This interesting article in yesterdays NY Times about Glenn Beck is quite intriguing. Glenn Beck may start his own cable TV channel once his Fox News contract expires. In doing so, he would follow in the footsteps of Oprah, who also launched her own network, the Oprah Winfrey Network.
I am intrigued by this because as the article states that "Mr. Beck...many advertisers have shunned him on Fox, in part because of a boycott that started after he called President Obama racist in 2009." If you are unable to attract advertisers, or receive government funding or have inadequate private funds, how is it possible to maintain a cable channel. Mr. Beck may have wealthy individuals behind him although that may not be so good. If he is receiving his money from his ardent supporters, then he is accountable to no one as his income is guaranteed. Compare this to being on a network in which a host's comments must be carefully weighed lest a slip occur and advertisers pull their funding (exactly what happened to Mr. Beck). Without this accountability, who knows what Mr. Beck will say and what the repercussions will be. If I had a say in the matter, I would tell Mr. Beck to re-sign with Fox.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Comments on the Readings
In general, I try to not comment on the readings as I feel that there is enough content on the internet to blog about. However, after doing the readings, I am left with some comments that I feel are worth sharing.
In the reading "The Liberal Media Exposed," one of the proofs is quite tenuous. For example, the authors wish to use the fact that "John Tierney surveyed 153 campaign journalists at a press party at the 2004 Democratic National Convention...and found a huge preference for Democratic Senator John Kerry..." to prove that the media is liberal. Correct me if I am wrong, but if there was support for Bush, something would be amiss, but support for Kerry by journalists at the DNC should be expected. My issues are: 1) The reporters at the Democratic National Convention may have asked for that assignment based on their personal preference. They were reporting the DNC instead of the RNC because they are Democrats and are more interested in it than the RNC. Therefore, if a similar survey was taken at the RNC, the results would probably be the same, which would prove nothing, other than that reporters tend to be assigned to and report on things they are already predisposed to. This does not prove that the media is liberal. 2) Just because they favor Kerry does not mean that they are liberal and if they are liberal, that does not mean that their reporting will contain a liberal slant. They may associate themselves with a liberal philosophy, but they may not indicate so in their reporting. It is for these 2 reasons that I view this statistic as a weak proof.
In the reading "Advertising Trends in 2010," on page 14, the authors write "One nontrivial benefit of record spending and record airings this cycle is that many voters, whether they like it or not, were undoubtedly exposed to more campaign information than in previous election cycles and therefore were more likely to make informed choices at the ballot box..." My problem is, that watching ads and being exposed to political advertisements does not make one well informed. On the contrary, being saturated and possibly over-saturated by political ads may cause people to tune out which would make them less informed voters, proving that too many ads can be detrimental to society at large.
Feel free to disagree but those are my thoughts on the readings.
In the reading "The Liberal Media Exposed," one of the proofs is quite tenuous. For example, the authors wish to use the fact that "John Tierney surveyed 153 campaign journalists at a press party at the 2004 Democratic National Convention...and found a huge preference for Democratic Senator John Kerry..." to prove that the media is liberal. Correct me if I am wrong, but if there was support for Bush, something would be amiss, but support for Kerry by journalists at the DNC should be expected. My issues are: 1) The reporters at the Democratic National Convention may have asked for that assignment based on their personal preference. They were reporting the DNC instead of the RNC because they are Democrats and are more interested in it than the RNC. Therefore, if a similar survey was taken at the RNC, the results would probably be the same, which would prove nothing, other than that reporters tend to be assigned to and report on things they are already predisposed to. This does not prove that the media is liberal. 2) Just because they favor Kerry does not mean that they are liberal and if they are liberal, that does not mean that their reporting will contain a liberal slant. They may associate themselves with a liberal philosophy, but they may not indicate so in their reporting. It is for these 2 reasons that I view this statistic as a weak proof.
In the reading "Advertising Trends in 2010," on page 14, the authors write "One nontrivial benefit of record spending and record airings this cycle is that many voters, whether they like it or not, were undoubtedly exposed to more campaign information than in previous election cycles and therefore were more likely to make informed choices at the ballot box..." My problem is, that watching ads and being exposed to political advertisements does not make one well informed. On the contrary, being saturated and possibly over-saturated by political ads may cause people to tune out which would make them less informed voters, proving that too many ads can be detrimental to society at large.
