Last week was very big for Sarah Palin and her book tour for "Going Rogue". She was every where from Oprah to Limbaugh. According to an article on Journalism.org she was the third biggest topic for the week. The Associated Press had 11 reporters fact checking her book which caused a bit of stir. The AP article outlined several wrong facts, the article can be read at:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091114/ap_on_re_us/us_palin_book_fact_check . They had several issues with the information in the book, but mostly they think that she contradicts her self. For example in her book she talks about how she was frugal with the tax payers money while she traveled as Governor of Alaska. However they claim that while she was mostly frugal, there were some trips that she wasn't and that she cost the state and extra $20,000 by taking her kids with her.
While Palin was on Oprah she made a few comments about the media. She says that they tried to "make over" her family. Give them an image that would fit better in the media. She also made a remark that they didn't pay attention to what mattered. They have an agenda. On Oprah she made an remark about her interview with Katie Couric. Sarah said that the problem with journalism is they twist everything to get the answer they want to hear. Their primary concern is not giving a true representation of who they are interviewing, but rather to meet their own needs.
I think that Sarah has a good point. The media could spend their time showing who these people are. So, has anyone read Sarah's book? Is all of this attention showing the country that she is ready to lead the United States or is it helping those who say she can't?
Friday, November 27, 2009
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Climate Change
The climate has been a major concern for many in recent days. We have been talking about cutting emissions for several years with projects like renewable energy sources and more emission efficient cars. We are not the only industrialized nation to work on this. December 7th-18th leaders will be meeting in Copenhagen to discuss global climate change, and President Obama has committed to attend. It is rumored that he will commit to cut the U.S. emissions by 17% below our 2005 levels. Many of the people who are involved in the green movement are happy to hear this news, because President Obama seems to be making a step in a positive direction. They think that the commitment will provide him with incentive to put more resources into developing clean energy and working on cleaning up pollution.
Others feel that pressure to lower emission could cause much needed jobs to be out sourced to underdeveloped countries. It could also cause energy prices to rise. How do you feel about President Obama's commitment to work on our green house gas emissions? Do you think it is just fluff to fill the time in the 24 hour news meida cycle or are we really going to work as a country to have cleaner emissions?
Others feel that pressure to lower emission could cause much needed jobs to be out sourced to underdeveloped countries. It could also cause energy prices to rise. How do you feel about President Obama's commitment to work on our green house gas emissions? Do you think it is just fluff to fill the time in the 24 hour news meida cycle or are we really going to work as a country to have cleaner emissions?
Jobs or the Deficit?
The economy is on a lot of peoples minds these days. Unemployment has been around 10% and doesn't seem to be coming down. Some compare it to the 80's others the great depression, but they are all worried. People with jobs are worried that they want last and some that have jobs are over qualified. People are cutting back and staying home. Critics claim that last years $787 billion bail out did little to help, and the growing deficit is not helping concerns.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi made a statement this week that Americans would be willing to accept a larger deficit if it created more jobs. She believes that the president needs to find a "balance" between jobs creation and deficit reduction. She also said that if we don't do something to create more jobs we will head toward depression.
Would you accept a larger deficit for job growth? If they added to the deficit and it did not create job growth or lasting job growth what would the consequences be? Would the risk be to great? Is this just an attempt to scare people into supporting an new "stimulus" ?
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi made a statement this week that Americans would be willing to accept a larger deficit if it created more jobs. She believes that the president needs to find a "balance" between jobs creation and deficit reduction. She also said that if we don't do something to create more jobs we will head toward depression.
Would you accept a larger deficit for job growth? If they added to the deficit and it did not create job growth or lasting job growth what would the consequences be? Would the risk be to great? Is this just an attempt to scare people into supporting an new "stimulus" ?
What is the best Afganistan stategy?
President Obama has announced that next Tuesday he will hold a national address to outline his Afghanistan strategy from West Point U.S. Military Academy. When I heard this it made me think of President Bush's air craft carrier photos. This is a great location for photo ops to address strategy for the war.
There are many reports as to what he may announce. Everyone agrees that he is in a tough place with this decision. The war has lost support among the American people as well as European people. There are several plans that he has been looking at to pick the best strategy.
