officials would not be punished for their beliefs. Regardless of feelings of amending the Constitution for same-sex or bans etc, what I think it is interesting and important is The View's role as a credible media outlet. For it is no longer looked at as this talk show, with women bantering back and forth about pop culture or relationships, they discuss real issues and it is taken seriously. It is almost viewed like real journalism to many Americans. This Proposition 8 is just one example of the kinds of discussions they have on the show. But the fact that Media Matters is refuting claims and discussing it alongside articles debunking Fox News' false claims really says something about The View's influence in media now. As we have been writing our reflective pieces on the election, we have seen such a huge change in how the media works in terms of influence. People look at The View or The Daily SHow for information and for discussion/analysis. And false claims made on those shows need to be addressed as well, just as in any newscast or credible news report.

Drudge

the Drudge Report may be falling off as the credible, truthful media outlet. According to an article from Media Matters, Drudge has his own efforts in reporting, stating false information, and misrepresentations that benefit his arguments. And maybe Drudge's influence is waning... I dont know, but i think Drudge was such an influencial media, people have looked up to him a areporter, whether or not it is a little biased. But, if he states falsehoods left and right, we cannot trust him and let himinfluence us.

what's next for Palin??

the defeat may not hold back Palin. She was greeted in Alaska with shout-outs of Palin 2012.. even people wearing t-shirts. Now, as much as i would like another historic moment of a woman elected president, I'm not sure Palin is the one to acheive that. In an MSNBC article, a conservative Hoover institute fellow said that we have been looking for Mr. RIght but maybe we need Ms. Right. In my opinion, I think she hurt McCain in the race. He needed a very right-wing running mate, and having a charasmatic woman helped him, but I think her uninformed, inexperience really hurt her and mccain as a president. I'm not trying to say she has no qulaities that would make a good politician, but a president?? i dont know. maybe we'll see her and clinton head to head in 2012..? That only being if Obama doesnt pull through the way we all hope and think he will..

the obama win.. can he deliver?

The night of election day, people were ecstatic. People were screaming in the streets, on the television in all of the cities, and here on IC campus as well. Students care so much about this election, ready for change and really passionate (for the first in a very long time) about a candidate. But now that the day is over and we have a winner, i think we are wondering if Obama will stick to his words. In a MSNBC article out from AP, was saying that the campiagning is over and now Obama is facing the reality. There are tough things ahead. he mentioned this in his speech, that it will be a long road ahead. And we know he hasn't taken office yet, but our minds are filled with "change." Will this country change? Can we? Will Obama be the one to really make this change? As far as th election goes, I feel just our country electing a black president is a sign of change. It is historic and possibly the real start of big change with policies, foreign relations and economy. Obama has a big to-do list ahead of him, and I hope he can maintain the passion from the youth and his supporters, and gain the rest who may not believe in him just yet.

interesting to note..

On c-span, they were showing a debate from mccain from earlier today and he was discussing obama's mass amounts of spending in political ads. Mccain said something like, everytime we see an ad we turn the channel or mute it or something. And to me that is such a rude and awful thing to say. As much as he may not like Obama';s policies or want to hear obama attack him, stating in a speech that he always turns the channel is so rude and makes lose respect for him as a person. Everytime I see mccain he is so aggresive and agitated, and it comes off as a really arrogant and disrespectful person. At least Obama has poise and respect and really calm appearance, even when he needs to be defensive against mccain's attacks. I'm so tired of these attacks and just horrible remarks from both candidates and these campaigns. yay fro tomorrow! and yay for it to be over (though i really did enjoy this class and follwoing this election, thought it is very tiresome. :) )

horserace til the end...

as the last campaigning day comes to an end, poll numbers, fancy maps, and horserace coverage are the highlights. It just seems like the leads and numbers are what will maybe help some undecided voters make up their mind in the last hours. We have heard debates, attack ads, issues, but now its the last leg, where citizens will decide the fate of America. But the media never stops. They are going to push the polls til the last minutes of election day, with who is in the lead and who looks like the winner, even early on in the day. But the thing is, people want that. And as much as I wasnt more issue covering during the campiagn and we saw more horserace than issues, people are really excited about this election. Polls grab people in, especially on election day. So at this point int he election, more covering of the issues will not matter. The campaigns did their part, and we are ready for this election cycle to be finished.

