...Ferguson

The situation in Ferguson was blown entirely out of control. The media framed certain situations to make one side or the other look better. For instance, we heard the media express how Michael Brown was unarmed, however, they failed to address that the officer reported being assaulted prior to the shooting. It seemed the media wanted to put a certain spin on the situation, yet did not want to address the other aspects of the case. 

Because of this, people did not get a true vision of the entirety of the situation. The media bias left a significant bias within individuals thinking, and so, people could not see the situation from an unbiased perspective. I was disappointed that the evidence presented was presented with a spin, instead of actually just relaying the evidence without bias. It seems the media is great at taking a side, specifically an emotional side, without addressing the true nature of issues. 

You deserve the simple truth, imagine, you decide

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-luntz/words-2011_b_829603.html
Although this article was foreshadowing powerful words for 2011, I believe these words to have as much as an impact today as 4 yeas ago. This was a great refresher on a communications class, particularly how to grab an individuals attention at the start of a sentence. Didn’t the title of my blog post grab your attention?

 Unfortunately it wis not my best, but look at how perfectly I illustrated my point! I have to cut this one short, as I must finish editing my paper for experimental.

Reefer Madness in DC

It's tough to argue facts. Fact is, is that there have been no proven deaths caused by a marijuana overdose. Congressman Earl Blumenauer reiterated the fact, calling for the legalization of marijuana in Washington, D.C. 

Plain and simple, the best argument is one that is backed with proven facts; and marijuana legalization has just that. Now, publicly coming from a Congressman, it holds yet even more power as a statement. Voters take what authoritative figures say fairly seriously.
(....littering and...? sorry, I had to)

Thus, it's hard to ignore the impact this may have on individual's views about marijuana legalization.  Fact of the matter stands, if someone is able and stupid enough to smoke 20,000 joints..overdose might be the least of their worries.


Article/Video:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/13/pot-overdoses_n_6155752.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000013

Medical Marijuana?

Medical marijuana is one of the most controversial policies circling media coverage. There are many that oppose, and many that want to see medical marijuana become legal; for many different reasons. Though it can't be denied that marijuana has proven to be an effective treatment for epilepsy, and the side effects are relatively nonexistent. If the worst side effect for using marijuana for medical reasons is getting the munchies, then why are so many opposing it?

The answer is the same as the reasoning during the prohibition era. Morality seems to be the leading opposition, and the media is notorious for making you feel like a bad person for wanting to see medical marijuana legalized. But what the media isn't showing, is the overwhelming crisis our nation is facing; prescription pain pill addiction. It's a problem, and we have ignored it. Why? Because pharmaceutical companies make a killing off of something that's addictive. The same way tobacco companies profit so significantly. Medical marijuana however, has shown to have no addictive properties. Conspiracy? Possibly. But don't worry, companies like Warner will continue to suppress the voices of those who see medical marijuana as a cure for a multitude of reasons. It's about time for the nation to wake up, and listen to the families of the children who no longer suffer from hundreds of seizures daily, or the cancer patient who's pain isn't nearly as bad, and who can finally eat without vomiting every 5 seconds. So what's the problem? Oh yeah, big companies and the fact that they run the big media outlets. In all honesty, if driving slow, eating a lot of food, sleeping, and having the giggles are the worst effects of marijuana, what in the hell is stopping this bill from passing? Besides big business of course, oh yea and 2% of the Florida vote (while the majority 58% approve)..

Florida Yes on 2 Ad

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21J_wETC63I

"Why you gotta be so mean?"

VIDEO:
http://ht-mobile.cdn.turner.com/cnn/big/us/2014/10/31/mxp-north-carolina-girl-to-senate-candidates-be-nice.hln_3799566.mp4

The fact that it took an eight year old child to bring attention to the political ads that are getting out of hand is seriously unfortunate.

 Sure, as adults, we watch them and think nothing of the fact. Recently however, I have felt the same way as this child. "Just be nice." We sometimes forget that it's not just adults who are seeing these ads, it's our children too. Children are so easily influenced by emotion, and this type of campaigning is doing nothing more than making both candidates look bad. Political ads have shifted from explaining a candidates policies, to merely attacking their opponents. In fact, I'm not even sure if I actually know the candidates policies in my own state. All I know is that Michelle Nunn is a terrorist-funding replica of Obama according to Perdue, and that Perdue is a woman-hating, greedy person according to Nunn. But what's really the point of these ads? They do nothing but annoy the living hell out of us, and truthfully, make me not want to vote for either candidate, just like the young girl said. I'm not saying that candidates need to "be nice" to each other, but how about making yourself look good, instead of ridiculing an opponent 24/7? Needless to say, these ads are absurdly out of control, and it's about time someone brought it to their attention.

