Stewart-Debate-Perry

Please write a blog entry about your opinion...do you think Jon Stewart influences politics or is simply a comedian doing his job? How does this tie in to all we have learned about media bias?

I watch John Stewart and think he is hilarious. I also absolutely disagree with him but can still watch him for the entertainment value. What is disturbing to me is how many millions of people use John Stewart as their source for news and political events, some, their only source! I believe, despite what Stewart believes, that he is a political force and he sways public opinion. It is incredible how many times I've had to argue a topic with someone who was using a monologue from John Stewart (because little do they know I watch him, too) as their only talking points which are often entirely out of context. Stewart and Wallace bring a lot of topics into play that we have discussed in class such as the political spectrum and where various organizations fall. We have also discussed the sensationalism of the media. Wallace and Stewart are both right but Stewart falls short on one issue they discussed. Stewart may position himself as an entertainer/comedian but in reality to those consuming his show, Stewart is a reporter. 

---

How significant are the debates? Can the moderators have this much of an influence on public opinion? Please blog about this.

I believe the debates are very important for the political election process, but in the big picture of how do they reflect on the success of a President, they matter very little. However, the debates are what build the perceptions within voters minds of the candidates. More importantly, the amount of damage the winner of the primaries incurs from his own party during the debates may determine the success of the candidate against the opposing party in the elections. 

---

3.  How significant is Perry's mistake? Please also include your response in one of your blog entries.

Perry's mistake is unfortunate and in itself, one may say it will not have a significant impact on his chances of becoming the selected candidate for the Republicans. However, Perry is fighting an unfortunate position and dare I say, discriminatory forces. As a Texan, I have been personally faced with friends or more likely acquaintances who will say things like "Lose a couple IQ points when you moved to Texas?" or "Don't expect to much brain activity from a Texan." It does not help that George W Bush, also a former governor from Texas, was labeled by the mainstream media as "dumb." With that said, Perry has a lot going against him do to perceptions of stupidity which his brain freeze may have only solidified in his opponents and the media. 

10 Things

The "Ten Election Things" article was extremely biased and I'm not exactly sure what to make of its intent. Therefore, I will write down my own ten items that I am hoping to understand before casting my vote in the 2012 elections. All of these items will be affected by the media and public relations and my decision of which channels of communication to engage. 

1. Who will make the economy a top priority?
2. Who is serious about eliminating government waste?
3. Who will preserve the government's number one responsibility of national security?
4. Who will conduct themselves in a Presidential manner?
5. Who will see Americans as his/her "boss" and not as subordinate peons. 
6. Who will continue to allow for personal freedoms in every day lives?
7. Who will preserve the rights of the 2nd Amendment?
8. Who will be a strict constructionist? 
9. Who will not by a hypocrite? (Can't stand that)
10. Who will work for the best interest of the country even if at a political expense?

There is my list. In this course I have learned how deeply intertwined a candidates person life is with the public image regardless whether the personal life is known or not. Edwards and Clinton were a great example of this. Also, I have solidified my belief that the new media is taking an increasingly important role in politics and especially elections which is why traditional media outlets are taking such a strong financial interest in online media. 

State of the News Media and Public Affairs

The drama that was Nixon's Presidency was 100% the fault of himself and his administration. Although the media and Anderson specifically, were out to dig up as much dirt as they could on him, it should be the response of a President to rise above the mud slinging that happens all too often in politician-media relations and act in the best interest of the country. Nixon's administration spent entirely too much time and energy on its "relationship" or lack thereof with the media. On the other side of the spectrum, you have the Bush administration which seemed to care very little about the impression of the media and acted in accordance with what they believed to be best for the country, or as some may argue, the administration itself. This is in line with how a Presidential Administration should view their media relationship. Is this the case? Absolutely not because without a positive relationship with the media, elections are shot.

Fortunately, I do not believe the issue we saw with Nixon's administration is as likely to unfold in today's world. There are so many channels of communication within the entire world that keeping such secrets with such great consequence is increasingly unlikely. Just ask Julian Assange.
----
The state of the news media today is interesting because it is becoming much more dynamic. The blog "Cable: Audience vs Economics" paints a bright financial picture of the cable news industry from a short term perspective but the long term perspective has some big warning flags. As revenues and profits are increasing, the battle between Fox, CNN, and MSNBC really seems to be increasingly irrelevant, at least in the cable space. Where it is becoming increasingly important is in cyber space. Despite the major lead that Fox has in cable, CNN has made its mark on the digital world. I would then argue that in the long term big picture, CNN is winning and Fox is losing. However, the digital world is a fast paced arena and things could change very quickly. Here is why.