Feel free to disagree but those are my thoughts on the readings.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Politicians and Mock News Shows
According to the Huffington Post, there are a number of politicians who refuse to be guests on certain TV shows, namely The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. One reason for refusing the invitation according to the article is "the potential to commit a gaffe that is bound to make headlines." However, such a gaffe can occur at anytime and why should the fear of making it on a specific TV show prevent you from going on said TV show.
In defense of the politicians, it is possible to say that Jon Stewart's interview style may lead to an unwanted statement. However, the opposite may also be true. His use of comedy may allow for the guest to feel comfortable and relate to the audience in a fashion that is impossible to achieve during a rally or press conference.
Additionally, politicians should desire to reach out to as many diverse audiences as possible. Therefore, moving out of your comfort zone to be a guest on a different type of TV show, may be a chance to speak to a new demographic and expand your voter base.
That being said, I firmly believe that Sarah Palin and company should be guests on Jon Stewart's The Daily Show.
In defense of the politicians, it is possible to say that Jon Stewart's interview style may lead to an unwanted statement. However, the opposite may also be true. His use of comedy may allow for the guest to feel comfortable and relate to the audience in a fashion that is impossible to achieve during a rally or press conference.
Additionally, politicians should desire to reach out to as many diverse audiences as possible. Therefore, moving out of your comfort zone to be a guest on a different type of TV show, may be a chance to speak to a new demographic and expand your voter base.
That being said, I firmly believe that Sarah Palin and company should be guests on Jon Stewart's The Daily Show.
Saturday, March 5, 2011
How Helpful Should America Be to Libyans?
According to Dan Gonzales and Sarah Harting in a New York Times Op-Ed on 3/4, the United States has the technology to restore cellphone service to disconnected Libyans. The restoration of the service would involve having the US Air Force and Navy functioning as cellphone service stations. Instead of service being routed to subscribers from towers in Libya (which are currently controlled by Qaddafi's son), the service would emanate from base-stations tethered to balloons or in airplanes. Calls would pass to the Navy which would then send the calls to a satellite and from there to the recipient. The only difference is that instead of receiving signal from a land based tower, it comes from a mobile base-station.
According to Gonzales and Harting, this is a feasible way to aid the protesters and circumvent Qaddafi. However, placing the US in the middle, as the operator of the base stations, would make it super convenient for the US to monitor calls to and from Libya, which is reminiscent of the wire-taps during the Bush era which were deemed unconstitutional.
Then again, monitoring the phone calls may be beneficial. It will give the US access to the pulse of Libya and the protests. They will learn the progress of the revolution, the hurdles facing it etc... and will be able to provide directed support to the opposition, helping it achieve its goals. On the flip side, the US may also have the ability to drop calls which they do not want to take place, for example: between opposition organizers who decide to adopt an anti-American outlook. Such action would limit some of the rights of the Libyans. But then again, Libyans are not Americans and may not have the same constitutionally granted protections.
According to Gonzales and Harting, this is a feasible way to aid the protesters and circumvent Qaddafi. However, placing the US in the middle, as the operator of the base stations, would make it super convenient for the US to monitor calls to and from Libya, which is reminiscent of the wire-taps during the Bush era which were deemed unconstitutional.
Then again, monitoring the phone calls may be beneficial. It will give the US access to the pulse of Libya and the protests. They will learn the progress of the revolution, the hurdles facing it etc... and will be able to provide directed support to the opposition, helping it achieve its goals. On the flip side, the US may also have the ability to drop calls which they do not want to take place, for example: between opposition organizers who decide to adopt an anti-American outlook. Such action would limit some of the rights of the Libyans. But then again, Libyans are not Americans and may not have the same constitutionally granted protections.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Another Win for the First Amendment
In a Supreme Court ruling today, the Supreme Court ruled in Snyder v. Phelps that hateful protests at military funerals are protected by the First Amendment. The full decision is available for download on the Supreme Court's website, http://www.supremecourt.gov/, and the New York Times has an article about the ruling on their website.
However, Justice Stephen G. Breyer said that television broadcasts and internet postings might have different rules. Why is that so, aren't both of these mediums already protected under the First Amendment?
However, Justice Stephen G. Breyer said that television broadcasts and internet postings might have different rules. Why is that so, aren't both of these mediums already protected under the First Amendment?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)