ARTICLE: http://www.mediaite.com/online/8-year-old-girl-tells-candidates-to-knock-it-off-with-negative-ads/

Got attack ads?

I think it's safe to say that the political ads between Michelle Nunn and David Perdue have gotten rather personal.

Nonetheless, they are without a doubt entertaining. David Perdue recently aired an ad with women talking about how Michelle Nunn fails to address any true political points, and how she consistently sides with President Obama. What was a priceless "retaliation" from Michelle Nunn was when she was trying to explain Perdue's ad, and still didn't actually address any of the concerns expressed by the women in Perdue's ad. It seems Perdue really holds the upper hand in terms of political advertising, and Nunn's party is just trying to explain everything Perdue is saying. More so, Nunn went on to talk about how she could "work with all parties, Republican's and Democrats." What truly makes me wonder about these ads, is does Nunn actually have a policy? Does she have a policy that she knows won't contend with Perdue, which is why she refuses to address these points through advertising? It seems relatively consistent that Perdue is straight forward with the tasks he wants to accomplish, yet Nunn is shying away from holding any true points of relevance. Needless to say, being passive won't win elections; being passive is actually proving Perdue's points even better.

Ad links:
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9UHRD4QoMg&list=UUyHalTHvVcAbfRJtUDeTpWg

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SB11dMrnY-U&index=4&list=UUpzou54VsjG3Os9WCuPyFug

Between Two Ferns: Obamacare

"Between Two Ferns" with Zach Galifinakis hosted President Obama during the roll-out of the infamous Affordable Care Act or better known Obama Care health plan. Without a doubt, President's go above and beyond to advertise policy, but there was nothing like the advertising of Obamacare. In all seriousness, as important and dramatic the policy was, President Obama thought hosting an "interview" on a comedy show would be a good way to explain the policy.

Because it's just hilarious to have people laughing about something so serious, all sarcasm intended. "Between Two Ferns" wasn't the only way Obamacare was advertised, and certainly not the only station that was eager to report it. The original plan which began in 2010, was highly unknown and many were unaware of what exactly the policy contained. Even after implementation, many have no idea what the policy truly entails; however, the small clauses that went unreported are now coming to life. The media really is to thank for the awareness of Obamacare, and really, the positive attention boosted support dramatically. Regardless of personal belief on the bill, it is obvious that pro-policy supporters really went above and beyond to make Obamacare the center of attention for many years. Even post-implementation, there is still nearly constant attention on Obamacare. It was honestly handled in such a way, that supporters went after every group possible, through many different channels. With Between Two Ferns, they attracted a younger, less political viewing audience. With coverage and interviews on CNN, and more news-based media, they gained attention from a more politically focused, older group of voters. At the end of the day, the media campaign of Obamacare was probably the most successful of any roll-out policy, even if the policy sucked entirely. Interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnW3xkHxIEQ

Ferguson Information Cascade

We all know that a massive distrust of police has begun to erupt in recent times. We’ve all seen the videos of young people testing the power and authority of police forces, and subsequently posting them on social media (Morozov's "Digital civic infrastructure) where the videos run rampant with viewers. Everyone knows the police can and will over exert their power on occasion; but what makes it quite interesting, is when an information cascade begins, as seen with the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri.

People from all over joined to protest the officer’s actions when he shot and killed the 18 year old. But did even half of these people actually know what happened? Did anyone actually witness the events leading up to the shooting? The answer is no. And speculations ran wild. So wild, in fact, that protestors became violent, threatening the life of the officer; without even knowing the details of the story. In fact, I can personally say I heard about 9 different versions. First, I was outraged that the cops seemed to have shot the young man in cold blood. Then, as details emerged, it seemed the young man may have robbed a local store, which prompted police action (which made me feel less outraged). Next, we heard there was a struggle for the officer’s gun, which is why the officer shot at Brown. So, what actually was the truth? No one really knew, but as protests and racial tensions spurred, people seemed to forget entirely that the details had not yet been released. They forgot everything they might believe had happened, and stood in the streets, ridiculing the officer’s actions, calling him a murderer. Did the protestors actually believe this? Or was it just a way to point out an overall situation in which people believe police are all power hungry murderers? In some ways, I felt bad for the officers. You know, even the ones who did absolutely nothing wrong and were still being threatened because they worked for the same police force. In some ways, I felt bad for the protestors, because they stood so valiantly, and were protesting for good purpose. But more than either of those, I was confused, deeply confused. How do people just start mass riots without even knowing what happened? It’s crazy how people will believe the first side they hear, and forget what their gut is actually telling them. Nonetheless, information cascades will always occur as long as the media reports one fact at a time, without telling the whole story.

