Review

1.Candidates are adapting to the media landscape, being much more strategic in how they are allowed to be perceived by the public. The Huffington Post’s list mentions Cain has banned cameras from his meet-up with the New Hampshire Union Leader’s editorial board.

2.The media is always watching. We can be sure that all of the points present and future candidates bring up in debates or speeches will be dissected and evaluated by countless bloggers, political pundits, insiders, etc.

3.Most media organizations express some bias toward a political party (however slight, this seems to be a truth for the majority). A perfect example is Fox News and its blatant Republican agenda.

4.The U.S. population is getting their information regarding political parties and candidates from more than just the television news sector. Political blogs, web shows, podcasts, etc. exist. The use of new technologies is super effective in keeping up with the population and in influencing it. The numerous sites we have visited over the semester is proof of that.

5.Cable news is on its way out.

6.“You can’t believe everything you read in newspapers or see on TV.” This is true of life and politics. Media bias can paint an inaccurate picture of a person to fit a network/political party’s agenda.

7.Viewers have every opportunity to be informed. If they don’t watch cable news, they can pick up a magazine, and if they don’t do that, they can surf the web for information. There is no reason or excuse to be uninformed.

8.YouTube’s existence is exponentially appreciate when we can re-view classic election videos like the Christine O’Donnell  “I’m not a witch” ad.

9.Social networking will play quite possibly the biggest role in this election. Providing candidates the platform with which to reach their audience directly in an instantaneous method will be incredibly useful in getting ideologies and policy-stances across to the general population.

10.The media and its reach influence everyone and everybody. It’s important to be aware of that. 

MODULE 13 - State of the News Media

1.

When it comes to media bias, I feel it has a lot to do with the media organization in question and its stance on certain political issues. FOX is decidedly a right wing, conservative network that panders to the Republican Party more than it would like to admit.

In the case of Jon Stewart, he is viewed as a left wing liberal. His image and ideology are in direct conflict with the type of information FOX News puts out. In the Daily News article, Jon Stewart claims he was unfairly edited, and it does not surprise me. In any event of a type of ideological debate, I sincerely doubt Fox News would provide an accurate account (specially when you involve someone who more often than not has the upper hand in arguments regarding politics and social issues).

In regards to the issue about Jon Stewart and his influence over politics, I believe he does have an impact. The majority of the population gets its news from either television or the news. Stewart, although he considers himself a simple comedian, has set up a show that presents him as an educated informant to the public. While the Daily Show with Jon Stewart did provide laughs, it also extensively covered political topics while also reaching a demographic of people that would normally not watch news shows. He opened and attracted a lot of eyes and, while trying to play fair, also had a decidedly liberal approach to his ideology.

2.

Political debates can make or break a candidate. During debates, candidates are not only professing their ideology to the public, they are also showing how they react in high-stress situations. If a political candidate cannot take control of a debate, how can we expect them to take control of a country?

In regards to moderators, while they're supposed to be unbiased, I do see how their reactions and questions towards some of the candidates can influence public opinion. Nevertheless, I think it would work in the opposite way that Bachmann claims in the article linked. If a moderator is obviously biased, that reflects poorly on the network and could bring a sort of empathetic interest from viewers who feel the candidate was not given due opportunity.

In any event, debates are more about the candidates reactions than those of the moderator. So the public perception of a candidate is their own deal.

3.

I think Perry's mistake was very telling. One grades candidates in many categories: experience, charisma, political stances, etc. One of the ways we also judge candidates is how they act under pressure. As mentioned above, if a candidate cannot take control of a debate, how can they be expected to do so of a country. Politics is a very dog eat dog world, and it's pretty damning when you can't even bark. I believe that Perry's brain freeze might have cost him any sliver of chance he had of winning any of the elections. It's been shown that the public likes candidates that they can relate to, but we also want candidates we feel have authority, and Perry did not show that.

