Media from a Journalist's Point of View

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Snea/start/188/stop/514

  This video is very interesting because it from Alexandra Pelosi who is a journalist. She talks about the relationship between the media and the presidential candidates. This is interesting because she talks about not the politics but how the media changes things so much that the journalists and the media are really the only ones who know the truth, where as regular people do not always know the truth. I liked how she talked about how different they are in real life compared to how the media portrays them. I really liked the quote she says, "I don't think the media really serves the American public". I thought this was interesting because she is a journalist and part of the media, so it was weird that she had this stance. This was not able to be embedded but I really liked this video and thought is was worth showing. Clicking the link should bring you to a link that has the times already edited in. If not the clip I am emphasizing is from 3:00 to 8:31min.

Now we have two tax plans to criticize!

Debate after debate, Rick Perry kept saying he was coming out a plan for a flat-tax while criticizing Herman Cain’s popular 9 9 9 plan. After weeks of waiting and receiving nothing, Perry finally came out with a flat tax as part of his economic plan. 

Now, unlike his immigration stance, this flat tax idea is very republican! Essentially it is raising the burden on the middle class while making it easier on the wealthy. Although I don’t think that the wealthiest people should pay substantially more in taxes, if they are able to why not put the burden on them more while letting some of the pressure of the middle to lower class. 

According to President Obama’s advisors “many flat tax proposals also eliminate all taxation on capital gains and other investment income so that the wealthiest, who generate much of their income from investments, rather than work, see huge gains”. 

Although it is hard to come up with a perfect tax plan that will bring our economy back, can’t these candidates at least come up with something remotely plausible and smart.

If we continue to take from the poor and middle class, the gap between the wealthy and the poor will continue to increase. The economy will continue to suffer if the gap between the wealthy and the poor continues to become larger. 

Now, Herman Cain’s tax plan does not seem any better of an idea either. Whether that is because he does not seem to be able to explain it properly or if he simply just doesn’t understand it himself, I have not found very much good with his plan. It seems as if all other sources find that his plan will generate less revenue than more and he simply says they are wrong. To me it is not very convincing. 

It seems that Herman Cain’s plan has managed to keep him at the top however, while Perry is still drifting lower and lower in the polls, dragging behind even Michele Bachmann in the recent Iowa poll. Now, what I do not understand is why so many people seem to support Herman Cain’s 999 plan, which seems to make no sense, and President Obama’s jobs bill makes complete sense and cannot get passed. The buffet plan seemed to make so much sense, while Herman Cain just continues to repeat the same answers with his 999 plan that just raise more questions.

Website used for quotation above:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/25/obama-attacks-perry-on-flat-tax/?scp=4&sq=perrys%20tax%20plan&st=cse

Pizza explanation of Herman Cain’s Tax Plan

http://www.wnyc.org/articles/its-free-country/2011/oct/17/explainer-herman-cains-9-9-9-tax-plan/

Herman Cain... still on top?

I think we are all surprised by the Iowa poll results released on Saturday. Herman Cain is still in the lead! 

Although essentially in a tie with Mitt Romney, Herman Cain came out on top leading the Iowa poll with 23% support from republicans. Most people, namely me, thought that Herman Cain would fade in and out of the spotlight within one or two weeks just like most of the other candidates. 

Rick Perry, former governor of Texas, was the frontrunner in mid-September leading the race with 30% of support after his second debate in the run for President of the United States 2012. With a few shaky debates and his unpopular immigration views there is no wonder his status as front runner did not last long. Perry was front runner for a little over two weeks during September with his popularity decreasing with every day. My opinion, he was only frontrunner because he was the new nominee, not because of his abilities, and this obviously showed with the decrease in his support. In the recent poll from Iowa, Perry only received 7% of the votes tying with Newt Gingrich. Perry even came out behind Michele Bachmann who received 8% of the votes. 

Coming out behind Bachmann must have been a blow for Perry. Even Tea Party supporters as calling her campain a joke, and she a Tea Party Republican! Michele Bachmann has actually become so unpopular with the one group of Tea Party activists, they want her to resign her campaign.  Michele Bachmann at one (very short lived) time was frontrunner as well. In the Iowa poll at the end of August she received 22% of the popular vote while Romney received 23%. They essentially were tied making her the front runner, receiving a lot of the media attention. Her popularity, however, dropped so much to where she was dead last in the Florida straw poll, only a month after being at the top. 

I expected Herman Cain’s popularity to decline just as did the other nominees. About a month later and he is still on top. Herman Cain has never held office, does not always use proper grammar, and can never seem to explain his messages properly to a point of understanding. How is he still on top? Well looking at the other nominees there aren’t very many other viable options. 

Mitt Romney to me seems the most capable and most appropriate option out of the republican nominees but for some reason just can’t catch a break. His religion seems to be a big issue with a lot of voters and he is always getting bashed in debates by Perry. Perry and Romney seem to always fight back and forth dominating the debates but Romney still always seems to be over shadowed by another one of the candidates. Michele Bachmann was a fresh female Tea Party republican, Perry was the new guy and Herman Cain has his 999 plan. Each one of the previous frontrunners had a reason for being front runner and Romney is just there, but consistent. He always seems to come out in the top three for the polls. This poll he essentially tied with Cain, and in the very beginning of the debates he basically tied with Bachmann. Although not always getting the spot light he still manages to stay consistent and in the end will that be enough? Who knows?

