60 Minutes Interviews Obama

Tonight President Obama gave what willl reportedly be his only interview on Osama bin Laden's death to "60 Minutes." After the first half of the interview, which dealt largely with the feelings surrounding the days leading up to the operation that ended in the killing of America's most infamous enemy, a few probing questions arose.

The first of these questions asked why Obama chose not tell Pakistan about the operation. President Obama answered that secrecy was vital to the success of the mission to which the interviewer responded "So you don't trust them."

Obama was also asked what this means for the United States going forward. His answer was that we are gearing up to take our troops out of Iraq, but our job isn't finished.

Not the most probing interview I've ever seen, possibly because it comes so soon after the operation and becuase even the media recognizes this proud moment for America.

Osama: Good for Obama.

In other bin Laden news....
 Bin Laden gives Obama 11-point approval bump

Bin Laden's Dead. Who Wants To See Pics??

There have been many debates surrounding the recent mission resulting in bin Laden's death: Does this mean the U.S. was successful or not? Is it wrong to celebrate the death of a human being, no matter who? Was the mission legal? Is Pakistan our ally or foe? Today a new debate surfaced, this time, about President Obama's decision not to release the pictures of bin Laden's body. CBS discusses both sides of the issue in their article "Many in Congress happy bin laden's photos won't be released".

No doubt the release of the pictures would create a media frenzy, sparking yet another debate often had surrounding war coverage about whether or not images of death and conflict have a desensitizing or a humanizing effect on civilians. Personally, I think the death of bin Laden in and of itself is empowering enough for the American people. As Michigan congressman Mike Rogers said, "There's no gain by doing it. The conspiracy theorists aren't going to be believe the photos...they're going to be doubting Thomases forever."

House Passes Budget Plan

The GOP recently succeed in pushing their 2012 RSC budget plan, which is estimated to cut anywhere between 3.5 trillion and 6 trillion (news sources vary) over the next ten to twelve years. During my skimming of the news on this latest GOP success, I noticed that that different news papers chose to include different details in their titles.

The New York Times:    "House Passes GOP Budget Budget Plan with no Democratic Votes"
The Wallstreet Journal: "House Passes GOP Budget Plan"
The Associated Press:   "House Passes GOP Budget Plan Cutting 6.2T from Obama Budget, Promising Medicare Overhaul"

While all of the details are factual, the titles frame the issue in a specific way so that while reading the articles, the reader is focused on some issues over another. Is it bias, or simply an angle? The Wallstreet Journal seems to have the most accurate and least biased title out of these three papers. Maybe in the newspaper article titling business, less is more.

Obama v. Oprah

This weekend, during a precious hour of free time, I was reading through GQ magazine and I came across an interview with Andrew Breitbart, prior editor of "The Drudge Report" and current head of right-wing news aggregate website "breaitbart.com." According to Breitbart "The media is dominated by the academic Marxist crowd's worldview  [I know; I didn't know this either . You learn something everyday]". Accordingly, Breitbart's mission is "To expose the counternarrative that has been hidden by those controlling the reins of popular culture." I am intersting to find out what this "counternarrative" is ( I tried by visitng breitbart.com; it was extremely unhelpful) but I am even more intersted in what Breitbart says about culture. He argues that

"The right has focused its energy on the political process and shrugged off culture. But culture is everything  in this country."

There seems to be a kernel of truth in Breitbart's web of extreme (and mostly unclear) statements. Culture occupies a salient position in our society, and its power is often weilded through the media. Social networking sites, in addition to allowing us to make more "friends" than we ever thought possible, allows us to share music and videos--much of which can be found on youtube. Politicians are already tapping into this media. Obama's "Yes We Can" video is full of popular music and popular musicians and actors. This phenomenon of combining media with culture is not new; we've seen campagain ads from past elections featuring famous people throwing in their weight with one candidate or another. However, in a political enviornment in which the use of new media is already recognized as essential for awareness, fund-rasing, advocacy,  and rallying, the power of culture when linked with the media for political purposes may be even more potent.

Who knows? Maybe Andrew Breitbart will come out with his own beautiful and inspiring popular-culture oriented video in order to demonstrate this phenomenon...and reveal his mysterious "counternarrative."

Stewart and Baier on Quality News

In an interview with Bret Baier, John Stewart joins many others in bashing Fox News:

The Daily Show - Bret Baier
Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Both Stewart and Baier make some interesting points about the Fox News phenomenon(although it's an interesting dynamic between the two since Baier is geuninely trying to defend his show and Fox News, and Stweart is hosting a political satire show), there is one part of the interview that is particularly interesting. Baier argues that there is a news segment of Fox and an opinion segment of Fox, and that the distinction can be clearly perceived. Stewart strongly disagrees, and then says, "I wasn't aware that quality and ratings were the same." Clearly the two are not the same, and Baier's use of Fox's top ratings as a defense against accusations of extreme bias is flawed in some major ways. However, this idea brings up an interesting question: do liberals, and perhaps the segments of the media that are liberal, operate on the assumption the average American citizen cannot tell the difference between news and opinion (Stewart praises the New York Times for clearly labeling which sections are which) while conservatives, and especailly Fox News, believe that Americans are perfectly capable of deciding for themselves what is news and what is opinion?

