I think the dreams and woodies of young men 'round the world just got a major cock block. Announced recently were Amsterdam's decision to institute new laws and stricter regulations on prostitution and the sale of pot at local coffee shops in attempts to get organized crime out of the area. Where will all the pot smoking youth go on vacation? I'm laughing on the inside, not because I take the slightest offense to the "Activities" that occur in Amsterdam, but because, well the thought of those activities has always made me giggle and the thought of a young man reading this article, and his reaction to the facts,..... I just can't help myself. What surprised me most about this article however was how truly unbiased it came across as. I found it on AOL and I've come to expect AOL to be extremely biased on many issues, to the point where I've actually stopped reading most of what I see on there, knowing I'll not only be upset by what I read, but that I can't trust it. It drives so extremely to the right of issues that it completely disconnects from what is happening in the world and literally promotes it's own platforms. During the presidential race, all of AOL had me believing the presidential race was close and could go either way, and in fact, up to the day of the election were reporting McCain ahead in many survey poles. Perhaps these were just surveys taken of it's own participants, many being conservative, but they were so disconnected from every other pole that it proved useless to partake in.
http://news.aol.com/article/amsterdam-to-shut-some-sex-pot-shops/269838- is the link to the article if you want to torture yourself with inevitable disappointment. Still I wonder what the reaction of the people living in Amsterdam is. There is no mention of that. Perhaps this fact is itself biased, but news reporters aren't obligated to report every angle of the story. This is sort of biased by omission, still by AOL standards this article remains pretty neutral.
HOLD UP! I just found another article on the same topic and it's got a much different tone.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/07/amsterdam-crackdown-prostitution-drugs-crime
Now this article is taken from the view point of rep. groups for the prostitutes and coffee shop owners. Ohhhh, see now, I was right there is a big public back lash, which AOL mentioned nothing of. It simply announced these new policies as happy announcements to conservative America. I'm sure they've prayed for years- LOL!
But still the difference in these two articles is stark. Although AOL has left out it's biting sarcasms and soft criticism of liberal issues so often found within their articles, they've omitted a whole other side of the situation. To read the AOL articles one would think everyone is completely happy about the situation and that the city views these changes as progress. It's such a passive and peaceful toned article. I'm sure the conservative AOL crew is happy. Jesus is winning in Amsterdam, but the public sure isn't and neither is tourism. According to the the article from the UK (article #2) there are already counter reactions, an out poring of disappointment from tourist companies and fear that this is only the beginning of bigger problems to come.
What a stark difference, and how my opinion of the AOL article has changed. Though one could play devil's advocate and say the UK article is biased from the liberal perspective, mostly covering the out poring of groups negatively effected by these new policies. Still one has to read both articles to really get a glimpse of the truth. One thing I can deduce is this, in both articles, only the mayor himself, a long time proponent of tighter regulations, was quoted as being optimistic about the situation, and if more people where happy about it, wouldn't AOL have jumped on quoting them? Hmmmmm, something to stew about.
For now, all the wild children, looking to Amsterdam as an adult Play Land of sorts, will not be able to make our travel plans to Amsterdam without a little disappointment in our hearts. After all, wasn't part of the allure that there was one place on earth where good times and crazy activities wasn't something we had to be ashamed of. And isn't that what these new laws imply, that in fact there is some shame to be felt in what goes on down those alleys and streets of Amsterdam? The mayor blatantly assigns responsibility of organized crime to the shoulders of prostitutes and coffee shop owners of the city. As with many politicians who start making heavy laws to "protect" people and make situations "safer", perhaps it's just a cover up for his lack of ability to control the city with wisdom and invention. Or, perhaps it's his way of stifling some of his own sins. I just can't wait for the follow up expose' reports! Of course, we'll have to look to the UK for any reports of that sort.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Mani-Pedi Media
I watched the Barbara Walter's Interview with Barack and Michelle Obama on You Tube Saturday night. I thought to myself, is this media? I mean I guess it is, but it's not as "serious" or "logical", from an audience point of view (because I have no idea what Barbara goes through to prepare for the interviews). Still, I rationalized, this is part of the media. It's a kind of reporting that goes on to give us, the public, information on a person, place or thing. Walters attempts to remain removed, though her views are thinly disguised, and this isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's very entertaining, involving and palpable (for women especially I would think) and so it communicates with audiences on different levels like emotional and psychological. Since I love to over analyze everything my brain jumped to the question "Is this right?" "Is this a fair kind of interview for a president and first lady to do" being that it hits the public at home, where they are most sensitive? My answer to my own question was in true Devil's Advocate spirit, "this interview is happening BECAUSE these people have ALREADY hit us at home, their history, their journey, has inspired people throughout this country and already worked it's way into our hearts." Oh, okay, so entertainment and journalism marry in this sort of situation. Where as traditional journalism utilizes drama to spiff up their "emotional" impact, they seek to keep it to a barely noticeable minimum (or at least they're supposed to). On the other hand most entertainment news seeks to keep fact, logic and morals at bay and survives almost entirely on its emotive qualities. Along comes Walters or Winfrey with their celebrity profiles and, especially when said celebrity is a world leader, they bridge the gap between news and entertainment, allowing them to co-exist quite neatly. It's a smart move from a politicians point of view, to endear themselves to the homes and hearts of the public. People are much more prone to listen and trust, thinking they are cooperating with their leader as opposed to obeying.
Trust does amazing things then. It allows the followers to believe they are in fact equals and have inalienable power, where maybe they do not. Once again I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, inspired by a conversation I had at the NY Public Library Skating Rink over the vacation. A young man I struck up a conversation with had voted for Obama, but decided remaining skeptical was essential to remaining vigil. I absolutely LOVE the idea of a trust worthy, sincerely GOOD human being as a president, but couldn't help but agree with him. He, an African American, pointed out how appealing and kind both Mussolini and Hitler must have first come across. I couldn't argue with him. Even though I feel that we both really believe in Obama's goodness some how I like the idea of remaining on my toes. We should rejoice at the prospect of change, but not settle of the prospect. We should continue to put our young and energetic president elect to the test, like a doubting Thomas, always showing up to the event, here if he needs us, but not close enough to get lassoed. It makes me feel, well, not so freakin' dorky and teen-bob, heart - throbbed in love with an ideal. I like the feeling of my legs beneath me.
So, getting back to the media, Obama has found his way into our hearts and into our homes. He connects regularly with us through our computers, podcasts and YouTube videos, and it's all very modern and clever. He's using the media to his EVERY advantage, and now, I'm wondering if maybe it isn't a bit much. Perhaps it isn't and he's just as clever and on the ball as I believe he is, but my doubtfulness makes me happy. It keeps me fully loaded and ready to rip in case I start to see things I don't like. He is not yet in power, so everything is still in theory at this point. He seems to be on the ball with picking out a cabinet for himself, there's a new update every day as to the rumors of new appointments or announcements of the appointments and yet, so many of these people were a part of the Clinton administration, and so, how much is really new? Or does it need to be new as long as the person in the helm is new and is pointing everybody in new directions? Everything is unclear and will remain unclear until, ohhh, four maybe eight years from now when we can look back and view everything from a distance and look at things from the arrogant safety of hind sight. So, right now all we can do is wait, and see, and remain vigil because that's what being a responsible citizen is about, always staying alert and INVOLVED, responsible for our own destinies and not expecting miracles. The only thing about our new president that is clear is that he is using the press in a way never seen before by other candidates and boy is it effective. He utilizes communications of all sorts to put himself right into our faces, our homes, our lives. Maybe it's to guide, not control, maybe... the future will tell. Still he's changing the game where political media is concerned, and right now, it's really very exciting.
Trust does amazing things then. It allows the followers to believe they are in fact equals and have inalienable power, where maybe they do not. Once again I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, inspired by a conversation I had at the NY Public Library Skating Rink over the vacation. A young man I struck up a conversation with had voted for Obama, but decided remaining skeptical was essential to remaining vigil. I absolutely LOVE the idea of a trust worthy, sincerely GOOD human being as a president, but couldn't help but agree with him. He, an African American, pointed out how appealing and kind both Mussolini and Hitler must have first come across. I couldn't argue with him. Even though I feel that we both really believe in Obama's goodness some how I like the idea of remaining on my toes. We should rejoice at the prospect of change, but not settle of the prospect. We should continue to put our young and energetic president elect to the test, like a doubting Thomas, always showing up to the event, here if he needs us, but not close enough to get lassoed. It makes me feel, well, not so freakin' dorky and teen-bob, heart - throbbed in love with an ideal. I like the feeling of my legs beneath me.
So, getting back to the media, Obama has found his way into our hearts and into our homes. He connects regularly with us through our computers, podcasts and YouTube videos, and it's all very modern and clever. He's using the media to his EVERY advantage, and now, I'm wondering if maybe it isn't a bit much. Perhaps it isn't and he's just as clever and on the ball as I believe he is, but my doubtfulness makes me happy. It keeps me fully loaded and ready to rip in case I start to see things I don't like. He is not yet in power, so everything is still in theory at this point. He seems to be on the ball with picking out a cabinet for himself, there's a new update every day as to the rumors of new appointments or announcements of the appointments and yet, so many of these people were a part of the Clinton administration, and so, how much is really new? Or does it need to be new as long as the person in the helm is new and is pointing everybody in new directions? Everything is unclear and will remain unclear until, ohhh, four maybe eight years from now when we can look back and view everything from a distance and look at things from the arrogant safety of hind sight. So, right now all we can do is wait, and see, and remain vigil because that's what being a responsible citizen is about, always staying alert and INVOLVED, responsible for our own destinies and not expecting miracles. The only thing about our new president that is clear is that he is using the press in a way never seen before by other candidates and boy is it effective. He utilizes communications of all sorts to put himself right into our faces, our homes, our lives. Maybe it's to guide, not control, maybe... the future will tell. Still he's changing the game where political media is concerned, and right now, it's really very exciting.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
My Problem
This is gonna be a short log, I can feel it. I just wanted to voice my disappointment on the subject of media coverage, or more specifically, what media chooses to cover.
I've been working in the restaurant/food service industry since I was fifteen years old. Being that I'm now 30, that's a pretty long time. I've been coffee/counter girl at 6 a.m. in the morning, busser or hostess at night and that progressed into waiter and bartender. It's a happening field. It changes with the times and as exhausting as the work is, it's exciting too. But it comes with many complications. Tips are a tricky issue, both for taxes and wages and the laws designed to protect servers are almost always ignored. I recently ran into trouble with my current boss and I've been running into trouble with potential employeers. Even with 15 years of experience and a list of patrons that will follow me anywhere I have trouble getting hired because I insist on my employers meeting CT labor law standards and they're pretty content with ignoring them.
