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.
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
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."
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."
Sunday, December 2, 2007
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)