International Access to U.S Media

The United States is like the 6'4 220 pound linebacker that runs a 4.4; everyone wants him on their side. With capabilities that the U.S. possesses, you can't blame everyone for wanting the United States to help out when they need it, because really, who else would you rather have on your team? Except the U.S. doesn't always show up as hoped. When Venezuelan protests became fatal, and cops and military began killing protesters on the streets, the Venezuelan's screamed for the help of the U.S. Young college students erupted with social media campaigns to expose the brutality, the horrific tragedy that was taking place in their country. A Venezuelan native who moved to the U.S. when she was young, was probably the most famous of all social media videos. The young woman showed pictures of some of the fallen protestors whom had been shot by the police. She begged, pleaded, and shouted for help from the U.S., but she was met with nothing. In fact, the Venezuelan crisis was never really addressed by the American media at all. I guess she just didn't make the video horrific enough to insight fear. One video that did insight fear was when a member of ISIS was captured beheading an American journalist. ISIS then sent the video to U.S. officials to basically piss them off, and tell them to stay out of Syria. Bad move ISIS. You see, we don't really care as citizens, unless the media cares. 99% of the nation didn't even know this journalist was kidnapped to begin with, but god forbid when we find out.. Nonetheless, soon after we saw an almost immediate response by the U.S. We saw air strikes begin, and we saw large-scale discussions within the United Nations. It's funny isn't it? How one video can spark a war, how a desperate plea can go unheard, how videos are the way we discover that crises are actually happening around the world. But without the videos, the United States wouldn't be as willing to get involved abroad. The videos have a unique way of sharing the truth, with picture and sound that actually make it real to us.

LATTE SALUTE!

Without a doubt, every President of the US makes controversial mistakes. Some have sex scandals and affairs, and some forget that a half-ass, latte in hand salute is disrespectful. But what has truly made the last few presidencies interesting, is how the media approaches situations like these. The media had a feeding frenzy when President Obama saluted Marines with a latte in his salute hand as he was leaving the presidential helicopter. I mean seriously..for 30 seconds, you couldn't put down the pumpkin spice latte? Has Starbucks corrupted the general public so much that a latte is more important than showing respect to the men and women who risk their lives to protect us? Some argue that the situation is being blown out of proportion; that it wasn't a big deal. Others argue that this is one of the most disrespectful actions a President could show. Either way, I think most would agree that the situation should have been handled differently. The media has seemed to make a big joke out of the entire situation. Yeah, so hilarious that the President just disrespected 1.5 million American's in uniform. So hysterical that the one person who represents the United States of America can't even salute his own soldiers. Go ahead media, laugh it off. Make a meme. But that soldier who served 3 tours in Iraq and Afghanistan fighting for your right to report the issue, is pissed. The soldier who spent many months away from his or her own family proudly representing the US, is deeply disrespected. The soldier who sacrificed his life, and lost everything to protect you, is rewarded with a latte salute? Is that the new medal of honor these days? So keep joking media, keep thinking these small mistakes are nothing more than a simple error; but I promise you, it's not funny to those in uniform. All president's make mistakes, which are subsequently reported by the media on an enormous scale. However, President's KNOW people are watching their every move, snapping pictures with every step, and reporting every last one of your mistakes. President Obama KNEW when he stepped off of the plane there would be tons of pictures and reporting media. Even still, he made the choice to sip his latte, salute with the drink in hand, and not even put the cup of caffeine in the other hand. Pretty pathetic if I do say so myself. No amount of coffee is more important than showing respect; and no amount of petty apologies can fix this mistake. Perhaps a tattoo of the American flag on his forehead would make it up, but I don't see that happening anytime soon, plus the media would call him psychotic if he were over patriotic. That being said, it's time to enjoy my latte that has been sitting beside my computer untouched, because it wasn't even important enough to pick up while writing this.

Scandals, lies, and feeding frenzies, OH MY!