When I researched my rights, and the laws that protect them, I found I had to dig and dig and dig to get any information at all. There were finally articles I found, most that had been posted by Law Firms themselves with regards to cases they had won. There was absolutely no main stream coverage of Lawsuits against restaurateurs, even though they did exist. According to the online law pamphletts and advertisements, tens of millions of dollars had been won by the prosecutors (in most cases the servers) in one case alone yet no significance had been given to the topic by the media.
I understand the subject is extra sensitive to me, everyone who has problems wishes others thought them important enough to print on a front page, but when workers through out the US are getting taken advantage of, where's the press? Don't they have some sort of moral obligation to uncover unfairness of this sort. The sad conclusion I came to was no, they don't. The press has absolutely no moral obligation to the public. What they decide to report is entirely inspired by how much attention they think it will get them. If a topic is about a group of people other's don't seem to give a damn about, then they don't care if laws are being broken and lives are being degraded. It's sad really.
After reading the Shudson book I wondered if this phenomenon is solely based on media's dependency upon advertising. Perhaps if their primary concern wasn't volume then they won't care as much, but it will never be realistic to think media groups won't be concerned with volume, as revenue is what drives everything they do. So how does someone get the media to care about what they themselves care about? It seems the only way is to first heighten public awareness through word of mouth, or education and inject the community with a sensitivity to it first. In this respect the media doesn't influence us, we've influenced them; we've actually gone farther then influencing them, we've down right dictated what they're going to pay attention to.
I've been working in the restaurant/food service industry since I was fifteen years old. Being that I'm now 30, that's a pretty long time. I've been coffee/counter girl at 6 a.m. in the morning, busser or hostess at night and that progressed into waiter and bartender. It's a happening field. It changes with the times and as exhausting as the work is, it's exciting too. But it comes with many complications. Tips are a tricky issue, both for taxes and wages and the laws designed to protect servers are almost always ignored. I recently ran into trouble with my current boss and I've been running into trouble with potential employeers. Even with 15 years of experience and a list of patrons that will follow me anywhere I have trouble getting hired because I insist on my employers meeting CT labor law standards and they're pretty content with ignoring them.
When I researched my rights, and the laws that protect them, I found I had to dig and dig and dig to get any information at all. There were finally articles I found, most that had been posted by Law Firms themselves with regards to cases they had won. There was absolutely no main stream coverage of Lawsuits against restaurateurs, even though they did exist. According to the online law pamphletts and advertisements, tens of millions of dollars had been won by the prosecutors (in most cases the servers) in one case alone yet no significance had been given to the topic by the media.
I understand the subject is extra sensitive to me, everyone who has problems wishes others thought them important enough to print on a front page, but when workers through out the US are getting taken advantage of, where's the press? Don't they have some sort of moral obligation to uncover unfairness of this sort. The sad conclusion I came to was no, they don't. The press has absolutely no moral obligation to the public. What they decide to report is entirely inspired by how much attention they think it will get them. If a topic is about a group of people other's don't seem to give a damn about, then they don't care if laws are being broken and lives are being degraded. It's sad really.
After reading the Shudson book I wondered if this phenomenon is solely based on media's dependency upon advertising. Perhaps if their primary concern wasn't volume then they won't care as much, but it will never be realistic to think media groups won't be concerned with volume, as revenue is what drives everything they do. So how does someone get the media to care about what they themselves care about? It seems the only way is to first heighten public awareness through word of mouth, or education and inject the community with a sensitivity to it first. In this respect the media doesn't influence us, we've influenced them; we've actually gone farther then influencing them, we've down right dictated what they're going to pay attention to.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Sunday, November 2, 2008
http://information.travel.aol.com/news-and-tips/air-traffic-controllers?ncid=AOLCOMMtravdynlprim0418&icid=100214839x1212308153x1200804449
Do you ever read something, or see something, experience something in any way that has premonition written all over it? Everything about that something screams "something really bad is about to happen" and it's made worse by the realization that absolutely nobody else sees it? After reading the article above, which I hope you all read, I got such a feeling and can't help but hope we start to talk more about this. "This" is the phenomenon that's happening in all professions every where. Experienced veterans of the field are being let go in order to replace them with three new-bees for less money then the one original was getting. All this is done for the purpose of corporate finance cut backs, under the premise of creating new jobs. One person looses a job, but three new people get one. That's progress right? What it's really doing is creating a terrible, potentially dangerous situation by putting novices in the drivers seats, before they're off their learning permits. In the case of this article, they're at the wheel of a vehicle capable of killing 300 in one misstep.
I've seen so much media coverage of the plite of airliners and gas prices. I've read so much coverage about how travel has been effected, yet this is the first time I've heard anything like this. Anything directly connected to public safety. And the quote with in the above listed article about the novice radar controller's "conspiracy" theories. I thought that deserved to be looked into. It's natural after all, since 911 occurred and we all experienced the terror that can be unleashed using the airways. Now an article like this comes out and reveals the volatile situation from day to day, it brings up some old fears. Fears that never got the answers or actions from the authorities in "control" to really be quelled or put to rest, just buried deep in attempts to hold on to our own sanity. Here I believe is an amazing opportunity for a reporter to really dig into the politics behind these cut backs. Why are veterans being let go at a time when our airways need to be tighter then ever. Cut backs began about two years ago. They happened in the midst of most of the press covering concerns and complaints about tightened air port security. Supposedly airports were getting safer then ever, yet airways were being left to novices, and 'near misses' increased from 20 in one year to 62 in two months?
WTF??????
Where was the media on this topic? And why is more not being revealed or dug up. If you all remember there were a ton of conspiracy theories about test drills run in exact replica of the Sept. 11th attacks just the day before the attacks themselves. There were conspiracy theories floating everywhere about the US government being able to clearly see the redirection of those planes, and doing nothing about it. Now air traffic controllers that have experience are being laid off, or have experience salary cut backs SOOOO insulting they have no real reason to stay on. They're being given what I (as an avid Yankee fan) would call a "Torre" ultimatum. It's the kind of ultimatum that plays so closely on everything you know about that persons character that it's really not an ultimatum at all, but a "go fuck your self" dressed up as one. These ultimatums are designed to basically displace responsibility onto the victim of the situation and relieve the guilty party of any ties to it. Any and every veteran air traffic controller will be "choosing to retire" and "leaving the industry when it needs them the most". They'll play the bad guys and the industry will get off cheap in more then just a fiscal way. There's terrible written all over it. But that's just the surface.
The bigger terrible here is that people who don't know what the hell they're doing are directing our planes in and out and around the skies. Chills and shivers couldn't be generated better by the likes of King, Craven and Hitchcock combined. Media has JUMPED on stories of industry cut backs, job reduction and foreclosures, but this story slipped through their fingers for two years now. Two years over which the skies have become significantly more dangerous, just as we started to think we were healing from the terrorist air attacks of 911. I mean, it's one thing for an advertising company to let go it's top graphic executives to hire intern designs right out of FIT for half the price. It's sad and sell out, but it's not immediately dangerous. But this IS immediately dangerous. We were being told airport security was tightening, when it was really decreasing- wasn't it?
I hope the media jumps on this. Digging further into this story would be absolutely meaty and rewarding. Perhaps not just to the media, but to travelers at large. It's a topic we need to know more about.
Do you ever read something, or see something, experience something in any way that has premonition written all over it? Everything about that something screams "something really bad is about to happen" and it's made worse by the realization that absolutely nobody else sees it? After reading the article above, which I hope you all read, I got such a feeling and can't help but hope we start to talk more about this. "This" is the phenomenon that's happening in all professions every where. Experienced veterans of the field are being let go in order to replace them with three new-bees for less money then the one original was getting. All this is done for the purpose of corporate finance cut backs, under the premise of creating new jobs. One person looses a job, but three new people get one. That's progress right? What it's really doing is creating a terrible, potentially dangerous situation by putting novices in the drivers seats, before they're off their learning permits. In the case of this article, they're at the wheel of a vehicle capable of killing 300 in one misstep.
I've seen so much media coverage of the plite of airliners and gas prices. I've read so much coverage about how travel has been effected, yet this is the first time I've heard anything like this. Anything directly connected to public safety. And the quote with in the above listed article about the novice radar controller's "conspiracy" theories. I thought that deserved to be looked into. It's natural after all, since 911 occurred and we all experienced the terror that can be unleashed using the airways. Now an article like this comes out and reveals the volatile situation from day to day, it brings up some old fears. Fears that never got the answers or actions from the authorities in "control" to really be quelled or put to rest, just buried deep in attempts to hold on to our own sanity. Here I believe is an amazing opportunity for a reporter to really dig into the politics behind these cut backs. Why are veterans being let go at a time when our airways need to be tighter then ever. Cut backs began about two years ago. They happened in the midst of most of the press covering concerns and complaints about tightened air port security. Supposedly airports were getting safer then ever, yet airways were being left to novices, and 'near misses' increased from 20 in one year to 62 in two months?
WTF??????
Where was the media on this topic? And why is more not being revealed or dug up. If you all remember there were a ton of conspiracy theories about test drills run in exact replica of the Sept. 11th attacks just the day before the attacks themselves. There were conspiracy theories floating everywhere about the US government being able to clearly see the redirection of those planes, and doing nothing about it. Now air traffic controllers that have experience are being laid off, or have experience salary cut backs SOOOO insulting they have no real reason to stay on. They're being given what I (as an avid Yankee fan) would call a "Torre" ultimatum. It's the kind of ultimatum that plays so closely on everything you know about that persons character that it's really not an ultimatum at all, but a "go fuck your self" dressed up as one. These ultimatums are designed to basically displace responsibility onto the victim of the situation and relieve the guilty party of any ties to it. Any and every veteran air traffic controller will be "choosing to retire" and "leaving the industry when it needs them the most". They'll play the bad guys and the industry will get off cheap in more then just a fiscal way. There's terrible written all over it. But that's just the surface.
The bigger terrible here is that people who don't know what the hell they're doing are directing our planes in and out and around the skies. Chills and shivers couldn't be generated better by the likes of King, Craven and Hitchcock combined. Media has JUMPED on stories of industry cut backs, job reduction and foreclosures, but this story slipped through their fingers for two years now. Two years over which the skies have become significantly more dangerous, just as we started to think we were healing from the terrorist air attacks of 911. I mean, it's one thing for an advertising company to let go it's top graphic executives to hire intern designs right out of FIT for half the price. It's sad and sell out, but it's not immediately dangerous. But this IS immediately dangerous. We were being told airport security was tightening, when it was really decreasing- wasn't it?