The answer to the question of whether or not the average citizen is capable of discerning what is news and what is editorial could have some important implications for the media--is it necessary to specify? If there is no articulated distinction, will the actual line between the two itself blur?

Media Impresses with Libya Coverage

For a change, the media has been doing an impressive job of covering the recent war in Libya. Today alone I have already seen eleven different headlines about Libya, covering everything from African crticism of the air strike to Obama's decision to take action without Congressional approval.

I believe the media's constant coverage of the situation is extremely important for our country. America has been involved in several wars since Vietnam, yet due to our volunteer based army and the absence of violence on our homeland, we do not feel it. It is easy to forget that we have been in Iraq for more than seven years now. The media coverage of Libya has brought the nation's attention to the fact that America has now entered another war. Also, the broad variety of covergae which reports not only on the events of the war, but criticisms and positive remarks as well allows for a more informed national conversation. It remains to be seen how long the attention will last.

That being said, I do believe the media is falling short in one particular area. We have discussed the media's consistent failure to ask the right questions. In the case of Libya, the political objectives of the war are extremely ambigious. It's possible that politicans are keeping it this way on purpose, and also possible that the political objectives are difficult to articulate since the war is multilateral operation. If only there was some institution to ask these questions...

Texas Teen Starts New Political Party

Today MSNBC aired a about a teenaged boy from Texas who started his own political party called "United Party":

Check out this great MSN video: Fed up teen starts own political party

While its amazing that this boy has decided to take political action at such a young and the coverage is good for publicity for him and his new party, it seems to me that the story is almost a human interest story, focused less on the possibly legitimate issues the boy takes with our current bi-partisan system, and more on the novelty of the action.

"....Serious. Like BBC Serious."

According to a recent piece published on the Time blog site called "Clinton Applauds Al-Jazeera, Rolls Eyes at US Media," Hilary Clinton praised Al-Jazeera for bringing real news to the globe while America's media is focused on soft-news stories about "dogs and kittens and who is or is not attending the wedding of effete silver-spooned royals". The article notes that during the peak of the protests of Egypt, a huge number of Americans tuned into Al-Jazeera to learn more about the situation, possibly indicating their respect the station receives from Americans, who could turn to other, American news sources. The article also reads, "Sure, Al-Jazeera has the luxury of being serious (its funded by Qatar's petrodollars), but its a seriousness that is catching on and winning respect."

Hmm...is there a lesson here for American news sources? Maybe the public, when it recognizes that something real and big and potentially world-changing is happening not only respects serious news, but seeks it.

A Cure For the Cynics

Marvin Kalb presents us with a story-like and engaging analysis of the factors that have contributed to the rise of the “New News”; namely,­­­­ technology and a disproportionate focus on profit. Kalb’s empirical evidence presents a depiction of the modern world of the fast-paced, corporatized, hollywoodized, money-making news media in a way that is hard to argue with. Kalb ends with a doom and gloom evaluation of our press: the age of a truth-seeking media that serves the American people is over. Woodward and Bernstein, and maybe Isikoff, were the last of the greats.

I disagree with Kalb’s assessment of the American press. It’s true we live in a world where new articles are published every hour; where news is a business just like BP or Coca Cola that must sell, sell, sell. While headlines become shorter, investigative journalists become fewer. The people don’t trust the politicians, nor do they trust the press as its cynicism ceases to temper our idealism, and now overtakes it. But does it have to be this way? I reject the notion that the press has inherent to it any responsibility (to the public or anyone else) outside of that which it defines for itself. However, the press has the great potential (and burden should it choose to bear it) to be a tool for democracy; one of the institutions that holds society and government accountable. I would argue that as a business, realizing its potential and thereby reaching its ultimate market value, should really be the primary goal of the press. “Objectivity” may be an unattainable ideal, and “truth” a difficult concept, but what is America if not unwaveringly idealistic? If the news media would try once more to be the watchdog, it may find that the public will be more than happy to consume its product.

Of course, it’s always nice to wax philosophical, to talk about what journalism should be or could be if it only had the will, but honestly, it means little if it cannot be put into practice. If it indeed cannot be put into practice, then Kalb’s damning assessment is correct. However, the very technological advances that have pushed, if not wholly caused, the press to become what it is today, could actually be used to resurrect the investigative journalism of old; to wake the Woodwards and Bernsteins that lie dormant. I call it: Compartmentalization. The idea that all journalism must be hard-hitting, investigative, and objective is a bit, well, ridiculous. We already acknowledge that there is hard-news and soft-news. There can also be serious journalism and less serious journalism. While the websites promote the latest scandals, the newspapers can do the real reporting. While Twitter and phone applications boast the shortest headlines and the most sensationalism, “The Wallstreet Journal” and “The New York Times” can provide us with the details. Instead of every single news medium trying to be both gossip and investigator, they should pick one and do it well. That is not to say they cannot engagein other types of news, but the idea is for the gap between what media says it is, and what it actually is, to decrease. Isn’t it just common sense, after all, that it is better to be great at one thing, than mediocre at several?