obama commercial

I could only catch the last maybe 10 minutes of Obama's 30-minute commercial. I have to say I was unsure exactly how it would go, but I think the commercial did a good job of connecting people to him. I think from the beginning Obama has been scrutinized for being inexperienced and says a bunch of nothing, so he really tried to show his leadership, especially when citizens came on who were struggling financially etc.. and he was showing how he would help and his strengths in certain areas. As much as Obama has been a popular candidate, I think that with Palin entering this race, she has been the one whos personality is catching people's attention. Her "common man" "outsider" appeal is giving her a lot of attention and possibly swinging votes. And so, From what I saw of the commercial, Obama was trying to use his personality and show he is not the "elitist." I think this commercial was important for Obama becasue in he debates he had always seemed to be on the defensive, as McCain did seem to attack him. And so i think it was imoportant that he could go on and tell us his story, his policies, and how he is qualified to be presidnet, without the interruption of media punditry or mccain attacking him right away. I liked how he brought it back to live in Florida, because Florida is going to be a big state to win in this election. I wish I could have caught the whole thing, but I know it will be posted online somewhere.

public funding.

I have a questions about public funding for candidates' campaigning. I know McCain and Obama both originally decided to use public funding for their campaigns, but Obama withdrew that once he was fundraising much more than the $89 million set aside for him. But now that he is financing on his own, what happens to the $89 million? we were talking about this in one of my other classes, and we all didnt know where it goes. Back to the government to use? Or set aside for a later campaign, I'm unsure. I would like to say it would go back to the fed. government to use for something good, but I dont know. Maybe you would have an answer or idea?

Obama wins!!!...?

The New Mexico Sun News, a bi-monthly newspaper declared Obama the winner in its headline. Since their next edition wouldnt come out until after the election, the editors decided to declare Obama the winner.The editors wrote, “When it comes to calling the winner of a presidential election, everyone wants to be first. The New Mexico Sun News hereby claims that achievement.”
What if Obama loses?? they might feel really stupid then. I dont really get it, I mean I know you want to sell papers and be the first to declare the winner, but when election day is a week away, they are jumping the gun. Even when polls show Obama is leading now, this race will be close and we all know it. The Bradley Effect, events in this next week could all effect the outcome and really we dont know what will happen come November 4. It scares me to see something like this happen, because Obama might not win. And i dont like either getting hopes up and it faling through or the fact that the ending is spoiled.

Mark Finkelstein

I enjoyed our guest today. I think he did a great job of expressing his views on good reporting done in the mainstream media outlets. I think it is always nice to have a different opinion and view in the classroom, a conservative view, even if we all dont agree. One thing, though, that I really was confused about personally, was his comment on Sarah Palin when asked what he thought about her being qualified. He said, "in a pinch" Plain over Biden. And that just strikes me as absurd. "In a pinch" is not something we should be saying about VP qualifications. And then he said he would rather have her inexperience and ignorance/uninformed in the office over Biden who is completely informed has expericen, knows what is going on with the issues, but has made a few mistakes. Are we going to say mistakes are always bad, becasue I'm sure we could go on and discuss mistakes made by every president before going into office. I think I'm just surprised that he would take an unqualified person for office rather than someone who has had years and years of experience.

Obama did vote.

this article from media matters displays another example of false reporting. The Washington Times reported a Sen. Lindsay Graham saying Obama did not vote on a resolution condemning MoveOn.org's "General Betray Us" ad. The article failed to mention that Obama in fact did vote for a separate amendment condemning the ad, one that Graham voted against. This amendment also condemned attacks on any member who served in the armed forces. My question here.. and it always is, why not report the facts? I dont see the point in only giving the small amounts of information, when the truth is so easily available to find out. And it just ruins the credibility of the papers, to an extent. I mean I know some newspapers do lean a certain way, but it when reporting on a candidate, at least give the right information, especially when there is no "gotcha" news here. I mean the story is not very strong, considering Obama did in fact vote for an amendment condemning the ad as well as any other attacks on Us Armed Forces. An amenment Graham did not vote for.. Now maybe that should be the story.

race: a factor.