I hope the media jumps on this. Digging further into this story would be absolutely meaty and rewarding. Perhaps not just to the media, but to travelers at large. It's a topic we need to know more about.
John McCain on SNL
I can't help but thinking John McCain chose the wrong line of work. He never fumbled his words and was WAY into the action of the show. He was a natural! How utterly surprising! I'm not gonna lie, had this come earlier in the campaign instead of all that rumor mill mudslinging accompanied by say oh at least a few political strategies to let me know he was actually thinking of the future instead of just the campaign, oh... and most important, if he hadn't chosen that ignorant hatred generating joke of a running mate, he might of actually gotten my vote.
I never disbelieved all the positive points people pointed out about him. I just never saw them for myself, so had no choice but to believe the opposite. McCain obviously has greatness to him. Perhaps his campaign strategy should have been to be the best of himself at all times. It probably would have worked. Something else that would have worked would have been a background check on his potential running mate. Either that or he could have chosen someone he actually knew already. Pretty crazy notion I realize but, he, it's the race for president, you gotta throw caution to the wind!
I never disbelieved all the positive points people pointed out about him. I just never saw them for myself, so had no choice but to believe the opposite. McCain obviously has greatness to him. Perhaps his campaign strategy should have been to be the best of himself at all times. It probably would have worked. Something else that would have worked would have been a background check on his potential running mate. Either that or he could have chosen someone he actually knew already. Pretty crazy notion I realize but, he, it's the race for president, you gotta throw caution to the wind!
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Obama- Primetime
For the first time in this election the Internet has really pissed me off. Not because some one posted something I didn't agree with 'cause honestly that happens a lot. They've pissed me off because they've let me down. The news stations are soooo eager to post their opinions of events they slack off at posting the actual events.
It's happened before Wednesday night (the Obama prime time special), I guess it just caught up to me is all. I'd been perturbed with the delay in posting the actual debates, or how frustrating it was to have to link up with a specific type of player in order to view the live footage. Why isn't a universal, MAC and PC player used on ALL networks? I mean Jesus! They're goal as media Meccas is to communicate with as many people as possible and yet here they are choosing their special media reel players, or lesser named ones that we as computer owners then have to download. Anything downloaded takes up memory space. You mean no ones invented a universal player included on all computers or compatible with them all? Seems silly, and really irritating.
That being said, the videos downloaded into YouTube, or even on CNN's video page, are all playable without these downloads. I wish I could define the difference in data file forms, but I can't, so I'll stick to basics. These kind of videos are downloaded material, not live feeds. They have to have taken place first, and then be contributed to online data bases. This is all well and good. Yet why is the posting of the events themselves coming after the posting of commentary on them. Some commentary is written commentary, other is video and yet it is being posted before the replay of the events themselves. This is just wrong. Especially concerning video commentary. If videos of people talking about the event can be downloaded, they why not the footage itself? Eventually the footage is added, inevitably actually, but why the gap, why the overlay? Shouldn't any online media station want to re post the actual event as soon as possible?
I realize that the simple sharing of events is NOT the media's job, or at least it hasn't been. In the past the media's primary purpose was to be the go between, sort of middle man, between news worthy events and the public that might be interested in them. In the past however, the Internet, email, instant messages and live feeds didn't exist. Now they do and yet it seems the media wagons still want to pull all the weight of telling the story. Their priority is not to rerun the events because they're so dead set on commenting on it. In a way I'm sure they feel they've already run the event via live feed so from there they should simple be able to progress. It's a fair assumption. Yet with as much human insight as the media is supposed to have it's hard for me to believe they think all human beings live on the same schedule. Many of us could not watch the live feeds. So why isn't their main priority to then get a video recording of the event up and then plug in their commentary on it? It may sound tedious from a time line perspective, but then remember, once a video is shot it only takes moments to up load. There really is no need for any kind of delay in posting a recording of the actual event. On all major online networks that I checked however, which included CBS, CNN and CPSAN ( not all of which had the live feed of the events) there was at least an hour between the time the event ended and the posting of the video of the event. Yet all of these networks had commentary on the event posted if not during the event, then immediately following it.
Understanding that it is the media's job to both report the facts and comment on them, I feel like it's irresponsible of them to do the later before the former. In lay man's terms, it simply steals the main event's thunder. On a more intellectual level, commentary first, event second, serves to sway the observer toward the view point of the reporter instead of allowing the observer to decide for themselves, or forcing them to do so. Media, especially modern media, has to intentionally require that people are forming there own opinions first. If they don't they're actually setting themselves up for potential "conspiracy theory" disasters. If commentary occurs without prior, or simultaneous exposure of the actual event then well, someone must have been trying to put something over on you. Really what I think that "someone" or technically the reporter was trying to do was what they've always done. They're trying to be the only source, the connecting force between "them" (the event) and "us" (the public), like they've been forever now. But they don't have to be, or more, shouldn't be anymore. They should let us, no WANT us to think for ourselves first, then open up discussion about it and be part of the discussion.
I think Beckett has been influencing me. Modern journalists are like the parents of middle school children. They've got to figure out the practically impossible task of how to let their child try things by themselves, instead of doing everything for them. They've got to except that they no longer HAVE to do everything for them, and that still trying to do everything for them is not only really PISSING their children off, but also not allowing them to grow in a positive and more intellectual direction. If you want a healthy happy child, you've got to know when to let go. Push the birdy out of the nest. And for God sake be happy about it! Okay maybe that last one won't happen, but somethings got to give. Modern media has to allow this difficult transition to occur, for societies own sake! We're actually showing an interest in intellectual growth, through responsibly being a contributing part, actually getting involved, with the world at large. Because it's so easy and accessible now! Let it happen media machine! It's a good thing. But now they have the difficult task, not only of letting their "baby" go, but also finding where they belong. They have to find out how to nurture this advanced kind of child. They're intuitive enough to know that their "baby" still needs to be nurtured, but in a completely different way. The struggle is discovering what that new "way" is.
Good thing I'm here to help out right? By piping up right now and announcing on this internationally available blog, DON'T POST THE COMMENTARY BEFORE THE EVENT!!!!!! You wanna go ahead and post it simultaneously, that's fine. It'll make the transition easier on you I'm sure. But DON'T, just DON'T post comments before you post the event. Let us have that two minutes to decide for ourselves, or at least have the option to strike that "play" button, right next to the article on what you thought about it. What the media can't do is continue to think for us, or feel it has to. That kind of media is long gone. Just guide us toward the information you'd normally receive. Let us watch it, read it, or listen to it and than let us comment on it. This will generate a whole different kind of news, one that people will trust more because they trust themselves, and because it's a whole lot easier to trust a system that trusts you.
It's happened before Wednesday night (the Obama prime time special), I guess it just caught up to me is all. I'd been perturbed with the delay in posting the actual debates, or how frustrating it was to have to link up with a specific type of player in order to view the live footage. Why isn't a universal, MAC and PC player used on ALL networks? I mean Jesus! They're goal as media Meccas is to communicate with as many people as possible and yet here they are choosing their special media reel players, or lesser named ones that we as computer owners then have to download. Anything downloaded takes up memory space. You mean no ones invented a universal player included on all computers or compatible with them all? Seems silly, and really irritating.
That being said, the videos downloaded into YouTube, or even on CNN's video page, are all playable without these downloads. I wish I could define the difference in data file forms, but I can't, so I'll stick to basics. These kind of videos are downloaded material, not live feeds. They have to have taken place first, and then be contributed to online data bases. This is all well and good. Yet why is the posting of the events themselves coming after the posting of commentary on them. Some commentary is written commentary, other is video and yet it is being posted before the replay of the events themselves. This is just wrong. Especially concerning video commentary. If videos of people talking about the event can be downloaded, they why not the footage itself? Eventually the footage is added, inevitably actually, but why the gap, why the overlay? Shouldn't any online media station want to re post the actual event as soon as possible?
I realize that the simple sharing of events is NOT the media's job, or at least it hasn't been. In the past the media's primary purpose was to be the go between, sort of middle man, between news worthy events and the public that might be interested in them. In the past however, the Internet, email, instant messages and live feeds didn't exist. Now they do and yet it seems the media wagons still want to pull all the weight of telling the story. Their priority is not to rerun the events because they're so dead set on commenting on it. In a way I'm sure they feel they've already run the event via live feed so from there they should simple be able to progress. It's a fair assumption. Yet with as much human insight as the media is supposed to have it's hard for me to believe they think all human beings live on the same schedule. Many of us could not watch the live feeds. So why isn't their main priority to then get a video recording of the event up and then plug in their commentary on it? It may sound tedious from a time line perspective, but then remember, once a video is shot it only takes moments to up load. There really is no need for any kind of delay in posting a recording of the actual event. On all major online networks that I checked however, which included CBS, CNN and CPSAN ( not all of which had the live feed of the events) there was at least an hour between the time the event ended and the posting of the video of the event. Yet all of these networks had commentary on the event posted if not during the event, then immediately following it.
Understanding that it is the media's job to both report the facts and comment on them, I feel like it's irresponsible of them to do the later before the former. In lay man's terms, it simply steals the main event's thunder. On a more intellectual level, commentary first, event second, serves to sway the observer toward the view point of the reporter instead of allowing the observer to decide for themselves, or forcing them to do so. Media, especially modern media, has to intentionally require that people are forming there own opinions first. If they don't they're actually setting themselves up for potential "conspiracy theory" disasters. If commentary occurs without prior, or simultaneous exposure of the actual event then well, someone must have been trying to put something over on you. Really what I think that "someone" or technically the reporter was trying to do was what they've always done. They're trying to be the only source, the connecting force between "them" (the event) and "us" (the public), like they've been forever now. But they don't have to be, or more, shouldn't be anymore. They should let us, no WANT us to think for ourselves first, then open up discussion about it and be part of the discussion.
