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.