This article from media matters is interesting because it addresses the race issue, though a little different than some of the videos we've seen from the mccain/palin side. Guest on Bill Cunningham's show Rev. Jesse Jackson Peterson spoke about how black people are racist, siting the example of Colin Powell who must have simply endorsed Obama simply because he is black. And that may have had something to do with his endorsement, but why does that always have to be the major focus. Couldn't Powell have seen, from the inside, the republican candidacy and perhaps think we need a democrat to change it? I mean it doesnt have to be becasue of race. Peterson goes on to discuss how Obama will make America a socialist country and that's all that blacks want: to rely on the government becasue they dont want to work. Generalization a little?? Sure he said most, not all.. most, but still that is pretty harsh, because I know there are a lot of white people who wont get up off their lazy bums. And then Peterson talks about abortion and how Obama and Powell support abortion. I dont really want to get into that too much here, but it reminds me of the debate when Mccain kept using the word "pro-abortion." now i dont know one person who is pro-abortion. Pro-choice, a womens' right to choose etc. I know race is inevitably going to be a factor in this election, but can someone choose a candidate for issues over race, or dislike a candidate over issues rather than race. Its heartbreaking to see the videos we saw in class, the hatred. I guess America hasnt come as far as we all thought.

leaving out info.

an article from media matters claims that the Wall Street Journal left out information when claiming that ACORN submitted false voter registrations. The article failed to leave out the fact that in 9 of the 11 states mentioned in the article, had to submit ALL forms received, even if they looked false or duplicate. So really, how can they accuse an organization without displaying all the facts. It's like they left out information in order to have an argument and an article. When in reality, the claims cannot really be made since it was a requirement to send all forms received. It just seems that a well-known, credible paper would write responsibly and tell all information, especially when citing accusations of organization like ACORN doing something bad. Shouldn't the journalists be telling all of the information? isnt that their job?

decision 08 myspace.

the myspace for msnbc Decision '08.. a place where everyday americans can post their feelings about support for candidates.. a lot about opening debates to third parties, and bashing people for their support. But really.. how effective are these kinds of sites? do they really matter? will they change anything? I think it's good to have a myspace for people to discuss issues, but they dont discuss issues. People just rant about silly things, bash other comments and really dont make a difference. Maybe its becasue I look at it, and know they are not credible sources. These people are just saying how they feel, with nothing really to back it up. I dont know, but i think its all on the same line as facebooks for candidates. Sure, they can have so many friends in hopes of keeping people interested, but does it really work? Will the voters numbers increase this election? We will have to see..

failing to report it all..

This article from media matters states that the CBS Evening News, Fox news the LiveDesk, and Politico all noted Cindy McCain's attack on Obama stating that he did not vote for more funding for troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. She commented that he didnt vote for mroe funding while her son was serving over there. However, all of these news station failed to provide the fact that John Mccain did not vote for more funding either. Although the candidates voted against the funding for different reasons, Obama for the lack of timetable for troops, and mccain for the troop withdrawl within the bill, either way, both are "guilty" of not wanting more funding for the troops.

As journalists, we are supposed to report the truths of what we know, and cannot be biased. yes, Cindy mccain did not bring up the fact that he husband didnt vote to fund her son, but that isnt her job, she is trying to get her husband elected. Journalists, however, are supposed to report all of the information, as balanced and objective as they can. Whether they meet this or not, if information is known, they should report on it. And find out more information through investigating. News organizations cant just report on what they hear from cindy mccain, without telling both sides and balancing the story. cindy's response is not the news aspect of the story, the news aspect is reporting that both candidates have voted against the funding bill.. and why.

they did say something...

