Category: politics

Posted on

The Future of Modern Warfare?

No, I’m not talking about the release of Call of Duty: Black Ops II this week, and the $500 million that players dropped on the first day. Rather, I’m talking about real conflict with real casualties, and tweets like this…

Some numbers from the last 3 days: 492 rockets fired from #Gaza hit #Israel + 245 Iron Dome interceptions = 737 rockets fired at us. @IDFSpokesperson

And this photo tweeted two days ago…

And this video posted to Youtube…

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6U2ZQ0EhN4]
If you watch the IDF YouTube channel you’ll also find a video that alleges to show Palestinian children taunting Israeli soldiers attempting to provoke a response for the cameras.

In a world where public support is necessary for democratic societies to engage in armed conflict, propaganda is a necessary and essential part of the campaign. According to an editorial in the Washington Post,

The @IDFSpokesperson Twitter account, encouraging followers to show support for the strikes, tweeted Wednesday: “More than 12,000 rockets hit Israel in the past 12 years. RT if you think #Israel has the right to defend itself.” More than 5,500 people have retweeted it.

The social media campaign being waged by the Israeli Defense Force is part PR campaign, part political posturing, part warning intended to minimize civilian casualties, and part intimidation, e.g. “We recommend that no Hamas operatives, whether low level or senior leaders, show their faces above ground in the days ahead.”

Hamas, the pro-Palestinian group responsible for the rocket attacks on Israel, has responded with their own campaign, including the twitter hashtag #GazaUnderAttack. Civilians, especially children, killed by Israeli retaliatory strikes are put on display for the TV cameras as mourners wail in the street.

The Middle East, post Arab Spring, is still a fractious place where opposing forces battle on a daily basis. While some of the conflict is physical, much of it takes place in the media where the battle is fought for the hearts and minds of both regional and global witnesses. And more and more of it is happening in near-real-time.

Posted on

Political Ads Just Keep On Coming!

We’re approaching the end of another election season and the race couldn’t be tighter. Living in a “battleground state” I’ve seen my share of political ads, even while wielding my DVR remote control as a light saber to vanquish as many as I possibly can. With nearly a billion dollars spent on the presidential race alone, this has been a year for the record books. According to Wesleyan Media Project, this year’s presidential race has seen more than 915,000 ads air on broadcast and cable television.

TV is the medium of choice for politicians hoping to reach the masses. No other medium offers as much persuasion power as video, and a well-crafted TV spot can be a powerful tool for energizing the base and persuading the undecided voter.

Another notable characteristic of the 2012 campaign is the prevalence of negative or attack ads. Obama’s campaign was more negative (73.3%) than Romney’s (36%), while both Democratic and Republican ads by outside groups and super PACs were almost entirely negative.

Given the deluge of TV ads, what is your strategy for coping?

Posted on

Ruffling Feathers at PBS

SNL invited Big Bird to the set of Weekend Update.

For a generation raised on Sesame Street, Big Bird is the poster child for all that is right and good about children’s television. A creation of puppeteer Kermit Love, Big Bird was originally designed to be played by Jim Henson. While that never quite worked out, according to Wikipedia Big Bird has been “officially performed by Caroll Spinney since 1969.” It is worth noting that Spinney is paid more than $300,000 annually for the role, according to the Sesame Workshops forms filed for 2010 tax year (the Atlantic).

So why are we talking about Big Bird? Because in the first 2012 Presidential Debate, which aired Oct 3, Mitt Romney said that in order to reduce the federal budget deficit he would makes cuts to certain domestic programs. Here’s the quote:

“I’m sorry, Jim [Lehrer, moderator of the debate]. I’m going to stop the subsidy to PBS. I’m going to stop other things. I like PBS. I love Big Bird. I actually like you too. But I’m not going to — I’m not going to keep on spending money on things to borrow money from China to pay for it.”

In response, the Obama campaign released this ad accusing Romney of going after Sesame Street while giving Wall Street a pass…

[youtube=http://youtu.be/bZxs09eV-Vc]

According to an article in the WSJ, Sesame Workshop would prefer to avoid being politicized by either candidate and has requested that the Obama campaign pull the ad.

