Political News

So this may not be a very comprehensive analysis of journalistic coverage of politics because I essentially always used Yahoo! to jump start my search of articles. however, I do think that there is a lot to say of Yahoo!News and its role in political media. So I began my analysis this year with the discussion of party bias. To me, it seems that after the discussion run here :

http://mb.debates.news.yahoo.com/Democratic_Candidate_Mashup/threadview?m=tm&bn=nws-iraq&tid=5&mid=879&tof=-1&rt=2&frt=2&off=51

Albeit, I saw the debate as trite and immature, it did prove to have a point. In the following weeks, the YAhoo!News - election 08 main page, which had many links to democratic candidates and few links to GOP candidates, has moved towards what I see as a more comprehensively accessible politics page. See here: http://news.yahoo.com/election/2008 The page before had a list of all the Dem candidates on the right of their featured story, but now it has a political "dashboard," that allows you to scroll through candidates by party, mainly GOp and DEM. A step up for sure.

As for Political coverage overall, I feel like the information is out there. For example, it was through the Yahoo! election 08 page that I found the links to ontheissues.com, which I think does a good job of at least giving you access to what candidates are about. I honestly feel a lot of the criticism is unjustified. It seems like dems criticize Reps for manipulating media and the GOP says media has a liberal bias, but to me it just now looks like two opposites complaining about the other sides' existence. That said, I still hate what FOX news did and the article about Obama's pin.

Its just so easy to learn what you want to know. How much candidates are raising, where they are from and whatever else is important to you. By the way, I also think there is a very good reason such things as religion are so important. Politics is so confusing and no one really has any real control of it(meaning that votes for a bill don't explain much about what a politician really wanted) so the only real judgement you can make is where they pray, where they are from etc. Why? because we all know that in our own personal lives, despite being religious or non-religious, we still do our best to do what we feel is right, so if you know that XX politician at least goes to church or comes from your area, you at least know there is a good chance that he is giving his best shot..... AGH I don't know. maybe this is all B.S. and Americans are ignorant and just vote on meaningless issues.

My perception of news media coverage is that it is really trying to cover everything from the spanish democratic debate

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/democrats_spanish_debate;_ylt=AmmPDdb9KcaJOG7CdK0DVszkbeRF and Arab americans in politics http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/richardson;_ylt=AkS8BUOjhmsOYsAULirimPPkbeRF

But maybe I don't feel the bias is that bad because my views are in line with the way politics is being covered. Then again, there is the FOX NEWS thing and the obama pin and the video we watched. So there are definitely flaws. Its so odd though that organizations are so desperate for news, but they won't turn that time they waste by making news of crap like al Qeida burning California and Obama's pin wearing into something deeper and more truthful. They'd rather tell a good lie than find an important, but boring truth. I guess that makes sense. I like the way Yahoo! NEWs does it and I think things are working towards more cumulative and interactive news( I think this is important because it forces you to think about what you are looking for) and I also think that the changing business model is a really really good thing. Why? Because this current business model for news is the reason why they have to make such sensational bullshit. This is an good era of finding a new news business model that will serve people and make a profit. It being more democratized that ever, I think we have a good thing coming. And taking the message boards as an example, what people want, people get.

Carelessness is not plagiarism

My god this reading was like a class session straight from
Meade loop's ethics class. subscribe to Kant, the categorical imperative. Very amusing, I just thought I should say. This is pretty interesting topic, because I certainly know and also any professor that has had me knows that I get careless. It is my hamartia. The achilles tendon of my perhaps limitless potential, but meh sometimes I get caught up in my desire to waste time and just have fun. So shoot me. Probably will happen someday. Anywho, it is something that I do honestly think about. A great professor Michael Scully once told me about a writer he taught that plagiarized while was in school and then later became a writer for the NYT and was then caught in an embarrassing scandal about plagiarism. Scully said, "bad habits follow you. He did it then and I know he would do it now." Gah, that is a bitter thing to contemplate. I like the idea that the word, "plagiarism," is incapable of meaning. I don't know she specifically meant, but I reason that most of the time you want to say something, there is a very good chance it has been said before. (there is more to this thought, but for some reason my brain refuses to articulate it) On another note, the comments are interesting. Some are, "disturbed," by the action taken by the school, some are proud and some just make no damn sense going on a spiel about the, "mainstream media," blah blah blah.(not that I am not aware of the problems, its just that a lot people think they are aware and spew out tons of garbage about things they have no real evidence for.) but its funny because it totally makes sense that the paper would take that sort of action to maintain a public image of zero tolerance for plagiarism, despite it not actually being plagiarism. I am sure the editors and maybe the bosses knew, but most people who read the paper probably have no clue about the actual circumstances and the context of a, "careless plagiarism."

