Good Marketing

I have never seen an ABC commercial on BET. Today I saw one. Today at exactly 7:58 pm on BET appeared a commercial for Raisin in the Sun, premiering on ABC at 8:00pm on the same date. I wonder how many people in their homes said, "Oh yeah" and turned the channel.

Online Forum.

The following is my response to an individual on an online forum, who stated that a vote for Barack Obama is a vote for a shift toward socialism. Please feel free to state your opinion, whatever that may be.

Your's Truely,

Will


PRETTYINBLUE Let me say this in response to your comments about Barack and moving towards socialism. To an extent, i think your right. But then again any ideological shift to the left would be moving towards socialism, even if it was a small shift. Now universal healthcare, thats a big shift. I'm not sure if you read what I said about it before, but it kinda scares me. With all that said, there is one thing that the Democrats keep noting, which I think is true; that there is an ever growing gap between the poor and the wealthy in this country. And I don't know if it is indeed governments responsibility to close that gap. Generally Republicans would say no and Democrats would say yes. I think in a perfect world, there wouldn't be any gap. Everyone would be open to the same opportunities as everyone else. If this was the case, everyone would vote Republican. There would be any need for government programs or any of that. Its sad that this is not the the case. So then the question come again; is it governments responsibility to close this gap, or is it the individuals responsibility. I think more often than not...I am going to say that it is the individuals responsibility. Notice i did say, more often than not. Should there be welfare programs...yes, but should we let people live there lives off of welfare...nope. Should we give minorities incentives for college, like scholarships that specifically for minorities?...i'd have to give up my scholarship if i said no. What i'm trying to do is find a happy medium between these two side. Man if i ever do i'm running for president. CASS 3000, I would like to hear what you have to say about what i just said.

YES WE CAN!!!....(elect a black man to the presidency.)

Originally, I picked up Dr. Shelby Steele’s book “A Bound Man; Why Are We Excited About Obama and Why He Can’t Win” to try and find some illogical criticisms. I assumed that the book would be written in a fashion similar to Dr. Michael Eric Dyson’s book criticizing comments Bill Cosby made about the black community. In reading the opening pages of Dr. Steele’s book, instead of finding arguments that were easy to counter, I found a sick and painful feeling growing in my stomach. In my reading, I found that I had, like the rest of America, fallen into the misconception that America was turning a new leaf; that the pertinence of racial politics in this country was fading away. This sick feeling grew in my stomach as I realized that if Barack Obama were a white man, we would not being having this discussion about his candidacy. There would not be a jubilant excitement about the possibility of a minority president, and I would not being writing this essay right now.
The irony is that Senator Obama has centralized his campaign around transcendence, a type of politics that looks beyond race. Yet in doing so, race has become the key facet of Senator Obama’s campaign. Looking to expunge itself from its ugly racial past, white America can claim racism dead with the emergence of a black president. After Obama announced he would seek the Democratic nomination, Senator Joseph Biden stated that senator Obama was “articulate, bright, and clean.” Senator Biden’s comments “showed surprise in the high ability of a black.” Furthermore Senator Biden’s statements “celebrated Obama at the expense of other blacks who were presumably inarticulate, not bright, and unclean.” If you find yourself questioning the legitimacy of my argument consider this, “When you can credibly run for the presidency only two years out of the Illinois state legislature and, upon announcing your campaign, immediately surge past all but one competitor, then something in society is drawing you forward.” For America, Barack Obama is a trophy if not a symbol that shouts “YES WE CAN!” and whispers “elect a black man to the presidency.”