MSNBC did call out mccain in his associations.. just as everyone has been calling out Obama's with Bill Ayers.. They said mccain was a board member with bouscaren who was an activist for white supremacy, and mccain got endorsements recently from the widow of Annanburg, the man who created the project ayers and obama served for. See... obama isnt the only one who has associations.. and quite frankly who isnt in politics associated with someone that is not perfect and can be thrown in their face. Not every politician is completly clean of everything.. they are human and things that do happen in the past may not even be relevant today. And i think its ok to bring them up, but dont be one sided about it. I'm glad MSNBC did focus on some mccain associations, cuz all we have been hearing about is Obama.. whether or not i side either way, if they bring it, tell it about both candidates.

oops..

I said Michael Ayers.. and well.. that was totally a mistake.. i dont know what i was thinking when i wrote that.. and so. i correct myself.. and say.. William Ayers.. :)

failing to tell all..

A Media Matters article spills about the fact that Obama is getting all sorts of coverage about his associations with Michael Ayers, yet fails to mention McCain's "own Bill Ayers"--G. Gorden Liddy, who was a convicted Watergate burglar. Now isnt that bizarre? I mean if Obama needs to face the up to questions about his relationship with AYers, shouldnt McCain? I mean we could get into the whole dispute about the relativity of Ayers to Obama and how long ago etc., but I think Liddy is a pretty important factor as well. Watergate was a huge issue and to be associated with one of the burglars in it.. is pretty big news and should be addressed. yet it wasnt even mentioned! I had no idea, and not that it changes my mind at all as a viewer, voter etc, if Obama is accused of his relationships, why isnt McCain??

the Vp debate.

i think the VP debate was much better than the first presidential debate. i think that both candidates did pretty well. The questions were good and it did open them up for discussion. I was not all that impressed with Palin. yes, as the coverage afterwords said, she did well and didnt fall on gher face, which was good. Except, that bothers me. I mean, when the expectations were nothing, how could she not fulfill that. She was really shaky at first and I thought she was going to be a lot worse, however, she wasnt all that great. She went around the questions frequently, almsot having her own agenda and talking points. And maybe it was becasue she didnt know how to answer the questions or just wanted to make the same campiagn points. Either way, it was bothersome and I really was not too impressed.

Biden, on the other hand, i thought was amazing. I had never really heard him. he was over-shadowed by the Palin buzz, but i was completly impressed. He not only answered all of the questions qith complete, full, statistical and realistic responses, but had a conversational appeal and really just impressed me. He is sop smart and has all the experience to balance Obama out. I really liked when they were talking about Healthcare and palin was going on about her and mccain's healthcare plan and giving the American people back $5,000 rather than raising taxes as she says Obama will do. When Biden responded by explaining how they are goingt o fund the $5,000 to everyone and taxing the healthcare pofessionals, he said at the end..."Now that's a bridge to nowhere." That was just like ZINGGG. haha. He said a few things like that, and it made an impression.

Overall, i think it was an easier debate to understand. The pres. debate went into the nitty gritty of all the war and what happened, what shoulda and coulda. And i think they need to focus on more of now and future. I'm looking forward to the next debate.

getting what they want..

when we discuss mainstream media and how they give the audience what they want to see in order to raise ratings etc., I always end up saying, the mainstream media presents what they want to see. Most people I know want to hear issues and good discussions on the true facts etc. But, instead we are given horserace coverage, or what Sarah Palin is wearing.

But this MSNBC article really discusses what people are searching to see in the election. And I'm not really sure if it surprised me, but i thin it was a little disappointing. I mean most searches were for Sarah Palin, including one of her legs and bikini. And to me, it just doesnt seem right. Here we are, as students, pushing to get more information, hoping we are right in the fact that mainstream media is just trying to get higher ratings, that even though people do want issues discussed, more hard news and investigative journalism, mainstream just does what it wants. However, this article sort of confirms the fact that audiences are are not all that into issues of the politicians, or aggressively trying to seek accurate information on them.

mccain's campaign suspension... or so he said.