“We have approved no campaign ads and, as is our general practice, have requested that both campaigns remove Sesame Street characters and trademarks from their campaign materials,” said Sesame Workshop, a nonprofit educational organization that produces and owns the show, in a statement.

What do you think about Big Bird, funding for PBS, and politicizing of both for the sake of political gain?

Posted on

An Out’rage’ous Newsweek Cover?

Newsweek magazine was once a leader in the news weekly genre. But that was a long time ago and Newsweek is now struggling to attract readers. One technique they’ve employed is the sensational cover photo and headline. According to an article in the Huffington Post, “The conservative Daily Telegraph called it a ” sickening piece of shock journalism that cheapens a once great magazine” and compared it to the anti-Muslim film that sparked the protests.”

This YouTube video captures some of the outrage directed at Newsweek and other journalists.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PaOfycgyCg]

 

In response to criticism about their cover, Newsweek invited the public to chime in with their own take on the events recently unfolding in Islamic nations around the globe. They invited people to post to Twitter using the hashtag #muslimrage which was quickly hijacked by Muslims and non-Muslims alike. You can find a collections of some of the tweets, and images of Muslim Rage at Gawker.

This mocking response to a serious issue demonstrates the challenges facing media companies who give up control to their readers/viewers/users. Listen to this NPR story about the Twitter backlash.

Yesterday’s LA Times points to a recent article in Foreign Policy magazine in which the author suggested,

that the increased democratization brought by the 2011 Arab uprisings and social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter helped break down the barriers between cultures and tamp down the cycles of outrage compared to the previous protests over Danish cartoons in 2006 that left hundreds dead.

It may be too soon to tell if democracy and social media will have a lasting positive effect on relationships that have taken centuries to grow apart.

Posted on

Arab Spring Gives Way to the Arab Fall

On the anniversary of 9/11, rioting in Cairo and the murder of Libyan ambassador John Christopher Stevens, and several others, at the US consulate in Benghazi is a stark reminder that we still don’t understand the complex nature of middle-eastern politics and Islamic extremism. In the words of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, “how could this happen in a country we helped liberate and in a city we helped to save from destruction.” It is becoming increasingly clear that the overthrow of former Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi brought new freedom, but also instability, to the region.

There are several connections to mass media in this story. First, much has been made of the role of social media in bringing democracy to Northern Africa and the Middle East. Second, news reports say that a YouTube video criticizing Mohammed was the initial spark that ignited the riots. The two-hour YouTube video, produced and written by Sam Bacile, a California real estate developer, was made for $5 million. A 13-minute trailer/excerpt can be seen here. According to reports, the film portrays the prophet Mohammed as, “a fraud, a pedophile and a womanizer.” Muslims do not allow the portrayal of Mohammed in any form, but are particularly intolerant of depictions that are perceived as an insult. Afghanistan blocked YouTube today in an attempt to prevent access to the controversial video.

While freedom of speech and freedom of expression are highly valued in American culture, much of the world does not share our appreciation for speech that sometimes offends segments of the audience. In this country individuals can safely criticize government entities and religious institutions without fear of reprisal. But that is not the case in many countries and cultures dominated by totalitarian rulers or oppressive religious factions.

While Americans hold their noses and “tolerate” protests by Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist “Church”, the response has not been so generous in other contexts. Take, for example, the case of Theo van Gogh. Van Gogh was a Dutch filmmaker who made Submission, a movie that many Muslims found offensive. After the movie was shown on Dutch public television, Van Gogh was killed by a “Muslim extremist.” The killer shot Van Gogh eight time, stabbed him, and attempted to decapitate him. When a Danish newspaper published caricatures of the prophet in 2005, it sparked riots in many Muslim countries.

Because we are in an election season, the news also took a political twist. According to a report by the BBC,

Mitt Romney, Mr Obama’s Republican challenger in the forthcoming presidential election, criticized the US administration’s response to the attacks in Benghazi and Cairo, saying it had appeared to “sympathize with those who waged the attacks”.

Religious freedom, freedom of speech, and tolerance for opposing views are values not to be taken lightly. And when they appear to be in conflict with each other, the stakes are even higher.