Media And Politics

At no point in history has the American media had a bigger role in shaping public opinion than it does today. The current highly contested Democratic primary is a testimony of this fact. With both candidates poised to make potential history, Hillary Clinton to be the first female president and Barack Obama to be the first African-American president, the coverage of this primary has been arguably unprecedented. The coverage of this primary and the influential role the media has on it, presents an opportunity to explore how the role, content, and tone of the media has shifted in the last twenty years. The analytical lens of the media that includes talk radio hosts such as Rush Limbaugh, political pundits such as Ann Coulter, and talk show host like Bill O’Reilly did not always exist. The coverage of this primary allows us to examine how this shift came about.
This past fall, while campaigning in Iowa, a photo of an obviously tired and seemingly distraught Hillary Clinton surfaced in the news. This led to questions about problems within the Clinton campaign, including who was actually running the campaign (Clinton or her husband) and if a female could handle the rigors of the presidential spotlight. After a shocking loss in the Iowa primary some new reports even questioned if Senator Clinton could be competitive with the emerging sensation Senator Obama (Goodwin). This type of analytical interpretation of news is a stark contrast from the traditional fact based, objective media standard that existed pre-1970’s. It was during this period, from the 1920’s to the 1970’s, that media and journalism was a sacred industry, upheld by unwritten rules. Journalists attempted to leave their opinions out of articles, with objectivity being the goal. This media era left politicians personal flaws, such as Presidents John F. Kennedy and Franklin D. Roosevelt’s adultery, out of mainstream news. “It was an era when the mostly male journalism profession was deferential and uncritical of public officials, especially on issues related to sex (West 68).” To say that a presidential affair would be front page news in today’s media era would be a drastic under statement.
While objectivity remains a standard in the field of journalism, analysis and interpretation has become more popular. While the objective era would have questioned Senator Clinton’s political policies, the analytical era would question if a female would be able to handle the presidency.
It wasn’t enough to report the “who, what, when, and where” surrounding an event. Rather, reporters must delve into human motivation, explore why particular actions were undertaken, and provide some sense of the larger significance of these activities.
-West 72
This shift, from objectivity to analysis, is marked by two events that changed the way new was covered: Vietnam and the Watergate scandal. “Vietnam was the first real television war (West 62).” The general public was privy to clips of live war action that it had never experienced before. It was a combination of the images and the unprecedented length of the war that lead to the increased dissatisfaction with it. Reports about increased causalities were accompanied by pictures of American body bags and flag draped coffins. These reports contradicted the government released statistics that suggested that the United States was winning the war, and sparked journalist to become more investigative in their reporting. In 1968 the model of objective reporting, CBS news anchor Walter Cronkite, broke the mold when he questioned the war. Cronkite questioned if the U.S. was getting stuck in the war and stressed that we should get out. While the media is often accused of helping lose the war by enticing criticism of it, journalist did not make up the information that they were reporting, nor did cameramen fake the body bags and coffins they were filming.
The lesson learned from Vietnam was to do investigative reporting because one source may not give you all the facts. This lesson was applied in 1972 when the Democratic Party’s headquarters, then the Watergate hotel, was broken into during the election season. President Richard Nixon was running for reelection and he won, but in being concerned about his opponent the White House Administration decided to try and get an inside bead on Democratic strategy. “[T]he break-in was part of a systematic plan of surveillance and disruption targeted at Democratic opponents by the Nixon White House…(West 63).” When questioned about the connection between the break-in and the White House, the Nixon administration insisted on the absurdity of the possibility. Two Washington Post reporters, Bob Woodard and Carl Bernstein, continued to investigate the case and found that the trail of this burglary lead directly to the president and that White House officials and the president himself had lied. Of course following this finding President Nixon resigned, and media again learned some valuable lessons. The Watergate scandal taught journalist to be persistent with investigations, and arguably more importantly to be always be skeptical.
As mentioned earlier, prior to the 1970’s media and journalism was a sacred industry controlled by few media outlets. The shift to the analytical era marked the dissemination of the media monopoly. Darrell West describes this dissemination in The Rise and Fall of the Media Establishment.
At political events, flamboyant Rolling Stone commentator Hunter Thompson stood side-by-side with journalistic icons such as David Broder of the Washington Post.
-West 69
Journalism had lost its prestige, and prominent media outlets began to lose patrons to other outlets. Like any industry, media is driven by profit. This would mean media outlets would have to take different approaches to gain profit.
The analytical era of media is marked by distinct attributes. As already discussed interpretation and analyzes became the norm. With this, the journalist’s opinions and biases, while not purposely distorting a story, they do become a part of it. The newly founded Cable News Network (CNN) provided a platform for the new era of news. The shift to interpretation in media coincided with the popularization of political punditry. Pundits are “individuals whose subject area expertise allowed them to place events in a broad historical and political context (West 73).” While West gives a distinguished detention of pundits, most people would know them as the people that argue on CNN or Fox News. Political pundits may be the representative flag of the interpretive era. These opinionated individuals provide insight as well as entertainment, which is of utmost importance in the analytical era.
With all of the forms of media available to today’s American, entertainment becomes important. While media outlets will report an issue, they will oftentimes add controversial interpretation to add an entertainment element. Many times news outlets pair political pundits from different sides of an issue to create an argument. For instance, with the recent Jena 6 case, CNN paired together African-American liberal Michael Eric Dyson and white conservative Ann Coulter. These types of contrasting opinions are needed for media to maintain a level of interest. People want to be entertained, and in this era where media outlets compete with each other for attention, newspapers, magazines, and TV news programs need to have content that is going to have appeal and more importantly is going to sell.
I noted in the introduction that the media has a large role in shaping public opinion. To investigate this claim I conducted an informal experiment. I asked 6 of my friends whom they believed was currently winning the Democratic primary. None of them are political science majors but do pay some attention to politics. All six of my friends answered that they believed Barack Obama was currently winning. When I informed them that Hillary Clinton still had the lead, but that Barack was closing in, they all responded similarly. “I thought Barack was winning.” This mistake in fact isn’t surprising considering that after the Iowa primary many news outlets claimed Clinton to be dead in the water. The polls before the New Hampshire primary predicted a Clinton defeat and were decidedly incorrect. With Clinton getting the negative publicity following comments here husband made, its not surprising that anyone would mistake the leading candidate for a candidate with a troubled campaign. With today being Super Tuesday across the country we will get to see if the results my informal experiment are representative of the nation or just my friends. One thing is for certain in American media and politics today. For a candidate to be successful they must learn how to properly manipulate the media.
Works Cited