At one time, technology was isolated into its own industry and everyone felt safe and comfortable with that idea (Red Flag #1). Intel, Microsoft, Apple, Google could do their thing in Silicon Valley/Seattle and every other industry could simply use their products to conduct every day business. Now, things have changed thanks to Facebook, Twitter, Google, YouTube, and many others. Every industry now must be dragged (by consumers) kicking and screaming into technology because that is now where consumers live. The automobile manufacturers, retailers, financial, energy, services, and so many other industries need not only to embrace a new kind of technology, but develop their own ideas and strategies within consumer technology. This is a scary world for them but is necessary for survival. CNN saw this and dove in head first with a very handsome return. Fox has been dragging their feet although News Corp's purchase of MySpace a few years ago turned a lot of heads, it ended up being a failure of magnificent proportions and highlighted News Corps lack of online expertise and momentum.

To make matters more difficult for CNN, MSNBC, and Fox, they are competing for ad dollars now in a much more simplified and more agressive market. Rather than negotiating deals with television providers and being guaranteed revenue over x years, these companies now need to compete for eyeballs. They are competing not only with each other, but against Drudge, Yahoo, Google, AOL (HuffPo) and thousands, millions more. Its going to be a while before we can determine which cable news network wins a piece in the race for market share in cyber space. That is assuming if any of them win a piece.

----

So finally to the question of does reality and tabloid media corrupt our politics and frame the message? Absolutely. It is unfortunately how easily people are persuaded by messages without taking a second to critically think about whether what they are hearing is true or not. In fact, its sickening. Not only that, but people do not question whether the source they are listening to may be a good source at all *cough* Comedy Central *cough*. I find it deeply disturbing when any news organization takes to the tactics of the tabloids and starts drumming up wild theories and stories about a candidate, movement, or ideas.

Herman Cain's Ad

Overall, I believe Herman Cain's ad is brilliant because of two reason. First and foremost, love it or hate it, the ad got a lot of attention from the media which in turn means lots of exposure without hurting his poll numbers. Second, Cain came out and said that this ad was not about smoking, agendas, etc. It was about being real and I think there are many American's who appreciate that coming from a potential President. 

Regarding polling numbers, I believe that historically polls have mattered in terms of identifying trends to point towards the strongest candidates (not always the winning candidates). More importantly, it can determine who gets a boost in fundraising which can have a major impact on future polls. I also believe endorsements have tended to help a campaign in the past in terms of fundraising. However, I think we are going to see less and less of this as new channels of communication open up between candidates and the voters. In fact, Obama's embrace of online communication and fundraising prove the shifting trends. 

The current regulations of political donations are, in my opinion, unconstitutional. Anyone should be able to give any amount of money to an candidate. The website that explained the various forms of political contributions seemed to be somewhat biased against certain types of donations based on the verbiage that was used. 

Media and Public Policy Final Take Away

Media and Public Policy Final (Video)

The beginning of the video was cut off but in short, I would like to discuss the interesting points and my take aways from the class. I have also included some other interesting videos relating to this class. Thanks!

We watched this video in class but its been updated...

But here is another twist on it.....

The CNN, MSNBC, FOX, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube 2012 Election

How will the media play a vital role in the 2012 elections and subsequent elections? Please provide thoughtful examples of how the media may influence the outcome of the next general election.

I strongly believe that we are continuing to see a shift in power and influence between the old and new media. That is not to say that CNN, FOX, and MSNBC are seeing their power waning. In fact, after reading much of the material for this class, I have come to the conclusion that traditional media's influence is growing but not at the rate at which the online new media's influence is growing. Here lies the distinction of where the future of political campaign communications and strategy are going.

Since a very select few voters have any first hand experience and interaction with the candidates, the media holds a significant power of persuasion with the voting public since they traditionally have been the only means of understanding and knowing a candidate. I say traditionally because as I have mentioned often, the new media is allowing a direct line of dialogue betweent voters and candidates. This does not necessarily mean the voters are getting an accurate representation of who the candidates are and what each represents. Its is irrefutable that a significant amount of influence does exist regardless of what media channels are being utilized. May the best tweet win.

Is there Cable News Bias? Are you kidding?

Is there bias in cable news media? 

There seems to be this general consensus that CNN is the neutral network but Fox leans right and MSNBC leans left. I think this is completely wrong. I believe the perception of neutral needs to be re-calibrated in the media. Here is an example about what I mean. 

The Bias Scale (How it should be)

LEFT---------------------------------|-------------------------------RIGHT

                                           ACTUAL

                                          NEUTRAL

The Bias Scale (How it is today)

                  PERCEIVED

LEFT--------NEUTRAL--------|---------------------------------RIGHT                     

                                           ACTUAL

                                          NEUTRAL

Now its easier to understand how the footage above from CNN exist yet still promote a widespread believe that CNN is in the middle. It also makes sense why people would believe that FoxNews is so extreme right-winged because look at how far it is from the "Perceived Neutral" position. It also explains why MSNBC is attacked less for being extreme that Fox News.