Guiliani

Again with the on the issue websites.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Rudy_Giuliani.htm

Okay, well to start off, I just thought I'd mention that I found this amusing. This is all that was in the category for guiliani on the Environment.

Prepare better for next Hurricane Katrina. (Aug 2007) >>>??????

Okay, anywho. So it seems like a big part of his plat form is about his victory over crime in NYC

Rudy Giuliani on Crime
Click here for 17 full quotes on Crime OR other candidates on Crime OR background on Crime.
FactCheck: NYC crime did drop, but others deserve credit too. (Oct 2007)
As mayor, reduced crime but didn't raise police pay. (Jan 2007)
Considered police brutality in Louima case an aberration. (Jan 2007)
Applies strict moral standards to lawbreakers. (Jan 2007)
Prosecuted Miss America for fraud (and lost). (Jan 2007)
Prefers death penalty for 9/11 conspirators. (May 2006)
Insisted on enforcing minor offenses, & cleaned up crime. (Oct 2005)
Banished "squeegee men": civility from treating small crimes. (Oct 2002)
Community policing is comforting but doesn't stop crime. (Oct 2002)
Giuliani backs police in Bronx killing. (Mar 2000)
Home ownership decreases crime. (Jan 2000)
Need DNA Lab to Combat Crime. (Jan 2000)
Crime cut in half in NYC. (Dec 1999)
“CompStat” system stresses police accountability. (Dec 1999)
Giuliani’s sampling: large drops in all violent crime. (Dec 1999)
Quality of Life initiatives as well as crime reduction. (Dec 1999)
Risk cannot be eliminated, but take security seriously. (Jul 1999)

So on other things like immigration and the economy, he is really vague. Or I should more accurately say the website is vague. I don't really know if that is because that is what the website says or that is what he says. But it is still funny. So as far as I know comparing a democratic candidate, Obama, versus a Republican candidate, Guiliani doesn't have much on a lot of issues that are important to me. That can mean a few things. Either Guiliani is not the candidate for me or the website isn't very good at getting enough info on guiliani. Whether that is a bias towards Dems or against Reps, I don't know. We will see.

Obama, Clinton and Jena 6

So I've decided that I am just going to go from candidate to candidate and summarize their stances on issues and what it means to me as a first time voter. It is interesting because I was interviewed over the break by friend about how much I know about current politics and the presidential election. I turns out that I don't know squat. Well, I knew a bit, but not enough to justify my lean for Obama. So, I've decided I need to know why Obama, not Clinton and why Clinton and Obama and not Guiliani or Bill Richardson or something. If I can't tell you why not, that is troubling. So I went to http://ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm which has all the major candidates and their stances on the essential issues. For the sake of this study, essential issues. The website has their stance on a lot of issues, but I guess for the sake of sanity, I will focus on what is important to me. Well, no I don't even know that. I know that education is important. Civil Rights, including immigration is important to me. International diplomacy is an important issue as well. The environment, to jump in the bandwagon. Umm also healthcare reform. Damn it, I will thow in corporate oversight too. So... here we go.

Obama is the man. I just go through the list and I find very little I disagree with.