Posted on

Jailhouse Rock: Pussy Riot Found Guilty

In case you haven’t heard, members of the punk rock band Pussy Riot have been sentenced to two years in prison for, “hooliganism driven by religious hatred.” The trial and sentencing of the three Russian women has attracted attention and outrage from around the world. Amnesty International and other supporters of free speech and human rights have declared them “prisoners of conscience.” According to USA Today,

The three were arrested in March after a guerrilla performance in Moscow’s main cathedral, high-kicking and dancing while singing a “punk prayer” pleading the Virgin Mary to save Russia from Vladimir Putin.

Several celebrities have spoken out in support of Pussy Riot. Garry Kasparov, former world chess champion, as well as Paul McCartney and Madonna have expressed support for the rights of the performers. Russia does not have the same level of protection for speech that we appreciate.  Thanks to the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution, US citizens have much more freedom to speak our minds than do most other citizens of the world.

But we also want to be careful that free speech rights do not infringe on the rights of others. Hate speech is one of those sensitive areas where, even in America, free speech sometimes has to take a back seat. But who gets to decide that a specific act of speech crosses the line into hate speech and, in so doing, forfeits the rights of the speaker to protection under the law? That’s a question that many are asking in light of this sentence.

Update Aug 20: In an unusual twist, Madonna is being sued for over $10M by concert goers who “were offended by her support for gay rights during a recent concert in St. Petersburg.” See more here.

Posted on

Another Mass Shooting in Colorado: A Dark Night Indeed

Yesterday I posted a short entry and link to the Media & Society facebook page about the heated debate on Rotten Tomatoes about The Dark Knight Rises. The essence of the story, as reported by the Wall Street Journal, is that the comment section of the latest Batman film was out of control with trash talk and threat of physical violence because of a couple of unflattering reviews of the newest movie in the Batman franchise. Apparently fans of the series were not taking kindly to the negative reviews and, as often is the case with online discussions, the anonymity and deindividuation (I know it’s a big word…look it up) led to brutish behavior on the part of some.

This morning I woke up to horrible news that a gunman had opened fire in an Aurora (suburb of Denver, CO) theater where movie goers had gone to see the newest Batman movie, The Dark Knight Rises. Dressed in a bullet-proof vest and gas mask, and with his hair colored red, the shooter opened canisters of gas and then opened fire with multiple weapons in the crowded theater. Some 71 persons were shot and 12 are reported killed. Taken into custody, the gunman–recently a PhD student at CU’s medical school–claimed to be the Joker, the villain portrayed by the late Heath Ledger in  the previous Batman film.

All of this will no doubt raise questions, and even political posturing, about the shooter’s motives and the state of our society. Some of these questions may be genuine attempts to deal with the loss by looking for explanations. Others may be asking questions in an effort to direct public dialog to topics in which they have political axes to grind. Some of the questions will look to the media. Was the shooter in any way influenced by the Batman movies? Are villainous portrayals on the big screen capable of triggering desperate acts by deranged individuals?

I began this blog with reference to the uncivil behavior in an online forum. Some might argue that this online incident is indicative of a greater social illness that found its final outlet in a horrific act of carnage. While causal links are incapable of providing explanations for the behavior of psychotic and deranged individuals, it won’t stop people from trying to connect the dots. There may well be connections to be made, but those will have to wait for now.

Posted on

American Idol Tryouts or Presidential Campaign?

Colorado is a swing state which means we’re going to be seeing a lot of political ads between now and November. Two that just hit the web, and the airwaves, feature our presidential hopefuls breaking out into song. Both are attack ads, which means the ad for Obama features Romney’s singing and the ad for Romney features the crooning of the President.

Here’s the Obama ad for your viewing, and listening, enjoyment…

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ud3mMj0AZZk]

I wanted to include the Romney ad, featuring Obama singing Al Green’s Let’s Stay Together, but a copyright claim by BMG Music resulted in the clip being pulled from YouTube. According to the Washington Post,

Romney’s campaign plans to fight the decision. “Our use was 100 percent proper, under fair use, and we plan to defend ourselves,” a spokesperson said. Other videos featuring the same clip of Obama remain on YouTube. (It’s not clear why the company has not challenged those videos.)

Now no one would seriously claim that vocal ability is a prerequisite for the highest office in the land, but the like-ability of the candidate is an important component and these ads may strike a chord with the electorate.