I think Beckett has been influencing me. Modern journalists are like the parents of middle school children. They've got to figure out the practically impossible task of how to let their child try things by themselves, instead of doing everything for them. They've got to except that they no longer HAVE to do everything for them, and that still trying to do everything for them is not only really PISSING their children off, but also not allowing them to grow in a positive and more intellectual direction. If you want a healthy happy child, you've got to know when to let go. Push the birdy out of the nest. And for God sake be happy about it! Okay maybe that last one won't happen, but somethings got to give. Modern media has to allow this difficult transition to occur, for societies own sake! We're actually showing an interest in intellectual growth, through responsibly being a contributing part, actually getting involved, with the world at large. Because it's so easy and accessible now! Let it happen media machine! It's a good thing. But now they have the difficult task, not only of letting their "baby" go, but also finding where they belong. They have to find out how to nurture this advanced kind of child. They're intuitive enough to know that their "baby" still needs to be nurtured, but in a completely different way. The struggle is discovering what that new "way" is.
Good thing I'm here to help out right? By piping up right now and announcing on this internationally available blog, DON'T POST THE COMMENTARY BEFORE THE EVENT!!!!!! You wanna go ahead and post it simultaneously, that's fine. It'll make the transition easier on you I'm sure. But DON'T, just DON'T post comments before you post the event. Let us have that two minutes to decide for ourselves, or at least have the option to strike that "play" button, right next to the article on what you thought about it. What the media can't do is continue to think for us, or feel it has to. That kind of media is long gone. Just guide us toward the information you'd normally receive. Let us watch it, read it, or listen to it and than let us comment on it. This will generate a whole different kind of news, one that people will trust more because they trust themselves, and because it's a whole lot easier to trust a system that trusts you.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Big News for Barack
AOL online reported two major turn of events in the 2008 election for president. The first came a few days ago in an article that revealed the endorsment of Barack Obama from both the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune, both unexpected allies. Then, just today Gen. Colin Powell, a Republican, announced he would be voting for Sen. Barack Obama for president. This was the final nail in the coffin for McCain I believe, though I'm sure that's not what Gen. Powell intended. I've also researched as list of Newspaper endorsements for respective candidates as reported over AOL. com and out of eighteen, only three endorsed Sen. McCain. I think it's pretty hard to not make something of these events. It's damn near impossible to not think this is a clear indication of were our country is leaning, and wanting to go. I've found that in the many people I speak with about the election, the ones who are undecided, they really don't want to trust Obama, they say for experience reasons, but I think it's deeper. I believe people find Obama hard to believe, as in it really isn't possible for someone like him to have come along. As is difficult in all circumstances where a human that is in fact a little more special than most of us comes along and actually exists, like in the flesh and blood and not just in stories or history books, denial is a natural reaction. We're so prompt at excepting bad news, or negative energy into our lives that seeing something positive come true becomes offensive to us. It hurts that we're not more closely a part of it, or perhaps we're all just too skeptical to believe it could be true. We don't want to believe in something and then suffer disappointment, so it's better to decide to not believe in the first place. This is where faith has to take over. This is when that little urge in your gut has to win out and lead you in a direction that isn't so sure, but is absolutely positive. We've starved for positivity for so long that it's natural our minds and bodies would reject it, like a five course meal to a prisoner, it makes us sick as opposed to happy. We're in no state to take it in yet and so we shove it away. But some meals are just too enticing, like someone read our minds and prepared our absolute favorites and some how, those smells and those colors, though churning our stomachs, are also bringing up memories of better days, when safety and happiness surrounded us every day. And we can't shake that feeling. The remembered feeling of that long ago time when we really felt important, like dreams could come true. That certainty that existed because we'd never been hurt or disappointed or over looked before. Prior to being jaded by life's many disappointments we began as wide eyed kids open to the possibility of something great happening to us EVERY day and all the time. The whole world was surprising and beautiful. We can have those things again. Not actual material trophies, but faith and hope and wide eyed interest. Those are the things most precious any way.
Now I realize Obama is a man, not a messiah. He's not even as impressive as Martin Luther King Jr., but he's something more then we've see in a long time. A new hopeful approach to a country actually stinking with disappointment. He dares to say hey, things can be different, but in a way unoffensive enough for us to want to listen and our stomachs to hold out while we do so. He's calm, cool and collected. He's not cocky or aggressive, but he is assertive and constant. He's open minded and he actually likes to listen, but his own ideas are well formed and well communicated. This kids just got it all, despite lacking the "experience". Which I believe galls people all the more, because how could this new guy have something that nobody else does??? We were here first. But maybe you never really deserved to be and that's what offends you most about the new guy. When he stands next to you, it's obvious. And the "experienced" guys get angry instead of honest and defensive instead of relieved that nobodies trying to expose their skeletons or belittle them for being who they are, of having done what they've done. All that's happened is the right man has finally come along. It's not an insult, it's a changing of the guard. Everyone still has their helmet and pins.
I can't help but feel that Obama will change. That in achieving his child hood dream of becoming president of the United States, he will loose all the innocence and newness that he has right now. The saddest part of seeing Obama being president will be the greying of his hair and the loss of his own innocence. Being a new comer has it's advantages and over the next four years, he won't be a new comer any more. But his intellect and rational will hold him out. He's no dumby and despite what I just wrote, he's no ingenue either. I believe he knows what he's in for, but might not know the full extent of what it will do to him personally. How could he? Could any of us plan that far ahead?
What ever does happen over the next few weeks there is something I am certain of. Barack Obama will be president of the United States of America. And the world will get a whole new picture of what an American is. We'll surprise everybody, as if for the first time, because it's been so long since we've delivered anything new and interesting to them. We'll catch them off guard, and they'll like us for it and we'll all have something to be giddy about for a while. After over 200 years of the world deciding what an American is and what to expect from us, we're gonna throw 'em a curve ball. And yes, they may be pissed that where a hit should of been, they just got a strike, but it's such a damn good pitch, they'll have to be impressed anyway. That's when being wrong feels really right. When you've been beaten by someone who REALLY deserved to beat you. There's no shame in that. In fact, that innocent kid deep down inside of us can't help but being really impressed.
Now I realize Obama is a man, not a messiah. He's not even as impressive as Martin Luther King Jr., but he's something more then we've see in a long time. A new hopeful approach to a country actually stinking with disappointment. He dares to say hey, things can be different, but in a way unoffensive enough for us to want to listen and our stomachs to hold out while we do so. He's calm, cool and collected. He's not cocky or aggressive, but he is assertive and constant. He's open minded and he actually likes to listen, but his own ideas are well formed and well communicated. This kids just got it all, despite lacking the "experience". Which I believe galls people all the more, because how could this new guy have something that nobody else does??? We were here first. But maybe you never really deserved to be and that's what offends you most about the new guy. When he stands next to you, it's obvious. And the "experienced" guys get angry instead of honest and defensive instead of relieved that nobodies trying to expose their skeletons or belittle them for being who they are, of having done what they've done. All that's happened is the right man has finally come along. It's not an insult, it's a changing of the guard. Everyone still has their helmet and pins.
I can't help but feel that Obama will change. That in achieving his child hood dream of becoming president of the United States, he will loose all the innocence and newness that he has right now. The saddest part of seeing Obama being president will be the greying of his hair and the loss of his own innocence. Being a new comer has it's advantages and over the next four years, he won't be a new comer any more. But his intellect and rational will hold him out. He's no dumby and despite what I just wrote, he's no ingenue either. I believe he knows what he's in for, but might not know the full extent of what it will do to him personally. How could he? Could any of us plan that far ahead?
What ever does happen over the next few weeks there is something I am certain of. Barack Obama will be president of the United States of America. And the world will get a whole new picture of what an American is. We'll surprise everybody, as if for the first time, because it's been so long since we've delivered anything new and interesting to them. We'll catch them off guard, and they'll like us for it and we'll all have something to be giddy about for a while. After over 200 years of the world deciding what an American is and what to expect from us, we're gonna throw 'em a curve ball. And yes, they may be pissed that where a hit should of been, they just got a strike, but it's such a damn good pitch, they'll have to be impressed anyway. That's when being wrong feels really right. When you've been beaten by someone who REALLY deserved to beat you. There's no shame in that. In fact, that innocent kid deep down inside of us can't help but being really impressed.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
I've been gone too long. Ideas have been flooding my mind but I haven't written then down. It's had an extremely negative effect on me. I'm this bottle of anger and anxiety and I want it to go away. Here's my first attempt at purging.
"KILL HIM"- are you out of your fucking mind!?? Honestly I am appauled that the entire republcian rally wasn't shut the fuck down just to weed that dispicable mother fucker out. Palin stood on her podiem basking in the hate, and all McCain had to say at the most recent bebate was how unfair Obama had been to him?????? "KILL HIM"- God those words won't get out of my head. This is the power of video. It's so intense, to actually witness the moment happening and so much more effective then any newspaper article could be. Were this rally event simply discribed in an article I couldn't have FELT the comment the way I did. It had an EMOTIOLAL impact on me, not just an intellectual one. CNN really had the most wonderful idea with these video bites. It's LIVE reporting. Reporting that isn't reporting so much as sharing what's going on at any given moment. It reminded me of what I read in Beckett chapter 2 and his entire "Network process", how the public is never not a part of this process. The news becomes so much more ALIVE that way. There's no static and solidity because everything keeps moving. I have this feeling that if I'd read about this event in an article, there would have been barely any effect. Of course I there is a slight worry that perhaps these emotional reactions are a little dangerous and getting wrapped up in news events might be unhealthy. Perhaps a little distance is necessary in order to not want to KILL somebody back! Really it sucked me in to the extreme and I wonder if it's such a positive thing. It's definately an effective form a media, but maybe TOO effective, do you know what I mean? Honestly I wanted to rip McCain's throat out! That's not the healthiest thing to feel. Coming full circle however, I felt such trememdous amounts of respect for PRESIDENT Obama, because he didn't let himself get wrapped up in the ciaous. He remained calm and also open to all of McCain statements, even while his political alignements were questioned in the wake of having his life threatened. This is steadiness to almost perturbing extent, which I think is many people's problem with Obama. They think he's just TOO cool and plays it safe all the time, by choosing to take the high road instead of getting down and dirty. I don't think Obama take's the safe road however. Is it safe to sit face to face with someone who doesn't really care that one of his supporters wants you dead? Is it safe to remain opened to all his opposing thoughts and ideas, even when instinct would tell you to take him down in defense of yourself? Obama was obviously upset personally by all McCain's campaign has said about him, but he puts his personal interests aside. That's almost selflessness, and in a politician, that's probably never going to happen again. AOL absolutely stunned me therefore, when after the debate they maid announcements stating McCain had won the debate because of his attacks on Obama which they defined as "McCain declaring his independence". Why do they keep on watering down McCain's actions and playing up all of Obama's imperfections? In my opinion it's desperation dressed up. What makes me sad is that some voters are falling for it, just cause they really want a good fight. That's all some people want. I realized that after the debate last night. What the candidates are saying is none consequential. Frigtening actually.
