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??