The Washington Post has reported that Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates is in favor of a plan that would deploy between 30,000 and 35,000 additional U.S. troops and call on NATO allies to contribute another 10,000 soldiers. This plan would give General McChrystal about 108,000 troops.
Vice President Biden has been in favor of a plan that calls for training more Afgan forces and intensifying U.S. aerial strikes against al-Qaeda. This plan is favored by most Democrats.
President Karzai said in his inauguration this earier this month that he is hoping for a transition from U.S. to Afghan forces within five years.
President Obama is to make a decision to make all of these people happy. He will most likely form a plan that will be a mixture of these. He has said that we wants a strategy that will finish the job. Many people fear we are spending to much money, time and resources with out a reward. Cost is becoming a major concern with the growing deficet and some congress men have been talking about introducing new taxes to pay for the ongoing war.
I think many people are waiting to see how he handles this situation. It looks as though no matter what he chooses to do people are going to be unhappy with him. If he doesn't give support to the troops people will be saying the is unpatriotic and if he does they will say we are spending to much money. I am not sure what the best choice is, but I am glad I don't have to make it. What do you think is the best choice?
There are many reports as to what he may announce. Everyone agrees that he is in a tough place with this decision. The war has lost support among the American people as well as European people. There are several plans that he has been looking at to pick the best strategy.
The Washington Post has reported that Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates is in favor of a plan that would deploy between 30,000 and 35,000 additional U.S. troops and call on NATO allies to contribute another 10,000 soldiers. This plan would give General McChrystal about 108,000 troops.
Vice President Biden has been in favor of a plan that calls for training more Afgan forces and intensifying U.S. aerial strikes against al-Qaeda. This plan is favored by most Democrats.
President Karzai said in his inauguration this earier this month that he is hoping for a transition from U.S. to Afghan forces within five years.
President Obama is to make a decision to make all of these people happy. He will most likely form a plan that will be a mixture of these. He has said that we wants a strategy that will finish the job. Many people fear we are spending to much money, time and resources with out a reward. Cost is becoming a major concern with the growing deficet and some congress men have been talking about introducing new taxes to pay for the ongoing war.
I think many people are waiting to see how he handles this situation. It looks as though no matter what he chooses to do people are going to be unhappy with him. If he doesn't give support to the troops people will be saying the is unpatriotic and if he does they will say we are spending to much money. I am not sure what the best choice is, but I am glad I don't have to make it. What do you think is the best choice?
Supreme Court Update
I posted a story a while back about the Supreme Court and the lack of attention that they receive in the media. I really like these stories because no matter what source you get the story from the information is the same. They do not have a bias either way its just a report of what our government is doing. When I was looking over some of the new cases they are hearing, one story caught my attention. Earlier this month they looked at the question "Does the imposition of a life sentence without parole on a juvenile convicted of a non-homicidal offense violate the 8th amendment's prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishment"?
Two Florida cases are currently under review. One is Joe Sullivan he was sentenced to life without parole at the age of 13 for raping an elderly woman and has been serving his sentence for 20 years. The second is Terrance Graham sentenced after committing armed robberies at 16 and 17 and he has been serving for 5 years. No one was killed in either these incidents.
Currently more that 2,000 juveniles are serving life without parole for murder throughout the country, and about 100 are serving for non homicide crimes. Many people think this punishment is to harsh for children. No other country has punishment this harsh for children.
Justice Kennedy said " From a moral standpoint it would be misguided to equate the failings of a minor with those of an adult, for a greater possibility exists that a minors character deficiencies will be reformed" Many of the people who agree with this say that after they have served some time and have finished their education they would be able to live a productive life.
The states want to retain their rights to punish how ever they see fit to keep the general population safe.
The courts have not issued a ruleing, but what do you think? Should people be held responsible for their actions at any age or should they get more slack because they are young? Do states have a responsibility to the children or the general population? Would it best to find more middle ground?
Two Florida cases are currently under review. One is Joe Sullivan he was sentenced to life without parole at the age of 13 for raping an elderly woman and has been serving his sentence for 20 years. The second is Terrance Graham sentenced after committing armed robberies at 16 and 17 and he has been serving for 5 years. No one was killed in either these incidents.