Being gay or lesbian is not a choice. (Nov 2007)
The politics of fear undermines basic civil liberties. (Oct 2007)
Ok to expose 6-year-olds to gay couples; they know already. (Sep 2007)
Better enforce women's pay equity via Equal Pay Act. (Aug 2007)
Strengthen the Americans with Disabilities Act. (Aug 2007)
Has any marriage broken up because two gays hold hands? (Aug 2007)
We need strong civil unions, not just weak civil unions. (Aug 2007)
Legal rights for gays are conferred by state, not by church. (Aug 2007)
Disentangle gay rights from the word "marriage". (Aug 2007)
Gay marriage is less important that equal gay rights. (Aug 2007)
Gay rights movement is somewhat like civil rights movement. (Aug 2007)
Let each denominations decide on recognizing gay marriage. (Jul 2007)
Racial equality good for America as a whole. (Jun 2007)
Put the Confederate flag in a museum, not the state house. (Apr 2007)
Supports health benefits for gay civil partners. (Oct 2006)
Muslim heritage gives Obama unique influence in Muslim world. (Oct 2006)
Opposes gay marriage; supports civil union & gay equality. (Oct 2006)
No black or white America--just United States of America. (Oct 2006)
Marriage not a human right; non-discrimination is. (Oct 2004)
African-Americans vote Democratic because of issue stances. (Jul 2004)
Forthright on racial issues and on his civil rights history. (Jul 2004)
Defend freedom and equality under law. (May 2004)
Politicians: don't use religion to insulate from criticism. (Apr 2004)
Supports affirmative action in colleges and government. (Jul 1998)
Include sexual orientation in anti-discrimination laws. (Jul 1998)
Miscegenation a felony in 1960 when Obamas practiced it. (Aug 1996)
The civil rights movement was a success. (Aug 1996)
Voted NO on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)


Most of that I like. I am not sure about how I feel about affirmative action anymore and I really want to beleive in the way he thinks its about unity -UNITED STATE OF AMERICA, not Black or white America. Kind of tired of being left out of America. Anywho, he is very comprehensive and I like the way he doesn't like to generalize and simplfiy things. I suppose to his demise, but heck "Disentangle gay rights from the word "marriage". (Aug 2007" isn't something I've hear from anyone else. More from the others in the future.

Women in Politics

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/usa_politics_feminists_dc;_ylt=Agu.rozNWXxEpWJG1u9GSWnkbeRF

This was a really interesting article. It raises some really good questions about clinton and her presidential bid. Not only her, but also obama, who also will inevitably, (my guess) come to represent an underrepresented group. The aricle discusses how many of the womens' rights organizations are cautious about endorsing Clinton simply because she is a woman. Organizations like NOW point out that they want the best champion for womens' rights and if that happens to be women, that is nirvana. The bigger issue I am interested in is, when it comes down to the average voter, who, in my experience, seems to vote on passion and emotion issues like religion and personality, as opposed to good policy, will that hold true. I would assume, maybe incorrectly, that based on the most elementary of associations, that clinton will have the female vote. Haha, but this is the thing, that would mean that Obama has the black vote right? WRong. He doesn't, at least according to the poles. So does that mean people vote based on policy and not just on skin, gender or other shallow and unsubstantial characteristics? I don't know. This is really confusing. If people criticize voters for voting on their passions and not the issues, why don't Clinton and Obama make sense? Why are their, "safe bets," not safe bets? You can assume christians want a christian in the white house because that person sees life the same way or because you can assume that they share certain values. Why isn't that true of race and gender? Regardless of who you are as a person, if you were black during the reconstruction period, you'd face jim crow in the south and if you were a woman before 1920, you couldn't vote. There has to be some level or community there. Maybe I am over simplifying gender and race. I dunno, its a peculiar situation. Clinton and Obama will represent their respective groups politically even if their respective groups don't want them to or they themselves don't want to. So much of choices in democracy.


I don't mean to be apathetic, i really do hope things turn out for the best.

chapter 18

Let me just start by saying that blogging is exhausting. I don't know why. When it comes down to it, it only takes about 10-15 minutes, but it just drains me. Anyway, Chapter 18 was in all honesty, interesting. I thought it was important to include the way reporters organize themselves, even if it is poorly. Sometimes I like to put myself in a situation like that, a situation where I am a reporter chasing an investigation. I really wonder what I would do, whether I would be really organized or really messy. The biggest questions I have revolve around what really big writers have done. Another point that I thought was intersting was how NRAW, my acronym for the book, points out that you should form a hypothesis because investigative reporting is a lot like science. I see what they were getting at, but they also note that you should go in expecting to be wrong. Again, I completey understand where they are going, but where do you draw the line between making a move based on an assertion you have about the situation and going in without any preconceived notions? Hmm

Covering Crime and justice

This is really interesting stuff. I knew about some of the basics about crime and court proceedings, but this is actually useful information. I didn't know a lot of these details about certain aspects such as a judge looking over police arrest charges and how judges preside over court proceedings. This is definitely useful if I want to ever cover a crime beat or simply useful because so many things have to do with the law.