2012 Election Coverage

Herman Cain's election ad is an interesting subject. On one end, it's hilariously random and amateurish, and on the other, it's also effective. I mean that the add is effective in the fact that it's getting his name out there and making people think about his campaign and what the add means (the Huffington Post has aggregated analysis of the video by other sources). I can see the arguments regarding the issue of undermining public health, but I don't think the ad was an effective creative effort to address it. Nevertheless, if that was the concept or message behind the video, then Cain's team did a good job in opening up a discussion and gaining interest in his campaign.

In regards to polling numbers and newspaper endorsements: I don't think they're decisive or indicative of election results. Newspaper endorsements do create exposure for the candidates, but the deciding factor in voters' decisions are the candidates' stances on the issues. To try to correlate and attribute endorsement pages to results personally sounds disrespectful to the voting populace. Also, the New York Times piece explains the following:

"Newspaper endorsements, however, do not guarantee endorsements from electoral college voters. The winner of the most editorial approvals has lost the election three times since 1972 — in 1976, 1996 and 2004. The endorsement leader has matched the election winner in the seven other elections, but that may be because before 1992 it always favored the G.O.P., and those years happened to see a string of Republican presidents."


Furthermore, I don't believe early polling numbers matter. If we look back at the past election, it seems to only assert the notion that election results aren't dependent on beginning numbers. Hillary Clinton would have seemed the obvious choice if we looked at initial results, but clearly that turned to be untrue.  I think the public needs to first become acclimated to the campaigns before they make their final voting decision, and in the beginning it's a process of learning about the issues and the candidates' positions so voters opinions are definitely subject to change. 

Cable News

It continues to boggle my mind how people can take O'Reilly seriously despite his numerous shows of extreme bias regarding political issues. He's proven time and time again to have (at least on his show) an incredible far right viewpoint on issues, and his criticism of the Obama campaign and administration prove no different.

The piece regarding Obama's unfair media advantage is another subject where this is clearly visible. The O'Reilly factor is seen as particularly geared towards a specific type of audience: older, white and Republican. This concept, added to the fact that FOX and most FOX news programs can also be seen as heavily slanted to reflect the Republican party's views, makes it easy to put out a piece about unfair media advantage through other networks (which viewers of FOX would peg as Democratic-biased - which wouldn't be completely untrue) and helps sway audience opinion against Obama. I think it's hilarious that next to the video, O'Reilly's slogan is "No party lines, no distortion, no spin political coverage," as it's utter bologna.

I disagree with the piece. As Obama has received unfavorable coverage throughout his administration from all networks. FOX News is also in on it, with pieces like this claiming to try and reveal bias, but using it as an opportunity to paint Obama in a negative light by making it seem like the reason he's viewed positively is ONLY because of liberal bias. In turn, the piece also paints itself as the only fair network, and with a piece like this their intention seems to be to sway public opinion against the "favorable" candidate.

Sidenote: I used to work at a marine base in my hometown during election time and I cannot count the times that I'd been recounted O'Reilly quotes on Obama that were completely untrue and completely biased against our now President.

I do agree that the mud slinging is going to get incredibly intense this time around, so in a way I am thankful for a right-biased organization like FOX. The public needs to see all sides of the story, and though all sides can be seen as biased the audience needs to be able to look at all viewpoints in order to make their decisions on who to back. It's going to get very interesting.

In regards to Cable News coverage this past week, I think the most prominent example can be the Amanda Knoxx story.

She was recently acquitted of the murder of her roommate in Italy. She had been incarcerated for about 4 years before being released this week on account of experts deeming the evidence used against her lacking. The media had a field day with the story.

From what I gathered, all major news outlets made the coverage of the Knox story their bread and butter for the week. I don't think I was able to tune into any of the cable news channels without some sort of update, expert interview, family comment or press conference filling the screen. If the coverage wasn't directly blatant, there was also a slight mention, a rolling ticker or announcement of "coming up next in the Amanda Knox saga."