Currently more that 2,000 juveniles are serving life without parole for murder throughout the country, and about 100 are serving for non homicide crimes. Many people think this punishment is to harsh for children. No other country has punishment this harsh for children.
Justice Kennedy said " From a moral standpoint it would be misguided to equate the failings of a minor with those of an adult, for a greater possibility exists that a minors character deficiencies will be reformed" Many of the people who agree with this say that after they have served some time and have finished their education they would be able to live a productive life.
The states want to retain their rights to punish how ever they see fit to keep the general population safe.
The courts have not issued a ruleing, but what do you think? Should people be held responsible for their actions at any age or should they get more slack because they are young? Do states have a responsibility to the children or the general population? Would it best to find more middle ground?
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
White House Commuications
I was looking through some online news outlets tonight and I found relatively small articles reporting that White House Communications Director Anita Dunn will be stepping down from office as of the
end of November. They say that it was planned she would step down by the end of the year. Dan Pfeiffer will be taking her place, and he is no stranger to communications He worked with Obama during the campaign. However, I can't help but think that this will have an effect on the media coverage. Several large issues are currently undecided and rapidly approaching including Afghanistan and Health Care. I found a video of Dunn talking to CNN news in early October. She basically said that the administration viewed Fox news as opinion based television that claimed to be news. She also said that they were and extension of the GOP. Do you think that this change in leadership will have an effect on the medias reports on the administration?
This is an interesting video and offers some great in site of how the administration views the media.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/11/10/dunn-leaving-white-house/
end of November. They say that it was planned she would step down by the end of the year. Dan Pfeiffer will be taking her place, and he is no stranger to communications He worked with Obama during the campaign. However, I can't help but think that this will have an effect on the media coverage. Several large issues are currently undecided and rapidly approaching including Afghanistan and Health Care. I found a video of Dunn talking to CNN news in early October. She basically said that the administration viewed Fox news as opinion based television that claimed to be news. She also said that they were and extension of the GOP. Do you think that this change in leadership will have an effect on the medias reports on the administration?
This is an interesting video and offers some great in site of how the administration views the media.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/11/10/dunn-leaving-white-house/
Friday, November 6, 2009
Fort Hood
As I am sure everyone is aware there was a shooting at Fort Hood yesterday. It has been reported that Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan armed with a hand gun unloaded at the base, killing 12 people and wounding an additional 31.
Since the story first broke I have read several articles from different websites and watched a news cast, and noticed that all of them presented the same almost scripted report. This is not something that we are used to seeing from the media. They presented the story with an overall tone of sorrow for the families, and trying to put the public at rest. They presented non- partisan reports that reported the information they had without spin or bias. I also noticed a lack of dramatization to the story. The reporters seem to be respectful of the situation and the loss. President Obama even made a statement that said our thoughts and prayers are with the wounded and their families, and we are investigating what happened, and Governor Perry of Texas ordered that all flags be flown at half mass today as a symbol of honor.
It is nice to have everyone set aside their differences to focus on the facts and deliver the information to the people. It is sad that a major tragedy has to occur for the journalist to do this. I think that the public is appreciative of how they are handling the story and they are responsive to this type of reporting. Would you be motivated to watch news broadcast that were like this all the time? Do you think that this is the best way for the media to handle a tragedy?
Since the story first broke I have read several articles from different websites and watched a news cast, and noticed that all of them presented the same almost scripted report. This is not something that we are used to seeing from the media. They presented the story with an overall tone of sorrow for the families, and trying to put the public at rest. They presented non- partisan reports that reported the information they had without spin or bias. I also noticed a lack of dramatization to the story. The reporters seem to be respectful of the situation and the loss. President Obama even made a statement that said our thoughts and prayers are with the wounded and their families, and we are investigating what happened, and Governor Perry of Texas ordered that all flags be flown at half mass today as a symbol of honor.
It is nice to have everyone set aside their differences to focus on the facts and deliver the information to the people. It is sad that a major tragedy has to occur for the journalist to do this. I think that the public is appreciative of how they are handling the story and they are responsive to this type of reporting. Would you be motivated to watch news broadcast that were like this all the time? Do you think that this is the best way for the media to handle a tragedy?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