"KILL HIM"- are you out of your fucking mind!?? Honestly I am appauled that the entire republcian rally wasn't shut the fuck down just to weed that dispicable mother fucker out. Palin stood on her podiem basking in the hate, and all McCain had to say at the most recent bebate was how unfair Obama had been to him?????? "KILL HIM"- God those words won't get out of my head. This is the power of video. It's so intense, to actually witness the moment happening and so much more effective then any newspaper article could be. Were this rally event simply discribed in an article I couldn't have FELT the comment the way I did. It had an EMOTIOLAL impact on me, not just an intellectual one. CNN really had the most wonderful idea with these video bites. It's LIVE reporting. Reporting that isn't reporting so much as sharing what's going on at any given moment. It reminded me of what I read in Beckett chapter 2 and his entire "Network process", how the public is never not a part of this process. The news becomes so much more ALIVE that way. There's no static and solidity because everything keeps moving. I have this feeling that if I'd read about this event in an article, there would have been barely any effect. Of course I there is a slight worry that perhaps these emotional reactions are a little dangerous and getting wrapped up in news events might be unhealthy. Perhaps a little distance is necessary in order to not want to KILL somebody back! Really it sucked me in to the extreme and I wonder if it's such a positive thing. It's definately an effective form a media, but maybe TOO effective, do you know what I mean? Honestly I wanted to rip McCain's throat out! That's not the healthiest thing to feel. Coming full circle however, I felt such trememdous amounts of respect for PRESIDENT Obama, because he didn't let himself get wrapped up in the ciaous. He remained calm and also open to all of McCain statements, even while his political alignements were questioned in the wake of having his life threatened. This is steadiness to almost perturbing extent, which I think is many people's problem with Obama. They think he's just TOO cool and plays it safe all the time, by choosing to take the high road instead of getting down and dirty. I don't think Obama take's the safe road however. Is it safe to sit face to face with someone who doesn't really care that one of his supporters wants you dead? Is it safe to remain opened to all his opposing thoughts and ideas, even when instinct would tell you to take him down in defense of yourself? Obama was obviously upset personally by all McCain's campaign has said about him, but he puts his personal interests aside. That's almost selflessness, and in a politician, that's probably never going to happen again. AOL absolutely stunned me therefore, when after the debate they maid announcements stating McCain had won the debate because of his attacks on Obama which they defined as "McCain declaring his independence". Why do they keep on watering down McCain's actions and playing up all of Obama's imperfections? In my opinion it's desperation dressed up. What makes me sad is that some voters are falling for it, just cause they really want a good fight. That's all some people want. I realized that after the debate last night. What the candidates are saying is none consequential. Frigtening actually.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
VP Debate
The outcome of the VP debate was obvious and though I am completely biased in favor of the Obama camp, it cheered me to here that polls generally agreed with me. The media coverage of the event was rapid, as predicted and as anticipated it was hot off the press. It had his the online air waves before I could get me hands on a full version of the debate. I'd worked late last Thursday and was getting home just as the debate had wrapped up. Not a particularly convenient position to be in when you're assigned to FIRST WATCH the debate THEN COMMENT on the coverage. I got to frustrated that the only recordings of the evening where cut up into parts one through five, or one through ten, and often they were out of order or missing a part. I'm still not sure I witnessed the entire debate. I honestly don't remember Joe Biden's emotional mention of his single father hood. I did see what I believe was most of the debate however, and from what I saw, It was ten times more exciting then the presidential debate the week before.
After I'd pieced together the bits of the debate on google video's (honestly, CNN and CSPAN weren't downloading properly and required certain plug ins, which irritated me- perhaps they just hadn't enough time to post the entire event yet. I can't be sure), I allowed myself to read the commentary and indulge in commentary video bites (which, ironically, CNN had already posted, and made very easily accessible..hmmmm). After reading a few articles and taking in a few videos, I was extremely disappointed to realize most reporters had watered down the good of Joe Biden with the highlights of Sarah Palin. Every time they complimented his thorough answers and knowledge, they felt the need to mention how surprisingly together she was, and how surprisingly well informed she seemed to be. They didn't stay on subject. They were so intent on seeming neutral, they compared apples and oranges in order to do so, which I don't believe is good reporting. For example, if they were going to compliment Joe Biden on his thorough answers and extensive knowledge, then continue to comment on the thoroughness and knowledge displayed by Sarah Palin. In my opinion she displayed none of either to speak of, but say that for Christ's sake. If they'd been talking about Charisma, and they couldn't help but mention Sarah Palin's audience appeal, then stay on subject and tell why or why not Joe Biden connected with the audience in the same way. Every reporter seemed sooo intent of playing middle ground, they forgot to stand their ground and remain on subject. Now I respect their general goal to remain neutral. I believe this is the moral responsibility of the press, but speak on subject to subject don't jump around to point out all the goods, then all the bads. This kind of reporting blurrs the issues, instead of clarifying them.
I must say the easiest to comprehend is a chart that AOL constructed. It is made up of four reporters, two democrat, two republican, and they are asked to score specific categories from one to five for each of the candidates. This way you can see exactly how each candidate fared in comparison to each other in each of the categories. The categories range from knowledge to appearance to audience appeal and so on. By being placed side to side it's easy to compare the two appropriately, as opposed to washing out ones' positive aspect with the an other's completely different positive aspect. It's chaotic and confusing. Of course on this AOL chart I did notice a certain pattern of Democrats being fair, yes leaning toward their candidate but not giving the opposition much below a three, as opposed to the Republican reporters who often gave Joes Biden VERY low scores, as they had done with Obama. I thought that was pretty terrible and pretty darn revealing as to the way they operate.
As an aside, I've noticed recently with the "smear" campaign coverage, the reporters have really begun to hurt the Obama camp with this watered down, overly fair coverage. They continue to say "both candidates" are pulling out their smear campaign strategies and getting ugly, when the Obama camp has been far less malicious and far more retaliatory simply because they had to be. How can any reporter lump Obama's calling McCain erratic on policies to McCain painting Obama as a pal to terrorists and a covert Muslim terrorist himself. One is hard hitting, but the other is just plain trash. But Reporters lump them in together, not making any distinction between the two strategies. I personally feel the Obama camp has maintained their integrity. In response to Palin and McCain's first onslaught of attacks the Obama campaign responded only be saying that McCain wants to distract people from the real issues by attempting to smear Obama. I think that's pretty classy considering they could have dug into Palin/McCain's past and found a whole hell of a lot of skeletons to lay out had they so chosen. They have not but conversely have repeatedly tried to turn attention back to the issues at hand. They should be praised for this, but, because the press wants to appear unbiased, is insisting upon lumping all arguments together, reporting them as if they are all similar. They are not. For example "At the same time, Obama has been hitting McCain on the stump, charging that his campaign is running away from the real issues to launch "Swift-boat style" smears. In one recent advertisement, the Obama campaign quotes an editorial saying McCain has shown "erratic" leadership over the past two weeks." Michael Scherer (CNN on line). And there you go. How is that smearing him? It's saying exactly what is happening and retaliating. How can he not retaliate in some way, and of all the ways to do it, this is the most benign.
Yes, neutrality is important in reporting. But is this blurring of the lines a way to be neutral, or a way of copping out? Even worse, could it be a way of not being neutral at all, but honestly attempting to make one (Obama) look as bad as the other (McCain). I'd hate to think of the later really being a possibility at this point.
After I'd pieced together the bits of the debate on google video's (honestly, CNN and CSPAN weren't downloading properly and required certain plug ins, which irritated me- perhaps they just hadn't enough time to post the entire event yet. I can't be sure), I allowed myself to read the commentary and indulge in commentary video bites (which, ironically, CNN had already posted, and made very easily accessible..hmmmm). After reading a few articles and taking in a few videos, I was extremely disappointed to realize most reporters had watered down the good of Joe Biden with the highlights of Sarah Palin. Every time they complimented his thorough answers and knowledge, they felt the need to mention how surprisingly together she was, and how surprisingly well informed she seemed to be. They didn't stay on subject. They were so intent on seeming neutral, they compared apples and oranges in order to do so, which I don't believe is good reporting. For example, if they were going to compliment Joe Biden on his thorough answers and extensive knowledge, then continue to comment on the thoroughness and knowledge displayed by Sarah Palin. In my opinion she displayed none of either to speak of, but say that for Christ's sake. If they'd been talking about Charisma, and they couldn't help but mention Sarah Palin's audience appeal, then stay on subject and tell why or why not Joe Biden connected with the audience in the same way. Every reporter seemed sooo intent of playing middle ground, they forgot to stand their ground and remain on subject. Now I respect their general goal to remain neutral. I believe this is the moral responsibility of the press, but speak on subject to subject don't jump around to point out all the goods, then all the bads. This kind of reporting blurrs the issues, instead of clarifying them.
I must say the easiest to comprehend is a chart that AOL constructed. It is made up of four reporters, two democrat, two republican, and they are asked to score specific categories from one to five for each of the candidates. This way you can see exactly how each candidate fared in comparison to each other in each of the categories. The categories range from knowledge to appearance to audience appeal and so on. By being placed side to side it's easy to compare the two appropriately, as opposed to washing out ones' positive aspect with the an other's completely different positive aspect. It's chaotic and confusing. Of course on this AOL chart I did notice a certain pattern of Democrats being fair, yes leaning toward their candidate but not giving the opposition much below a three, as opposed to the Republican reporters who often gave Joes Biden VERY low scores, as they had done with Obama. I thought that was pretty terrible and pretty darn revealing as to the way they operate.
As an aside, I've noticed recently with the "smear" campaign coverage, the reporters have really begun to hurt the Obama camp with this watered down, overly fair coverage. They continue to say "both candidates" are pulling out their smear campaign strategies and getting ugly, when the Obama camp has been far less malicious and far more retaliatory simply because they had to be. How can any reporter lump Obama's calling McCain erratic on policies to McCain painting Obama as a pal to terrorists and a covert Muslim terrorist himself. One is hard hitting, but the other is just plain trash. But Reporters lump them in together, not making any distinction between the two strategies. I personally feel the Obama camp has maintained their integrity. In response to Palin and McCain's first onslaught of attacks the Obama campaign responded only be saying that McCain wants to distract people from the real issues by attempting to smear Obama. I think that's pretty classy considering they could have dug into Palin/McCain's past and found a whole hell of a lot of skeletons to lay out had they so chosen. They have not but conversely have repeatedly tried to turn attention back to the issues at hand. They should be praised for this, but, because the press wants to appear unbiased, is insisting upon lumping all arguments together, reporting them as if they are all similar. They are not. For example "At the same time, Obama has been hitting McCain on the stump, charging that his campaign is running away from the real issues to launch "Swift-boat style" smears. In one recent advertisement, the Obama campaign quotes an editorial saying McCain has shown "erratic" leadership over the past two weeks." Michael Scherer (CNN on line). And there you go. How is that smearing him? It's saying exactly what is happening and retaliating. How can he not retaliate in some way, and of all the ways to do it, this is the most benign.