Media Matters for America has documented that McCain asserted he would suspend his presidential campaigning in response to the financial crisis. However, campaigning activities still went on in the mccain camp, including interviews and ads.

For some reason that just bothers me. I feel McCain just wanted to boost his campaign by showing his concern for the country. But "suspending" his campaign really meant, telling people he was more concerned about the financial crisis in America than his presidential campaign. However, in not actually suspending campiagning, and just saying that ticks me off. Not that I don't think it might have been a good idea to suspend campaign or not, or whether I though they should postpone the debate or not, he shouldnt have said something and done the complete opposite. (And I know politicians do that a lot, but still!)

I feel Obama did take a stand and say the U.S. people need to hear from us at the debates. And for that i do give an applause, because he was in a tight spot there. He had concern for the country, but was caught in the mccain tactics. I'm glad these independent organizations are catching these false claims. I mean, one article from media matters discussed CBS'S Face the Nation's assertion that McCain suspended his campaign, ignoring all the evidence that shows he actually didnt suspend his campaign.

polling for debate.

polling voters on the debate..

i think it's interesting that we can actually vote to postpone the debate. and right now im really back and forth on this issue myself. I mean i think thatthe financial crisis needs to be dealt with, and there is no doubt about that. But will stopping the campaigns really make that much of a difference? Obama and Mccain at the white house wont really be that effective on the situation. sure they can weigh in and discuss, but i think that the people need to hear from the candidates as soon as possible. we need to find out how they will help us. i mean, maybe instead of discussing foreign policy at the debate, cant they discuss the crisis? Maybe how they can handle it, what they can put into place to adjust markets, banks etc. I dont think this could happen, but i think we should still hear from our soon-to-be president.

And maybe it is a good idea to see what the voters think.. tho its not accurate, wont make any difference, but its interesting to see how the citizens feel about the importance of a debate at this time..

higher expectations??...

In an article from Media Matters about the upcoming debates, .. states this:

"This week, Media Matters has identified at least one instance in which the media asserted that expectations for Sen. Barack Obama are higher than for Sen. John McCain, with Politico's Eamon Javers saying that a 'stumble[]' by Obama 'could be a real disaster for the Obama camp.'"

So if Obama stumbles his words that would be worse for him than if mccain stuumbles his words? have we just got used to mccain stumbling words.. is that okay?? i dont think so. i dont think we should be used to our president stumbling or expect it to happen abd be ok with it..

Now what I dont understand is why Obama has higher expectations. I mean he is a better speaker, that for one is something people expect in debates and whenever they see him. But throughout this campaign people have been attacking him saying he doesnt have the experience that McCain has. So shouldnt we have higher expectations for McCAin? According to these remarks about Obama's lack of experience and knowledge on foreign policy etc.. shouldnt we expect mccain to come out stronger when discussing issues, especially this upcoming debate on foreign policy?

In actuality, we should hold both candidates at an equal expectation. I mean, they are both naminated to run and lead our country, in the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. There is support for both candidates as to what looks like a really close election, so why are there different expectations?

negative ads... all the fuss

jamison foser from media matters wrote a great article on negative campaign ads. Since candidates would never come out and say the negative aspects of their policies, and as we've seen the medai wont do that either, as voters we must rely on neagive ads as a source to be informed. And from watching, look into the issues further to find out if the ads are true. I mean, there are negative ads that have delivered false claims and I would never say they are a good thing to have, but as voters, we must look deeper into the issues presented. As we know the media has not done a very good job of telling us which ads are true or which are full of bologna, and so the negative ads can potentially cause more harm then they should. Ignorant voters may not realize the false claims, or challenge anything the ads say, basically accepting the information in all ads. Now, i must say that i really dislike the fact that the media never says anything about the false claims in ads..in fact i feel it is their job as journalists to tell voters the truth. And Foser goes on in the article about the amount of negative ads in the campaigns etc., and i dont feel the amount is so bad, i think its more about the content. An ad can be negative about an opposing candidate, as long as the facts are true. If not, a candidate should not make false claims, as they know many voters will not take the time to look further and the media will not do its job in telling voters when ads are false. It's so horrible that the media will simply go along with the material given as fact, and polling the "negative" ads as one big group, when in facgt there are negative ads with true information, and there are ads with false information. The media should tell us the difference. Foser says this, and i completly agree and it makes so much sense:"Lumping all negative statements together as "slinging mud," without differentiating between true claims and false (or fair and unfair) doesn't inform viewers; it is a false equivalence that serves only to advantage truly dishonorable attacks by making them appear no worse than run-of-the-mill factual criticism."