But at this moment Cain continues to stay frontrunner gaining a lot of the media coverage. Will the same thing happen to Cain that happened to Bachmann? Well they did both tie with Romney with almost the exact same statistics. Bachmann received 22% of the vote in the Iowa straw poll whereas Romney received 23% and in the Iowa poll conducted Saturday Romney received 22% and Cain received 23%. Will Cain be able to prevent what happened to Bachmann from happening to himself? Well it has been a month and he is still on top so we will just have to wait and see.

Media Cares more about the Fight than the Information

This video talks about the timing of media coverage and the fight to get the viewers. It is more important to the media to focus on the competition between the other media sources.Truth is, will people watch or read the media sources without the entertainment value? Probably not.

Media Covering Politics.... Somewhat

Although this video is older, it clearly demonstrates and talks about how the media covers the issues only after covering the spats and stupid jokes the candidates say. The media just like television works to entertain.

"We Can't Wait"

 It seems to me Obama just loves coming up with new catch phrases to excite the voters. Does it work or doesn't it?

In 2008, President Obama used the idea of “Change” as a slogan to get people excited to vote for him. It seemed to work. So many people wanted a change from Bush and Republicans all together. Obama was the fresh new face and he symbolized change.

But now, many people think he hasn’t done enough to “change” America and turn everything around. That slogan seems to have come back to bite him. Although he has done some things, America is still in economic troubles and the unemployment rate remains at around 9%. Has enough changed? Recently announcing he is taking the troops out of Iraq by the end of the year may be a positive change people want, but is it enough? With the message of Occupy Wall Street echoing across the United States there is obviously more change that people want done that Obama has just not done.

So now he needs a new slogan.

Recently he has used the slogan, “Pass this Bill”, referring to his jobs bill. The jobs bill is not getting passed and most likely will not get passed. There is too much opposition from the republicans. He is attempting the “change” he promised in 2008 but now using a new slogan to emphasize this.

Although there is support for much of the jobs bill, republicans will not go for increasing taxes for the rich and the ideas that Obama had with the Buffet Rule. The problem with the “change” that Obama wanted is not that Obama is not trying to change the current economic status of the United States or increase state aid for teachers and emergency responders to stay at work, just simply having the idea of the plan will not change anything. He needs the approval of both the republicans and the democrats and at the moment the congress is majority republican. Am I blaming the republicans, no but how can we change something if nothing will get passed.

Now that Obama’s slogan “Pass this Bill” did not seem to work, he has a new slogan, “we can’t wait”.

Every slogan he has, seems to have the same idea behind it; change, but in different words. His new slogan is still about his jobs but it is emphasizing the fact that “we can’t wait for law makers to act”. This slogan is to get people, namely republicans, to see that the jobs bill is a necessary change and is needed to reshape America.

Will it work? Will the republicans succumb to his cleaver use of words and “Pass this Bill”?

Most likely not, but we will just have to wait and see. And continue to chant “Pass this Bill” until a “change” comes. 

Republican Party Platforms: More diverse?

This video and the idea the republican party platform committee seems to be stressing is the fact that the republicans are more accepting that the democrats. They very obviously and purposefully put up a pro choice republican to speak to emphasize the fact that the republicans are open and accepting. The fact that they mentioned pro choice versus pro life I felt was relevant to now and this is why i chose this video. Herman Cain recently talked about the fact that he believed it was not the governments choice although he is pro life. This was more liberal a view that conservative and in a way relate the this video. However, the fact that the republicans are claiming to be so open and diverse a group while their composition of racial diversity and religious diversity is much less than the democratic party is a little humorous to me. To me it seems as if every time a political party platform is discussed they seem to emphasize one main difference within the republican party versus the democratic party. In the previous video they emphasized the difference in length of the platforms and in this platform they emphasize the "diversity" within the republican party versus the democratic party.

So apparently he can't do anything right?

Moammar Kadafi was killed on Thursday, and President Obama announced he is withdrawing all troops from Iraq by the end of 2011. Sounds good right?

Not to the republicans.

Part of President Obama’s appeal as president for 2008 was the fact that he said he was going to get the troops out of Iraq. Now three years later, he is finally fulfilling his “promises” he made at the beginning of his presidency. However, now he is getting a lot of heat from the republican presidential nominees.



In this video, on the CBS morning news show Face the Nation, Michele Bachmann says president Obamas decision to pull out the troops is “more political based than it is military based”. However, we are getting kicked out Iraq. It is not only the choice of the United States to pull out the troops. Her points she uses to attack President Obama and his foreign policy are incorrect because no president would leave troops in Iraq after being told they could and most likely would be imprisoned and would lose their immunity. If she were president right now she most certainly would not leave troops in Iraq, which she says; but Obama should? It seems to me Michele Bachmann has a problem more with the Iraq government than she does with Obama, she is just blaming it all on Obama.