Yes, neutrality is important in reporting. But is this blurring of the lines a way to be neutral, or a way of copping out? Even worse, could it be a way of not being neutral at all, but honestly attempting to make one (Obama) look as bad as the other (McCain). I'd hate to think of the later really being a possibility at this point.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
living newspaper
Election Predictions. Look into a crystal ball and I'll Tell ya who'll win. And some will say one thing, others will say the contrary and in the end person A or person B will have predicted correctly, through luck more then any talent of their own and they'll inevitably spend the next four years patting themselves on the back for it. News media is covering EVERY angle of these elections. AOL is tireringly Republican and for this VERY liberal girl, it became redundant and irritating enough to send me else where for news. And elsewhere I found I liked what I saw. Polls were more on my side then AOL had let on EVER, and details where not being skipped and a platform was not being pushed. CNN reporters were refreshingly well rounded. The Yahoo reports definitely steared more toward the left. But what I noticed about all the sites was their use of video clips to not only share the debates long after it had actually occurred, but also to relate the news, to display and relay the facts through visual and audio sensory reception as opposed to the very cranial process of reading. But the news was the same as reading a newspaper article. A traditional newspaper article, uninfected by reporters "blogging" instead of reporting, these video clips where newspaper articles brought to life. Through color and motion and sound no longer where long sentences printed in ridiculously uncomfortable to read 8 pt print black ink on grey paper, but alive for the viewer to take in instantly, without the comprehension translation that occurs during reading. It was all spoon fed to the views, like caramelized onions and candied yams, made sweet for easier ingestion. And I thought to myself "how brilliant this is" that news can now become live action, as opposed to just mental translation. It was a brilliant way to use the Internet. Forget just including a typed story on an online page, you carry the story out in front of a camera and include it as a bite on a page filled with photos on the same event. CNN video was the best, dedicating an entire section of there website to only the video coverage of COMMENTARY, just like a newspaper article would be, instead of just recording video footage of the actual events for viewing at a later time. And it was SO much more effective then ordinary news broadcasts on TV. Those broadcasts always seek to entertain too, so a dramatic spin is always put into each story, each broadcast, which taints the news and sort of irritates the shit out of those who are watching and really just wanted to know what happened that day. It's like trying to candy spinach,,... the ingredients are just all wrong. By taking articles like they'd be written in a newspaper, filled with facts as opposed to drama, and placing into a medium that is itself candy like to ingest, you're using the right ingredients and the correct format. It's such an effective new way to report news. It's sort of like books on tape, only visual too, and not filled with story, but with facts that are presented to you as if you're getting those facts first hand, looking into the eye of the human being that collected them, as opposed to black ink rubbing off on your hands as you fumble through page after page that's way more then an arms length apart and eye straining to take in.
These video clips really were the best way to discuss the debates and relay the information in an unobstructed and approachable way. CNN video was really brilliant, but I noticed more then one website had commentary included on videos. Yes they all had typed articles attached to their news features, but EVERY news feature included this kind of video clip as well, and it was effective. They could play back parts of the debate that had inspired reactions in them and quote directly on a paused frame of footage, as opposed to having to go back and reconstruct the area of the debate by layering word upon word in descriptive text, in a way sooo few writers have enough command over for most readers to comprehend, much less enjoy. You don't have to discribe what you're able to show. Without the burden of having to describe you can then fit in so much more information, because nobody will be using brain energy just to get the idea and setting of it all. Descriptive information like that becomes reliable back drop, we know it's there because we see it so we don't really have waste much mental energy on it and can leave all the excess brain space to absorbing more discussion and fact relay, It's really a lovely idea. Plus, when a reporter is describing another's face, their description is inevitably molded by their interpretation of the candidate. If all the reporter is doing is sharing their commentary through a play back, you, the viewer, can see the face of the candidate yourself, you maintains the final judgement, and there's no risk of a reporter interjecting their emotional response to a candidates gestures before you get to view it yourself.
It's wonderful, when reading a novel, to piece together the authors words into a world of your own invention. That same device is so detrimental to relaying facts. It's much more effective to let people see for themselves, even see the reporters of those facts themselves, so they can make decisions about the person reporting the facts. I watched the debate on my own. My interpretation was one of disappointment mostly. I found the debates to be very dry and uneventful and found McCain being much more charming then I believed he could be. I was a little frightened actually. Yet I saw Obama not backing down, not loosing his resolve to give into John McCains attacks, and it was definately encouraging. It's always impressive to see a young man behaving more maturely and controled then an older man. It's a huge statement of the young man's character. Yet to visually be given an comment on specific points of the debate was so much simpler then having a reporter describe which part they meant in the text of the report. Plus I could see the person who was reporting. That made everything seem more honest. I enjoy this new kind of reporting. Videos are an immensely effective new format for article information. It was actually after reading articles printed in the New York Times that I realized how closely related were the video clips I'd seen on CNN the day before. Honestly, I felt the style and format of the information distribution was identical, but the presentation had been amplified through color and sound. I loved the translation. It was amazingly effective and I hope everyone will visit CNN Video, and watch these video bites on the debate.
These video clips really were the best way to discuss the debates and relay the information in an unobstructed and approachable way. CNN video was really brilliant, but I noticed more then one website had commentary included on videos. Yes they all had typed articles attached to their news features, but EVERY news feature included this kind of video clip as well, and it was effective. They could play back parts of the debate that had inspired reactions in them and quote directly on a paused frame of footage, as opposed to having to go back and reconstruct the area of the debate by layering word upon word in descriptive text, in a way sooo few writers have enough command over for most readers to comprehend, much less enjoy. You don't have to discribe what you're able to show. Without the burden of having to describe you can then fit in so much more information, because nobody will be using brain energy just to get the idea and setting of it all. Descriptive information like that becomes reliable back drop, we know it's there because we see it so we don't really have waste much mental energy on it and can leave all the excess brain space to absorbing more discussion and fact relay, It's really a lovely idea. Plus, when a reporter is describing another's face, their description is inevitably molded by their interpretation of the candidate. If all the reporter is doing is sharing their commentary through a play back, you, the viewer, can see the face of the candidate yourself, you maintains the final judgement, and there's no risk of a reporter interjecting their emotional response to a candidates gestures before you get to view it yourself.
It's wonderful, when reading a novel, to piece together the authors words into a world of your own invention. That same device is so detrimental to relaying facts. It's much more effective to let people see for themselves, even see the reporters of those facts themselves, so they can make decisions about the person reporting the facts. I watched the debate on my own. My interpretation was one of disappointment mostly. I found the debates to be very dry and uneventful and found McCain being much more charming then I believed he could be. I was a little frightened actually. Yet I saw Obama not backing down, not loosing his resolve to give into John McCains attacks, and it was definately encouraging. It's always impressive to see a young man behaving more maturely and controled then an older man. It's a huge statement of the young man's character. Yet to visually be given an comment on specific points of the debate was so much simpler then having a reporter describe which part they meant in the text of the report. Plus I could see the person who was reporting. That made everything seem more honest. I enjoy this new kind of reporting. Videos are an immensely effective new format for article information. It was actually after reading articles printed in the New York Times that I realized how closely related were the video clips I'd seen on CNN the day before. Honestly, I felt the style and format of the information distribution was identical, but the presentation had been amplified through color and sound. I loved the translation. It was amazingly effective and I hope everyone will visit CNN Video, and watch these video bites on the debate.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Pit of my stomach
There's a glob of emotional sewage growing ever larger in my stomach. Honestly sometimes I find it difficult to eat. I've suspected wrong doing ever since the Obama/Clinton race for the democratic nomination for presidential candidate and it's getting worse not better. Intrusive and heavier everyday I log onto AOL.com, this emotional infestation is hunching my shoulders and greying my hair along with ruining my appetite.
In 2002 I got a job working at the Norwalk Hour Newspaper in Norwalk, CT. It serves the Lower Fairfield County area. They offered email addresses through a little known browser named Netscape, and ever since then, I've logged on every single day, at least once a day to gather and send emails. Not long ago Netscape was over taken by AOL, which in itself became a free service, much to the joy of all my friends parents who had been paying for it for so long. The look of my email page changed, it didn't work as well, but every important contact I had was familiar with my netscape email address, so I continued to use it faithfully. Perhaps it was AOL's advanced talent with web design, a more clever and interesting appearance then netscape, or their relentless placement of featured news announcements on the log in screen to my email account, but I began to read the news every day. Come election time, I was so addicted to what was going on I'd log into AOL to read the news alone, forgetting about my email. I'd never really done this before. Honestly it was a phenomenon. I'd been proud and blissful being an uninformed artist, soully existing in her imagination and shunning the out side world (?????). A pretty excuse for denial I realize, but that's discussion for another blog.
Being artistic is a blessing. You're always content in your own world, your mind occupies itself with fancy, there's always a place to go without leaving the confines of your own room. This makes brain washing pretty damn impossible. So, even though I was reading AOL's news every day, certain features started to pop their ugly mugs out at me. For example, Every time I read about Hillary Clinton, there was a negative and damning headline accompanied by a series of 500 photographs from the most recent speech/rally or convention that where 500 times more unflattering. She's not a gorgeous woman, but lighting can do wonders, and professional photographers know that. They weren't unflattering by accident. The headlines of these articles would always read "Clinton comes off as racist" or "Hillary Not Well received", with some half quote attached to it. Slightly more discriminating then most, I read the entire article. Within the article of course the facts were relayed and the quote completed, the headline featured issues were put into context (at least slightly so) and quickly became malignant in comparison to their advertised previews. As I flipped through the photos I realized almost every photo was taken from a down ward angle, with Hillary's face in a grimace and eye brows furrowed. A few here and there showed her with her daughter Chelsea in an embrace or encouraging glance exchange, but to get to those you'd have to be willing to stick through the first 250 that had presented her poorly. What materialized from this was the realization that most people are not as obsessive as I am. They won't read the whole article or flip through all 500 photos. They're content with the headlines, or first paragraph and won't bother to look beyond the first 10 photos. These AOL reporters were getting away with back door reporting. Yeah they reported the truth, after you dug through two pages of twisted quotations and 250 paparazzi prize photos. It was horrid.