machille obama angry?

coverage of michelle obama looking angry...

is that important to this election? should it be top news coverage on Fox? its on the same line as talking about the suit colors of Hillary Clinton. pertinent to the campaign? i think not. i think it has no news value at all especially to be covered by a news organization. People magazine.. okay i think we can all deal with that. but fox news??

josh Marshall Speech

I do want to thank you for the Independent media symposium and bringing Josh Marshall to Ithaca. It really was a pleasure listening to him and hearing his story of his now-business. it's so exciting and refreshing to hear journalists actually working on investigative journalism, not under corporate ownership, and actually making something of themselves. As much as it was a long process for him to get to where he is, it is so inspirational to know that do have an outlet for journalism jobs within independent media as well as an outlet to get information that explores the issues, critically analyzes false claims and assertions, and brings a new light to a lot of the issues happening in politics today.

npr not noting distortions

why are pretty reliable sources not stating falsehoods? I understand the FoxNews and MSNBC partisanships and biases. And not that I think they are good etc., but we accept them for what they are. At least at this point, we know the swing they have to one side or another, and as much as I dont think news media should angle a story a certain way, npr as a means of information seems to be a more credible option to get a balanced--or somewhat more balanced information. But, in reading articles like this, we see that they are not telling the accuracies of the information. As in the Wash. Post article that printed the assertions without telling the falsehoods in them, even when knowing the truth. It's absurd. And I am glad that we have organizations like that of media matters to tell us the truths and actual news of the day. How can you be a journalist and give false information. The comments from Obama in McCain's ad were distorted and taken out of context. It is the job of a journalist to point out the falsehoods, and we hardly ever see that happening.

attacking apple pie.

So when attacking her, we are attacking motherhood? apple pie? good in america?

does that have anything to do with her policies?? Cant we discuss her political views? And why is that an attack on motherhood. Cuz i mean if we are going to talk about motherhood, there may be a whole lot more to attack her on.

But.. the question was asked if Palin appealing to women and blue-collar voters? And Feehery is appealing to them, but why? Like she is a woman and she has been bringing in a lot of appeal, but it was just.. i dunno.. i disagree??

mccain ad.. media matters

Well, we do know the McCain ad claiming Obama wants sex education for kindergardeners is false, why would an organization as pretty reliable as Washington Post claim a false assertion about the ad, even though they know it is false? That just makes them look unreliable and people will get more skeptical. I mean, we saw the ad in class, we know how rediculous it was and how if you were informed even a little bit, you would know how false it is. I don't understand why they would continue to print something they know is false..

But then again, I'm glad we are talking about some issues here. The ad and the content at least.

also..

I'm also just going to let you know that I don't have cable yet, so for now most of my news watching is online. I think we are getting it this week.. hopefully.

first post

Hi. This is my first blog post. Took me a little to start this. I had a blog, and couldn't remember the password etc. But I'm here, and ready to blog about.. MSNBC.

So i pull up the MSNBC politics page online, and one of the top stories on the front is..."Palin though Tina Fey was funny on SNL."
-That's entertainment, and it was I guess in the entertainment section once you clicked on the link. BUt still, a top story.. really?? As much as Tina Fey might be funny, and I do think it is a comical depiction of women in politics etc, I think it just adds to all of our thought on the coverage we have. I mean there are no issues getting covered on a lot of the mainstream media stuff. And this is just rediculous.. for news anyways. US Weekly.. they can cover it. I dont know. It just seems out of place for a entertainment article.