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.
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Sunday, October 16, 2011
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.
Protesting During the Presidential National Conventions
This video talks about protests that went on during and before the National Convention in 2000. These protests went on in Philadelphia because they wanted to get their point across where the Presidential National Conventions were to get themselves heard. Two different protest group leaders talk about what they are protesting and why they are protesting. Many of the reasons they are protesting are still being protested today even though this video was more than a decade ago.
Publicity and Democratic National Convention 2000
In 2000 the Democratic National Convention took place in Las Angeles. The mayor is talking about the publicity the convention will bring to the city. He also talks about the protesters and demonstrators that were arrested at the first convention and how the police in Las Angeles will take care of protesters that are going coming to the Democratic Convention. Another reason this video was interesting because although occupy wall street is not the national presidential convention it shows how the way people try to get their points across stay them same even decades later.
Republican National Convention
The republican national convention will be held in Tampa, Florida. Lenny Curry is talking about how large the convention is, what it is and how influential it is. He also talks about how the convention will not be changed even though Florida moved up their primaries. He talks about the controversy of when the Florida primaries are and the effect that is having.
Saturday, October 15, 2011
Media Skews Reality
(It's this simple to skew reality to help yourself)
I am on the email list for the Obama Campaign and get emails asking for my support, donations and about recent things Barack Obama has been doing in the race for the 2012 President of the United States. This week I received an email with the subject line, “They got it wrong”. Naturally this headline drew me in. Naturally, I wanted to know who “They” were and what they got wrong. The first few lines of the email said this:
“Just six days before the last fundraising deadline, one major newspaper ran a story under the headline ‘Small donors are slow to return to the Obama fold.’ You and a whole lot of other supporters turned that headline upside down. Today we filed a report with the FEC that shows this movement isn't just as strong as ever -- it's growing.”
The email went on to talk about how the article falsely “separates the facts” from reality. It also found a way to incorporate asking me for a donation. The motive for the email was for a donation but most people including me, most likely never would have read this email if the headline was anything about donating. Their way about getting that donation was by saying that people still support them and that there is a reason to still support them. The letter wanted me to see that they are still gaining support and there is no reason to doubt them. To show that I supported the campaign and didn’t believe the newspapers the campaign wanted me to donate whatever I can, even if that is only $10.
To me this seemed like an effective way to receive a donation. The headline got me to read the letter. However, the problem with this letter was I had read the article, “Small donors are slow to return to the Obama fold”, in the New York Times, when it ran a few weeks ago.
To me this letter skewed the intent of the article from the newspaper and skewed what the article was saying.
The article was talking about previous donors from the 2008 election coming back to support the 2012 Obama campaign. Whereas, the email I received from the Obama campaign was talking about all donors for the 2012 election.
The New York Times article said, “a vast majority of Mr. Obama’s past donors who number close to four million, have not yet given him any money at all.”
While the email I received said, “right now, just shy of 1 million people like you have taken ownership of this campaign by pitching in whatever they can afford.”
The email did not talk about the amount of small donors that donated last year. The email, most likely would not have been as successful, if they had said the article was about the returning donors. By decreasing the credibility of the media in this letter, the campaign in a way made it seem like the article should be discredited and the Obama campaign deserves more donations to disprove the article.
Although the email was not completely untrue, it only told part of what the truth was. No matter what kind of media it is, all media skews different facts to make them work for what they want. Whether it is a picture of you online, a newspaper article, or in this case a campaign email asking for donations. This email may have been successful if I had not read the article and knew what they had been talking about in the first place.
Email Letter: http://www.barackobama.com/news/they-got-it-wrong
Sunday, October 9, 2011
No Child Left Behind?
Former president George Bush put in place a law called No Child Left Behind. This had the intention of increasing students’ scores on tests by making schools test their teachers and students abilities by issuing standardized testing. This has been a controversy for a long time, and many people Democrat and Republican are have strong views against this law.
Though this law had good intentions there are some parts that need to be edited or changed. Obama recently began offering a waiver for certain states that adopt more vigorous teacher evaluation standards. The biggest problem with this seems the be the fact that the government can pick and choose which states receive the waiver based on how they think they working to transform their lowest-preforming schools and states that have a written plan to increase performance.
Although, the Idea behind the waiver has a good intention just like the No Child Left Behind law it seems as if it could still cause controversy. The fact of the matter is, you can get the best teachers in the state and put them in a low preforming school, and put in a perfect plan to increase performance, but there is only so much the government and the school systems can do. Many times in low preforming school districts, the families are lower class and many parents don’t have the time or the ambition to help the children succeed.
Although, Obama has every intention of increasing performance in schools and is trying to edit the No child Left Behind Law, repealing the law seems as if it may be a better choice for him. It seems the idea of the waiver can be controversial and the waiver doesn’t seem to be enough of a change from the original No Child Left Behind Law.
However, the view on the No Child Left Behind Law of the GOP candidates surprises me. They seem to be blaming Obama for this plan and saying that it has to go. Need we remind them that this plan was put in place by a republican. Mitt Romney who has gotten a lot of criticism from Rick Perry on his flip flopping of views, defended the No Child Left Behind Law in 2008 and now says “we need to get the federal government out of education”. If he changing his views to appeal to voters more?
Trying to appeal to voters is important, but flip flopping views in my opinion, will severely hurt his campaign, because he doesn’t seem to be outspoken enough. He seems to want to please people too much. Pleasing people is important but changing you views all the time to please everyone is not what we need. We need a president who can take charge.
Will the waiver help Obama? Will Mitt Romney’s changing viewpoints hurt his campaign?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)