Goodwin, Michael. “After Iowa, Barack Obama is on a Roll and Hillary Clinton is on the ropes.” New York Daily News. Jan 4, 2008

West, Darrell M. The Rise and Fall of the Media Establishment. Wadsworth/Thomson: Belmont, CA. 2001

The Critical Citizen

The perspective of the critical citizen is seemingly the motivation that founded this great country. However, rather than object to the British government, this motivation caused our founding fathers to secede from it, declaring independence. From this example one would believe that it is the critical citizen model that should mold citizenship not only in America, but in nations around the world. This perceptive allows democracy to reach its full potential. Without it, governments can become totalitarian and oppressive.
Nathanson suggests that the critical citizen believes that government’s right to rule is based on its commitment to justice, whereas just governments have the right to rule and unjust governments do not. Hobbes contests that citizens do not hold the right to determine if governments’ laws are just or unjust and that such a freedom would lead to chaos due to arbitrary and ambiguous notions of justice. Hobbes’ argument seems faulty on two points. First, governments are generally established in nations, nation which can be defined as a group of people with a recognized and shared culture and history. In most cases it would seem illogical to think that a people with an alike history and culture would have dramatically different notions of justice, just as it would be logical to conclude that this group would have similar notions of morality. The Sunni-Shiite conflict seems to be one of few exceptions of this rule. Secondly, government’s purpose over all else is to preserve life and liberty. It would seem that if ever government lost sight of its purpose, especially in the case of life, it would be not only logical, but necessary to be critical of government. In a similar argument Nathanson notes “If the function of governments is to protect people’s rights, then a government is legitimate as long as it does that… (82)” One may content that this just gives the citizen the unlimited freedom that Hobbes fears. This maybe true, but the law of nature insists that one strive to preserve his own life, even when government infringes on it.
I have come to learn that whenever two opposing positions are presented against each other it is almost certain that there is some truth and some falsehood in each. Nathanson argues that the government should do whatever the citizens cannot do for themselves. If this is true, then it is possible that government will become the authoritarian government Hobbes argues for. What if people can do nothing for themselves? Then government must be everything. Former Italian dictator Benito Mussolini was once quoted “All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.” This is the type of government that Nathanson is advocating for with this argument.
Is the critical citizen perspective a good model for citizenship in the contemporary United States? This question is easier to answer when the question is formulated as such: Is the critical citizen perspective a bad model for citizenship in the contemporary United States? For this to be true, the critical perspective being bad for the U.S. citizen, the government would have to be perfect, meaning the critical perspective would be unnecessary. The critical perspective would be unnecessary because the goals of establishing justice, promoting the general welfare, and securing the blessings of liberty would accomplished and maintained naturally. There would be nothing to be critical about. We know that this is not the case in America. The government is not perfect. Regarding liberty, people are being held in Guantanamo Bay without knowing the charges against them, without the writ of habeas corpus. Promoting the general welfare is a goal, yet there are patterns of poverty that exist in out nations urban centers. Many urban schools cannot provide the quality education available in suburban schools, arguably starting and facilitating these patterns of poverty. The distribution of justice is unequal when sentencing guidelines for cocaine are different dependent on what form it takes. Powdered cocaine, the drug generally associated with whites and “recreational” drug use, has lesser sentencing guidelines than crack cocaine, the form associated with minorities and “criminal” drug use. I’ve given these examples to just to say that government is not perfect, and since it is not, citizens have the moral obligation to be critical.

Notice

If you couldn't tell, most of my writings are specifically written for particular classes. This means that you will see a shift in the topics of some of these pieces. Don't worry though. I will continue to address issues concerning racial conscieness, just give me some time.

-Will