Mean while EVERY photo of Obama made him look like a prince. Really, the big smile, the camera angle looking up at his glowing smile, with the sunlight behind him. Like some sun God or modern Messiah. Now I like Obama. I have no problem telling you that not only will he be getting my vote for president in November, but I've donated to his campaign twice. I believe in his views and I'm down right inspired by his style of leadership. But poor Hillary! The "angle" of the democratic presidential campaign on the AOL sight was painfully clear, and really sickening. I like Hillary Clinton too. Honestly, I was rooting for her for the presidential nomination; I thought Obama would have been a brilliant VP. What made me happy about the democratic situation was that in the end, I believed in both candidates, and knew I'd be happy to support either. But these AOL folks, they were vicious. Hillary was Satan and Obama was a saint. It was fuckin' sick! How the hell could they call themselves reporters when they were campaigning for their personal choices through their articles. It pissed me off, and as I read the message boards located directly under the daily articles, it was igniting the same response in the other's who, like me, had taken the time to pick through the details.
Now here's the rub, the place where things really start to churn and thud around in my tender tummie. Fast forward to current articles on the AOL page, and they're now using the same negative camera angles and chopped quote headlines toward Obama, and the sympathetic headlines and flattering camera angles for Sarah Palin. EEEEWWWWWW. The back stabbery is ohhh sooo Shakespearean. It's slice, tear and rip can be felt all throughout cyberdom. How terribly uncreative to work at picking the candidate for the democratic ticket, build him a pedestal so high no eye could see any other but him, just to be able to control, or think you could control the detonation of that pedestal when the time was ripe. Who the hell owns AOL? And where's the picture of them and Cindy and John at the Hensley and Co. 2007 Christmas party??? Somebody tell me please! And now, for the poison that set me over the edge today, take a look please at the new AOL celebrity feature "Houses of the Stars". Click through three pictures of "This is where Anthony Hopkins spends time with his wife", with no mention of past divorces and "This was Sean Penn's home with Robin Wright" with no mention of current marital trouble, and more of the like, to photo #4 of Obama's $1.7 million dollar home (Not much more expensive then what most of the lawyers around here live in) and then read the quote attached to it. Okay, Okay,...I'm happy to tell you:
"Concrete Barriers, steel barricades and "no parking" signs are what neighbors have to deal with Barack Obama living near by in his $1.65 million home." Hmmmm. Let's think what that's meant to do? If you're eyes have blinked you've had enough time to get this one. It's pretty damn obvious. And how sickening. Especially since McCain can't even remember how many homes he owns! Keep flipping and you'll see three more prominent political figures featured. Bloomberg, Republican mayor of New York City and his 45 million dollar brownstone (!!!!!!!) and Bill and Hillary Clinton and their 1.3 million dollar Dutch vacation home. You seeing a trend here? Cause this writer's definitely got a view point she's pushin on ya! Only I'm not calling myself a reporter am I? I'm not telling you these are the facts as they have presented themselves. I'm letting you know my interpretation of everything I've been observing, and you know it's my personal view point. Maybe you don't share my opinions, but at least you know that's what they are, and exactly where they came from. I'm not telling you this is what is fact and truth and please look no further! That's not reporting, it's campaigning, and that is NOT the job of the press.
We can't really trust these people can we? Where once, or ideally we're supposed to depend on them to reveal social truths others have no access to, we now have to rely on our Internet savvy to gather RAW information for ourselves. It's hard work though, and we really don't have that much time to do it, at least not without risking our jobs or college careers by spending inappropriate amounts of time browsing instead of working or paying attention to our teachers presentations. The press has a responsibility to us all. A duty of sorts, whether they have to be certified and sworn in like Doctors and Lawyers (though that ones a laugh) or not. We need reporters in our society, to dig out the truths for us, 'cause it's a full time job we just can't do in our spare time. Who has spare time anymore any way? AOL should hang there heads in shame for such an absolute abuse of all reporting is suppose to contribute to free thought and autonomy. What if Doctors just started operating on "What ever" once they had you under the knife, or Pilots just decided, "You know where I REALLY want to go this weekend" and took the turn there instead of where you'd paid to go? This crap is unethical, and I can't believe someone hasn't called them out and taken them down for indulging in it so regularly and decadently! I'm disheartened and disgusted, I really am.
In 2002 I got a job working at the Norwalk Hour Newspaper in Norwalk, CT. It serves the Lower Fairfield County area. They offered email addresses through a little known browser named Netscape, and ever since then, I've logged on every single day, at least once a day to gather and send emails. Not long ago Netscape was over taken by AOL, which in itself became a free service, much to the joy of all my friends parents who had been paying for it for so long. The look of my email page changed, it didn't work as well, but every important contact I had was familiar with my netscape email address, so I continued to use it faithfully. Perhaps it was AOL's advanced talent with web design, a more clever and interesting appearance then netscape, or their relentless placement of featured news announcements on the log in screen to my email account, but I began to read the news every day. Come election time, I was so addicted to what was going on I'd log into AOL to read the news alone, forgetting about my email. I'd never really done this before. Honestly it was a phenomenon. I'd been proud and blissful being an uninformed artist, soully existing in her imagination and shunning the out side world (?????). A pretty excuse for denial I realize, but that's discussion for another blog.
Being artistic is a blessing. You're always content in your own world, your mind occupies itself with fancy, there's always a place to go without leaving the confines of your own room. This makes brain washing pretty damn impossible. So, even though I was reading AOL's news every day, certain features started to pop their ugly mugs out at me. For example, Every time I read about Hillary Clinton, there was a negative and damning headline accompanied by a series of 500 photographs from the most recent speech/rally or convention that where 500 times more unflattering. She's not a gorgeous woman, but lighting can do wonders, and professional photographers know that. They weren't unflattering by accident. The headlines of these articles would always read "Clinton comes off as racist" or "Hillary Not Well received", with some half quote attached to it. Slightly more discriminating then most, I read the entire article. Within the article of course the facts were relayed and the quote completed, the headline featured issues were put into context (at least slightly so) and quickly became malignant in comparison to their advertised previews. As I flipped through the photos I realized almost every photo was taken from a down ward angle, with Hillary's face in a grimace and eye brows furrowed. A few here and there showed her with her daughter Chelsea in an embrace or encouraging glance exchange, but to get to those you'd have to be willing to stick through the first 250 that had presented her poorly. What materialized from this was the realization that most people are not as obsessive as I am. They won't read the whole article or flip through all 500 photos. They're content with the headlines, or first paragraph and won't bother to look beyond the first 10 photos. These AOL reporters were getting away with back door reporting. Yeah they reported the truth, after you dug through two pages of twisted quotations and 250 paparazzi prize photos. It was horrid.
Mean while EVERY photo of Obama made him look like a prince. Really, the big smile, the camera angle looking up at his glowing smile, with the sunlight behind him. Like some sun God or modern Messiah. Now I like Obama. I have no problem telling you that not only will he be getting my vote for president in November, but I've donated to his campaign twice. I believe in his views and I'm down right inspired by his style of leadership. But poor Hillary! The "angle" of the democratic presidential campaign on the AOL sight was painfully clear, and really sickening. I like Hillary Clinton too. Honestly, I was rooting for her for the presidential nomination; I thought Obama would have been a brilliant VP. What made me happy about the democratic situation was that in the end, I believed in both candidates, and knew I'd be happy to support either. But these AOL folks, they were vicious. Hillary was Satan and Obama was a saint. It was fuckin' sick! How the hell could they call themselves reporters when they were campaigning for their personal choices through their articles. It pissed me off, and as I read the message boards located directly under the daily articles, it was igniting the same response in the other's who, like me, had taken the time to pick through the details.
Now here's the rub, the place where things really start to churn and thud around in my tender tummie. Fast forward to current articles on the AOL page, and they're now using the same negative camera angles and chopped quote headlines toward Obama, and the sympathetic headlines and flattering camera angles for Sarah Palin. EEEEWWWWWW. The back stabbery is ohhh sooo Shakespearean. It's slice, tear and rip can be felt all throughout cyberdom. How terribly uncreative to work at picking the candidate for the democratic ticket, build him a pedestal so high no eye could see any other but him, just to be able to control, or think you could control the detonation of that pedestal when the time was ripe. Who the hell owns AOL? And where's the picture of them and Cindy and John at the Hensley and Co. 2007 Christmas party??? Somebody tell me please! And now, for the poison that set me over the edge today, take a look please at the new AOL celebrity feature "Houses of the Stars". Click through three pictures of "This is where Anthony Hopkins spends time with his wife", with no mention of past divorces and "This was Sean Penn's home with Robin Wright" with no mention of current marital trouble, and more of the like, to photo #4 of Obama's $1.7 million dollar home (Not much more expensive then what most of the lawyers around here live in) and then read the quote attached to it. Okay, Okay,...I'm happy to tell you:
"Concrete Barriers, steel barricades and "no parking" signs are what neighbors have to deal with Barack Obama living near by in his $1.65 million home." Hmmmm. Let's think what that's meant to do? If you're eyes have blinked you've had enough time to get this one. It's pretty damn obvious. And how sickening. Especially since McCain can't even remember how many homes he owns! Keep flipping and you'll see three more prominent political figures featured. Bloomberg, Republican mayor of New York City and his 45 million dollar brownstone (!!!!!!!) and Bill and Hillary Clinton and their 1.3 million dollar Dutch vacation home. You seeing a trend here? Cause this writer's definitely got a view point she's pushin on ya! Only I'm not calling myself a reporter am I? I'm not telling you these are the facts as they have presented themselves. I'm letting you know my interpretation of everything I've been observing, and you know it's my personal view point. Maybe you don't share my opinions, but at least you know that's what they are, and exactly where they came from. I'm not telling you this is what is fact and truth and please look no further! That's not reporting, it's campaigning, and that is NOT the job of the press.