Many articles have popped up regarding the coverage, and I feel those can be correlated with some of the articles linked on our course module. As with the first reading, in which the point that Jautz had juiced the ratings of his network by making it more tabloid driven, this seems to be the case with major networks and Amanda Knox. I think it's a fairly successful and effective model in cases where you have a human face to an issue, it makes people invested in the outcome (and this story seems to be proof of that).

From what I could gather, all networks covered the Knox case adamantly. Nevertheless, I spend more time on news sites websites than I do their channel, so I was also able to see to what degree it was covered online. FOX NEWS had a ticker indicating live feed of the verdict and a huge headline and photo on the main page. Likewise MSNBC, CNN and CBS also littered their main page with coverage of the trial and her release.

I think it's more indicative of the actual story than the network's biases that the coverage played out like this, as it seems EVERYONE wanted to know what happens. There's that one motto that if you have a pretty, white female missing, then it's nationwide news. This time, it seems that the feeling extends to being released from prison as well.

Social Media: Fad?

The influence of social media is difficult to ignore. There is no way that it is a just a fad anymore. Reputable news sources use it to spread the word regarding current events, politicians use it to reach their audience, and the majority of us use it to stay up to date on the latest.

Based on my experience with social media (specifically in correlation with my journalism studies), the only real answer is that it's here to stay and those who wish to get elected or be heard need to embrace it. Furthermore, not only do they need to embrace it, but excel at it.

Politicians will use outlets like Facebook to reach their constituents. Socializing through the use of social media will help reach and audience that wouldn't go to their rallies or read up on their political views otherwise.

Another way I feel like social media is already playing a role is through the White House's official twitter account. They use it to share documents, latest news and to interact with followers regarding issues like the economy and health care. This sort of back and forth interaction is crucial during election time because it makes the audience (us) feel like our voice matters and that we are a part of the debate. I believe other politicians will use twitter in this way to engage constituents.

I also think social media will provide a greater transparency when it comes to the election. Everything is now public, so honesty will be the only option in most cases.

Media & Politics

I was initially interested in this course because of my background in journalism. As a journalist, media is essential to what we do and who we are. It's how we get and give out information. The media is essential in shining light on issues that otherwise wouldn't be brought to others attention.

I met Ann Curry recently at a journalism conference in Philadelphia, and one of the things she said that stood out to me was: there are people going through difficult situations that can't be heard, and that as journalists we are able to give them a voice.

I think that underlying essence of what it means to be a writer is what drives my interest for media and journalism.

(That's me on the far left. I look like I short circuited from standing too close to Ann)

In regards to politics, and its relationship with citizens and voters, the media is an important tool to keep truths as prevalent as possible.

Of course, there is media bias in many organizations (and outlets can only go so far in trying to get as much information out to the public as possible), but the tools to make informed decisions and assumptions are there.

Without the media, it would be difficult for people to understand what is going on in the realm of politics. It would be up to citizens to find out the real issues, which is a burden for those those with 9 to 5 jobs and other responsibilities.

The statement "All politics is local politics" means that no matter the scope of the issues, a politician must be able to reflect the interests of his constituents, who vote for him and keep him in office. Thanks to the media, these constituents are able to see and decide if this applies to them and make their voting decisions accordingly.

Yo and Hello

Well, this post is late, but I'd at least like to introduce myself.

My name is Jorge Salazar. I'm a senior at the Walter Cronkite School ofJournalism and Mass Communication, with plans to graduate this December.

I've written for 944 Magazine, KPHO.com and Cronkite News Service. My work has been printed in various publications, like the Arizona Republic and The Tucson Daily Star.

I'm currently interning for the Phoenix New Times. I work on their arts and culture blog, Jackalope Ranch.

I'm pretty active on Twitter, jj_salazar, so you can follow me there.

As a journalist, I think media influence is a great tool for getting information out to others. Of course, at times the information can tend to be twisted by an outlet to reflect its own agenda. It's a necessary instrument in today's society.

I look forward to getting to know everybody and reading postings for this class.