Mitt Romney, another republican nominee also commented on Barack Obama’s motives for taking the troops out of Iraq questioning his abilities as the President and a leader. At a campaign stop in Granit State Romney stated:

“The president indicated and his administration indicated over the summer and fall that they were working to have a status of forces agreement that would keep troops in place either 20,000 down to maybe 3,000 over some extended period to make sure there was an effective transition to the Iraqi military… They indicated they were working on that effort and they either failed to do it by virtue of ineptitude or they decided it wasn’t that important politically or otherwise.”

The republicans have decided anything Obama does is not enough and although he is taking the troops out of Iraq, has ended the life of Osama Bin Laden, Anwar al-Awlaki and others during his presidency, nothing Obama does will be good enough and will always be disputed by the republicans.

Another question that should be thought about is, will this help Obama in the polls? Most likely yes it will help him. So many people wanted the troops out of Iraq and now that he says that is going to be done, many people may respect him more. This could be a great political move as well as a military move.

At the same time has he lost some of his voters? Most likely yes as well. He had said he was going to get the troops out of Iraq but was it necessary that it took three years after he got elected to do so?

Taking the troops out of Iraq is most likely a positive factor for Obama’s campaign and will probably help his approval ratings. Obviously taking the troops out of Iraq, was in some ways, a political tactic, as well as most everything is, to get more voter support.

Let’s get real. Obama is doing what the republicans want to do by taking the troops out of Iraq, the republicans just don’t want to admit it. Everyone has wanted the troops out of Iraq, they don’t want us there and now the republicans are getting on Obama's back for taking the troops out of Iraq. Make up your mind...

Democratic Versus Republican Party Platform (1992)

Its funny. How many times have I heard from a teacher, its not the length or size of the paper that matters it is what the paper holds that matters. However, that really is never the case. As this video represents, the republican party is emphasizing the length of the Democratic Platform compared to the Republican Platform. They continue to use the word specific over and over to emphasize that the Republican Platform is significatly longer than the Democratic Platform. Yes, in fact the Republican Platform may be better than the Democratic Platform however, in some ways maybe not. I have not read the two platforms, but maybe the Democratic Platform got its points across and said what it needed to say specifically and too the point.

Commenting on the actual platform ideas specified in the clip, it seems the speaker continues to talk about being able to choose and the right to choose, healthcare and childcare. He talks about the emphasis they put on education, which is an important topic. This is 1992 but the republican ideas are still very similar as are the democratic ideas that were shown in the previous video shown.

1988 Democratic Party Platform

This video was not embed-able but I thought this was a good video and showed the similarities between the democratic platforms in the past and the platforms and beliefs democrats have today. (It is the whole video)

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/PartyPl

Hmmmm... This seems familiar.
Although this is an extremely over simplified explanation of a much more complicated platform a lot of what is said in this video is similar to today's Democratic ideals and platforms. One part of this video says "revitalize 'home town' America by bailing out failing institutions". Even in the 2000's we saw this happen. It doesn't matter what year it is whether it is 1988 or 2011, the values each party stands for stays similar, however, changing minimally for the time period and the current economic and financial issues the country faces.

Journey's With George..... and the Media

It seems we look to the President to do everything perfect, to fulfill all of our wishes and to fix all the problems this country faces. Somehow, we only seem to focus on the problems they don’t fix and the mistakes they make.

Our country and world have become very media oriented. Let’s get real, reading a story about the good things a President or a nominee does is not as interesting as an article talking about what they haven’t done or what they did wrong. The reason is we expect them to do good all the time and when they do something wrong we thrive on criticizing. This is emphasized by the press.

In the documentary Journeys with George we see the important role the press plays in the election process and the emphasis the presidential nominees place on paying attention to the media.

When George Bush made a mistake during his speech during the primaries for the 2000 presidency, he immediately needed to do damage control. He needed to try to prevent the traveling media covering his campaign from trashing him and his campaign. 

(Start video at 10:14)

We expect the president to be perfect so if they make a mistake the media skews it in a way to make it seem more interesting. The media will use whatever they can to increase their readership and you can tell in this video the presidential candidates pay much attention to that.

It seemed as if everything, every speech and every act George Bush made, was carefully chosen in a way that would be media friendly and make the media show him in a good light. One example was his choice to go snowmobiling. As the press say “I believe it’s a big lie” to the fact that “it is not a photo op it is because he really wants to snow mobile”.

It is obviously a way to show he is just a regular guy like everyone else and he gets that by getting the press to get him in a good light and the way he plans out for the media to portray him.

(Start video at 11:24)

Although a lot of the campaign is finding a way to influence the media through everything he does, it seems as if a lot of the time it is a very easy going atmosphere. Through this documentary you see the side of President Bush that is really just like any other guy; the guy who jokes around with colleagues and friends. Although, he is trying to influence the reporters to portray him in a good light to get elected, you see him acting like a regular guy and for part of the campaign he road with the press as well. This type of video makes the campaign lighter and enjoyable to follow, while getting information as well. To me this is a form of propaganda for Bush, because it seems as if I saw Bush in a different light than just as the President of the United States.