July 29 Update: According to Variety magazine, the Romney campaign came back with a new version of their ad featuring the singing of President Obama. You can see it on the Romney website.

Posted on

Broadcast v Cable Indecency

What is indecent when it comes to television programming, and does it matter whether it is delivered over-the-air or via cable or satellite or computer? Those are just some of the questions facing TV network executives today. In an 8-0 decision, the Supreme Court last week said that ABC and FOX will not have to pay fines imposed by the FCC after episodes of fleeting indecency. The ABC TV network had been fined for airing an episode of NYPD Blue that contained seven seconds of a woman’s backside while FOX had been fined for airing awards shows in which speakers used expletives in their unscripted remarks. According to the Court, the FCC policies were too vague and therefore violated the broadcasters’ rights to due process according to the Fifth Amendment.

However, despite the unanimous ruling (Justice Sonia Sotomayor recused herself), the Court left in place the FCC’s right to regulate the airwaves. This right was established by the 1978 decision FCC vs. Pacifica. The now famous case was in response to a radio station airing George Carlin’s monologue about dirty words. According to the ruling the government has a right to regulate indecent speech–which would otherwise be protected by the First Amendment–at times when children are likely to be present in the audience. This has resulted in a policy that makes the hours between 10pm and 6am a “safe harbor” for indecent (but not obscene) speech since children are not expected to be viewing TV or listening to the radio during these hours.

The real confusion for many people is that broadcast TV is indiscernible from cable TV, and neither look much different from TV programming streaming on their computer or tablet. However the FCC, and its regulatory process, only applies to over-the-air broadcast TV. When NBC TV network is only two clicks away on the remote control from ESPN, History Channel, or MTV, the fact that NBC is prohibited from showing indecent content from 6am till 10pm while the others are free to do so seems, well, odd. Historically the distinction between public airwaves and private cable networks made sense, but today is appears to be unfair or inconsistent.

According to Edward Wyatt, writing in the NY Times,

All of which leaves broadcasters with little real grasp of what is allowed and what is not. Similarly, the public has no idea what to expect; the next time Cher appears on a live awards show, should adult viewers cover the ears of their 8-year-olds, or can they depend on the broadcasters to censor indecent content?

 The National Association of Broadcasters, the trade group that represents the broadcasting industry, has asked for relaxed governmental regulation and a move towards self-regulation…a model that is used, for example, by the motion picture industry.
Posted on

Disturbing Photos Create a Moral Dilemma

A few days ago the LA Times created a stir by publishing photos of U.S. soldiers posing with Afghan corpses. The two photos, published in the paper and online versions of the news publication, were taken in 2010 by a soldier in the 82nd Airborne Division and given to a Times reporter. According to the Poynter website, military officials asked the Times to not publish the photos, but the newspaper went ahead and offered this rational in defense:

After careful consideration, we decided that publishing a small but representative selection of the photos would fulfill our obligation to readers to report vigorously and impartially on all aspects of the American mission in Afghanistan, including the allegation that the images reflect a breakdown in unit discipline that was endangering U.S. troops.

This incident touches on several issues related to the textbook chapters currently being discussed in class. There are concerns over the legality of images that compromise personal privacy. There are also ethical issues related to images of a graphic nature. And there are concerns over journalistic ethics when national security is at stake. Another factor at play is the embarrassment of military and government leaders who would like to have miss-deeds go unnoticed. While military and government leaders have called the behavior captured in the photos “reprehensible” and “morally repugnant,” journalists have an obligation to shine a light on misbehavior whenever and wherever they find it. The question here is how to do so without compromising other important and cherished values. As the LA Times website noted, “the taboo against desecration of the dead is strong in this religiously conservative country.”

There are, unfortunately, plenty of other examples in recent history of visual imagery that posed ethical dilemmas. The Abu Ghraib photos in 2004 of U.S. military personnel posing with inmates in compromising positions comes quickly to mind. Graphic photos of slain Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi were carried by some news outlets while others decided to opt for photos of rebels celebrating his death. The White House refused to release photos of a dead Osama bin Laden thus relieving journalists of the pressure of having to make that decision. And just a few months ago a video surfaced of U.S. troops urinating on dead Taliban fighters.

Images are powerful. Perhaps cameras should come with a warning label: CAUTION, do not use without first considering consequences.

css.php