We can't really trust these people can we? Where once, or ideally we're supposed to depend on them to reveal social truths others have no access to, we now have to rely on our Internet savvy to gather RAW information for ourselves. It's hard work though, and we really don't have that much time to do it, at least not without risking our jobs or college careers by spending inappropriate amounts of time browsing instead of working or paying attention to our teachers presentations. The press has a responsibility to us all. A duty of sorts, whether they have to be certified and sworn in like Doctors and Lawyers (though that ones a laugh) or not. We need reporters in our society, to dig out the truths for us, 'cause it's a full time job we just can't do in our spare time. Who has spare time anymore any way? AOL should hang there heads in shame for such an absolute abuse of all reporting is suppose to contribute to free thought and autonomy. What if Doctors just started operating on "What ever" once they had you under the knife, or Pilots just decided, "You know where I REALLY want to go this weekend" and took the turn there instead of where you'd paid to go? This crap is unethical, and I can't believe someone hasn't called them out and taken them down for indulging in it so regularly and decadently! I'm disheartened and disgusted, I really am.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
ABC Charlie Gibson/ Sarah Palin- Oucch!
OH GOD HELP!!! Did any of you see Palin's interview with Charlie Gibson on ABC? Check it out on you tube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdIni2XhBT0.
Not only does she NOT ANSWER ANY QUESTION she's asked in a direct fashion, but she's unaware of the subject matter on more then one topic. Her first response to almost every question is wide eyed "DUHHH". Seriously, check out the interview! Mr. Gibson does not seem impressed by her at all and he politely eats her answers alive and points out her obvious avoidance of direct answers. Specifically when asked "Do you believe in the Bush Doctrine" she answers, "In what respect Charlie?" he answers, "How do you interpret it?" She answers, "His World View",,, he then says, "No, THE BUSH DOCTRINE, and then has to tell her what it is, what is included in the Doctrine... that we have a right to preemptive strikes against other countries. She didn't know what it was until he told her!!!!! She makes a big, "patriotic" statement about what an honor it was for her to visit the troops in Kuwait RECENTLY- not before she came into the spot light- to cover up her quick answer to Gibson's simple question "Have you ever traveled abroad?" to which, quick as can be, she answers "Canada and Mexico". This is the person who's going to be in charge of foreign policy???? Why does the republican part even try to pretend they care about this country???
She's also supposed to purpose a plan to improve education in the USA. How can she do that when she's not properly educated, not even on the subjects she NEEDS to be prepared for!!!!???? Thank God Hillary's still in the senate.
Not only does she NOT ANSWER ANY QUESTION she's asked in a direct fashion, but she's unaware of the subject matter on more then one topic. Her first response to almost every question is wide eyed "DUHHH". Seriously, check out the interview! Mr. Gibson does not seem impressed by her at all and he politely eats her answers alive and points out her obvious avoidance of direct answers. Specifically when asked "Do you believe in the Bush Doctrine" she answers, "In what respect Charlie?" he answers, "How do you interpret it?" She answers, "His World View",,, he then says, "No, THE BUSH DOCTRINE, and then has to tell her what it is, what is included in the Doctrine... that we have a right to preemptive strikes against other countries. She didn't know what it was until he told her!!!!! She makes a big, "patriotic" statement about what an honor it was for her to visit the troops in Kuwait RECENTLY- not before she came into the spot light- to cover up her quick answer to Gibson's simple question "Have you ever traveled abroad?" to which, quick as can be, she answers "Canada and Mexico". This is the person who's going to be in charge of foreign policy???? Why does the republican part even try to pretend they care about this country???
She's also supposed to purpose a plan to improve education in the USA. How can she do that when she's not properly educated, not even on the subjects she NEEDS to be prepared for!!!!???? Thank God Hillary's still in the senate.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Palin
No woman in her right mind that is a Hillary Clinton supporter, would except Sarah Palin as an alternative. Even with a gun to my head, I'd think more clearly than that. The whole of Palin's speach at the RNC was to rip, tear, and make fun of everything Obama is and has done. This is a tactic commonly used by elementary school bullies world wide. They have no thoughts of their own, and wish to tear down those who do. They are incapable of deserving positive attention, but desperate to get any at all, settle for the negative kind. With no substantial educational back ground, reflected by her lack of concern for the state of our current public education system, how can we expect more from her? She brings down moose with her teeth and thinks this qualifies her as an independent woman. If we stilled lived in caves and had never evolved beyond neanderthals I suppose this would be true, but thankfully, women now realize we can be strong and independent and be ladies at the same time. Perhaps if she were singing a country song I'd like her. She'd be a redneck woman, no high class gal ( no class at all actually) and I'd like to listen to her catchy rhythms, but listening to her politics is just painful. Everything she says is against all that I believe makes America great. Individual thought, opportunities to better ones self wide open for the taking of anyone willing to work for them, safety for this country, not from bombs and guns and fear, but from international respect and transoceanic community, these make up the foundation of all our opportunities and growth. She mentions supporting clean coal and green policies, then promotes drilling in Alaska, a state she's supposed to protect, by telling those wanton listeners it's to create new jobs for them so their lives will be better. Their lives will be at risk, facing the ridiculous elemental challenges facing all Alaskan workers, only to have jobs that will be temporary and leave them nothing, and big oil raking in the millions. Al Gore is probably cussing under breath when he listens to her supposed support of all his hard work, while supporting such a degradation of our natural resources in the same sentence. It makes me cringe that the hard working people of Alaska have to depend on her to represent them. She can bring down a moose single handed huh? Well, she did assosiate herself with a pitbull. Pitbulls however are restricted in most housing complexes through out the 50 states due to there less then savory reputations and the distruction they tend to leave in their wake. I need not say any more.
I just pray all those bible belt religious fanatics, who have been brain washed from youth to believe global warming doesn't exsist and any one who isn't white is of the devil and will vote for exactly who they are told to vote for by their church leaders who depend on their mindlessness and fear to perpetuate the control exacted over them, will not out weigh the votes off all those dreamers, strivers and future leaders who can think for themselves. We don't tend to show up around election time, thinking too much of our already busy lives and because of it, have played a huge part in ruining our country for the past eight years. You know, only about seven votes threw Bush and Gore into a tie to begin with. Gore could have easily won eight years ago, actually was ahead far enough in the electorial votes to only end about seven votes behind Bush after Bush took all 48 of Florida's electorial votes. Gore had it in his grasp, but Florida took it away by giving all their votes to a man who'd won the popular election by only a handfull of stinking papers. But they were votes fair and square and deserved to be counted. After that the rules were the rules and had to apply. I was living in Florida at that time. A new single mother without a job and "boyfriend" that kept breaking my heart, I had better things to think about then the presidential election. Eight years later I live in a country that is far less then my beautiful child deserves. The one thing wrong with us liberals is we spend too much time in our dreams and thoughts. We gotta get the fuck out of our heads and into those GD voting booths. I know those brainwashed religious freaks of the midwest will be lining up to vote exactly the way they've been told, Rep. all the way, so damn it, we have to make sure we do the exact same. There are more of us then them! We can out vote them and turn this amazing country around. We have a responsibility to do so. We owe it to ourselves, and I owe it to my son.
I just pray all those bible belt religious fanatics, who have been brain washed from youth to believe global warming doesn't exsist and any one who isn't white is of the devil and will vote for exactly who they are told to vote for by their church leaders who depend on their mindlessness and fear to perpetuate the control exacted over them, will not out weigh the votes off all those dreamers, strivers and future leaders who can think for themselves. We don't tend to show up around election time, thinking too much of our already busy lives and because of it, have played a huge part in ruining our country for the past eight years. You know, only about seven votes threw Bush and Gore into a tie to begin with. Gore could have easily won eight years ago, actually was ahead far enough in the electorial votes to only end about seven votes behind Bush after Bush took all 48 of Florida's electorial votes. Gore had it in his grasp, but Florida took it away by giving all their votes to a man who'd won the popular election by only a handfull of stinking papers. But they were votes fair and square and deserved to be counted. After that the rules were the rules and had to apply. I was living in Florida at that time. A new single mother without a job and "boyfriend" that kept breaking my heart, I had better things to think about then the presidential election. Eight years later I live in a country that is far less then my beautiful child deserves. The one thing wrong with us liberals is we spend too much time in our dreams and thoughts. We gotta get the fuck out of our heads and into those GD voting booths. I know those brainwashed religious freaks of the midwest will be lining up to vote exactly the way they've been told, Rep. all the way, so damn it, we have to make sure we do the exact same. There are more of us then them! We can out vote them and turn this amazing country around. We have a responsibility to do so. We owe it to ourselves, and I owe it to my son.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
New to it all
I've never blogged before. Up until about a year ago I swore against it. Myspace really accumulated to the concept. You see, I'm from one of the last generations of young adults that was raised on good old paper and pens. People didn't "blog", they WROTE, with their hands connecting to a pen, connecting to a paper. It was tactile and fulfilling in being so. I still find it very difficult to type and think at the same time. I like to start out with a written copy ESPECIALLY if it's something of extreme importance to be graded or voted on, or judged in any way. I like the crossing out and scribbles, it's all a part of my thought process. Still, I must say, for an old gal like me, a die hard paper and pen person, I think I'm adjusting very well to the virtual world of blogging.
The most difficult concept of blogging for me to grasp is how many people will have access to what I've written. When I'd hand in a paper, I'd know exactly who was going to read it. If it was to be printed in the newspaper, a sense of pride would arise, knowing mom and grandma would hang the cut out on their refrigerators, but now, it's the whole wide web. Who's out there, and what do they want with me? For some it may be exciting, perhaps visions of being the next Pulitzer prize winner, discovered in blogland dance through there heads. For me it's still kind of frightening, having no connection what so ever with the people that have access to my work and what's contained in it. Facts and information are just the surface content of one's writings. Beneath those is me, the real me. My thoughts, feelings and opinions, my honesty, hopes, dreams and prejudices, all lie within the words, lines and paragraphs of what I've written. With each statement people get a clearer view of who I am, without ever revealing themselves. It's point blank freaky.
This assignment has pushed me over my fear line. I'd stopped dead in my blogging tracks prior to this class. I'd forgotten that I already had an account with blogger.com through gmail. Amazing, I didn't even remember, yet here I was, am, with a blog all ready to go, and an audience of possibly millions ready. I'm glad for it actually because I was that tentative individual, standing on the edge of something frightening, but irrisistable in theory, with out the motivation to thrust myself forward. Now, I have no choice but to thrust myself forward and I'm excited.
I hope to read many blogs myself. Honestly I can't wait to see what people in the class have to say. It's usually easier to write honestly then to speak honestly, so I might get a whole new perspective of an individual who other wise would have played it safe during class. Good luck everyone in the semester upon us, it's gonna be great.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