Kalb has provided us with what seems like a description of the cause and an accurate understanding of the diagnosis of the disease that plagues the American press, but he also condemned it to death. Unlike Kalb, I believe there is a cure that we should be working hard to find, and none more so than the press itself.

Storage, the Subway, and A Little Bit of Politics

I take the 3 train every morning, and today I noticed an interesting advertisement:

This is a hilaroius ad that really says alot about the perception of the political environment in New York City. That perception: Liberal.

We have all seen political advertisements in the form of campaign ads, etc., but how do advertisements like this one that do not have a specifically political goal fit into the media and politics landscape? Do they fit in at all?

John Stossel and Ron Paul give a small demonstration on how to interest high school students in politics.

A friend of mine recently traveled to a Fox News Studio to watch a live taping of "Stossel," the politically themed show hosted by libertarian John Stossel. My friend asked a question and therefore was on television, and I, being a good friend, recorded the show and just recently watched it. I noticed two interesting things:

1)The show, although taped at the studio, had a special audience comprised of high school students. Clearly a purposeful move, although I'm not sure aimed at what. Perhaps at trying to engage the youth who will soon be voting in the presidential election? Perhaps just trying to show that they care about the youth, even if they go to a public school in Queens? Either way, it is interesting that the media uses not only the actual content of its shows to make political statements, but also the setting and the audience. Additionally, I was told that before the taping of the show, Mr. Stossel told all the high schoolers in the front row that they had to ask a question, because otherwise it would look like they weren't interested. Let's be honest, they probably weren't.

2) Stossel's guest was Ron Paul, who spoke about his idea for a plan in which citizens would be able to opt out of certain taxes. One high schooler asked how this would plan would effect scholarships for lower income children who wish to go to college. Ron Paul replied by saying that these children need to get jobs and the fact they rely on the government to help them is "just sad." Way to reach out Ron Paul, way to reach out.

Early this morning another journalist was caught and injured in anti-government protests --this time in Bahrain. The clubbing of ABC Corespondent Miguel Marquez follows a string of attacks on journalists in Egypt, including the sexual assault of Lara Logan. An article in the American Free Press this morning, quoting a "watchdog group" for the safety of journalism, also reads

"...the Bahrain government "has selectively reduced the speed of Internet connections inside the country for the past two days."" (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gjbkV9uYKA_QJtwvfbx8guFl04Hg?docId=CNG.68e525354daffd868eac000986513f10.151)

The article also explains that

It seems that, like Egypt, where Mubarak shut off the internet,governments are very aware of the significant role media usage has played in these protests and are taking steps to mitigate its effect on growing political unrest. The fact that journalists are being attacked also demonstrates a certain suspicion of the media.

Maybe the media hasn't given up its role of watchdog after all...

Status: political change happening now, public square nearest you

While "The Social Network" may have brought the phenomenon of social media (and the semi-socially awkward people who helped create it) to the forefront of our minds, social media has been impacting our society in tangible ways for several years now; and we're not just talking about facebook. A recent article published in Foreign Affairs shares the story of Philippine President Joseph Estrada's downfall by text message (http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/67038/clay-shirky/the-political-power-of-social-media).
Similar emphasis has been put on the use of social media by Egyptian protesters in organizing to bring down Mubarak. In his article entitled "Egypt: Social Media as a Life or Death Proposition." Simon Maiwaring argues the use of social media in instigating political change is more than just an interesting phenomenon of the 21st Century. He writes

"The use of social media in Egypt is a dramatic demonstration of a clash of cultures -- of the old and new, of violence and peace, of the past and future" ( http://www.fastcompany.com/1724837/egypt-social-media-as-a-life-or-death-proposition).

I am interested in the implications of this suggestion. While many have argued about the general political advantages (more connectivity, more means of expression for the general public) and disadvantages (social media is a tool used for trivial communication, not meant for news which requires more reflection and fact checking) of social media, Maiwaring has characterized social media as a symbol of the clash of civilizations. This distinguishes between the uses of social media in non-western, authoritarian cultures and the use of social media in western, democratic cultures. Does this mean that the U.S. cannot use social media as a vehicle for political action, since it is in sync with our culture? Would it be ineffective in an environment that already embraces public opinion and accountability for politicians? Should we learn from those in Egypt and the Philippines who used social media to their political advantage....or should we simply sign into Facebook to stalk our frenemies, and leave politics to the politicians and the newspapers?