Remember the time you lied directly to someones face? I mean, bold-faced lied knowing exactly what happened. Now, imagine you told the same lie to 318 million people who relatively trusted you, who pay your salary, who respect you to an extent. Because that's exactly the scandal the Federal government did immediately after the murdering of four American's in Benghazi, including the Ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens. If you told your employer a lie of such magnitude, you'd be fired right? At least most of us believe that'd be the minimally appropriate consequence. Ignorance is no excuse for a lie, and neither is saying sorry in the aftermath. So, why wasn't anyone fired? More so, why did Hillary Clinton, the person who took responsibility for the lie, who was found to be negligent regarding Benghazi by the Senate committee, still allowed to keep her job? There's really no answer, no explanation, no logic. Multiple requests for security were made by Ambassador Stevens, which were subsequently ignored or denied. You can argue all day about who was at fault, but even still, four American's lost their lives that didn't have to. 318 million American's were told a lie, yet, no one was punished, not even the murderers themselves. Why has this lost substantial media coverage, though it only occurred two years ago? Personally, I have not forgotten that I was not only lied to by the government that represents me, but four American's lives have not been brought to justice. When Trayvon Martin was shot and killed by George Zimmerman, American's desperately called for justice. They protested, wrote letters, and wore clothing to call for the arrest of Zimmerman, the media had a feeding frenzy with this! Why aren't the American people and media nearly as upset about Benghazi? Why isn’t the public calling for Hillary Clinton to face trial for negligence? The media airs segments on the Zimmerman case, yet, they have stopped reporting about the Benghazi attack. The people control the media; and until we call for the justice of all American's equally, atrocities and scandals will continue to occur without proper due process.

Social media and Politics in Brazil

USA Today reported recently how Brazil and the United States are holding elections in the next two months. Brazil, a Presidential election, and in America, our midterms. It is explained that Facebook proved to be a useful indicator of the results in the 2010 U.S. congressional elections. The majority of individuals that had more “Facebook fans” or “followers" compared to their opponents wound up winning; Twitter also had similar results. The Brazilian government has not taken advantage of social media until this past year, September 2013. Although Brazilian presidential candidates were not allowed to start social media campaigns (“voter outreach”) until july 6th of this year, parties hired social media coordinators to monitor hot-button voter issues in preparation. President Rousseff actually created a “digital cabinet” specifically to target the youth online. She has recently been posting videos on Facebook of her dancing with children as well as posting satirical “GIFs” on Buzzfeed. This reminded me of "Trend #3 Social and mobile developments are doing more than bringing consumers into the process - they are also changing the dynamics of the process its self“ and "Trend #4 New ways of storytelling bring both promise and challenge” from article I read “State of the News Media” for the class discussion. She is using these videos to humanize herself. This may influence candidates not act so “serious,” implying that they are human too. Alberto Valle explained to BBC Brazil, “The person who wins the [Brazilian] election will have managed to transform social media into a communication platform with the electorate through engagement and continuous interaction.” The article concludes that social media is essential in this era for winning voters' votes. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2014/09/19/brazil-and-the-us-lead-the-way-in-political-candidates-social-media-use http://www.journalism.org/2014/03/26/state-of-the-news-media-2014-overview/

What "It" ISIS

"Speak softly, and carry a big stick" was the phrase many used to describe the foreign policy of President Theodore Roosevelt. Nothing is more true than this statement as to how the Obama Administration should carry out their military actions against ISIS. You see, it seems this administration has done the absolute opposite. The ignored "red lines" regarding Syria seem to have been drawn in washable marker. Turn on any news source and the first headline you will see is about ISIS. ISIS is the media outlet's "IT" right now as discussed in the text. How did ISIS become so overwhelming in American media? Well, the answer is simple; our current administration made threats they would never follow through with. This allowed the terrorists to lack any type of fear of the United States. When the media publicly released that President Obama released terrorists for a prisoner of war, ISIS saw an opportunity to negotiate American lives. With this action, he single-handedly placed the power of negotiation into the hands of terrorists. It seems America DOES negotiate with terrorists. Speaking loudly while carrying a toy gun is clearly the administrations policy. However, as seen with ISIS, eventually the bright orange cap on the toy gun shines through and who's afraid of a toy gun? The war on terror is one that is continually ongoing. You must adapt, change, and understand the type of warfare of the terrorists BEFORE you decide to make any kind of military action. You can strike ISIS with air strikes, you can threaten, you can draw "red lines,"–as President Obama discussed in his speech– but without a strong, implemented plan, you will fail. Miserably. The United States of America has failed miserably to protect civilians in Syria who died horrid deaths from chemical weapons. They have failed miserably to combat crises before they happen. They have failed miserably at keeping American citizens safe and protected outside of the borders. Agreed or not, the United States is the strongest world power. If we take a position of doing the bare minimum, we will soon be faced with even more American deaths. We will find ourselves fighting a foreign terrorist organization on our own soil. And when this happens, will the rest of the world sit back and do nothing, just as we have in recent years?