Graduation

Just wanted to thank Dr. Anderson for his great advice...a political communication minor. I've thoroughly enjoyed the classes in the minor, such as Scom 353. I enjoyed the open, relaxed discussion forum. Thanks for a great semester. The political communication minor has kept me well informed and up to speed on most political moments throughout the past two years. In this busy time of our life it's cool to be able to discuss politics and current events in a classroom...almost forcing us to reflect on the world (off our beautiful campus). 

Good luck to the class of 2008 and thanks again JMU. 

NPR: Sex or Gender

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyID=19128143 

Just adding to the previous blog about the race vs. gender topic...I recently listened to the NPR link above. The radio link asks the question...who's turn is it now? 

I believe these identity politics (where your education or family might have taught you to use sex/race as a political standard) is old fashioned. I think, I hope, today's younger generation is mostly looking at policies while making the 2008 political decisions. I think older generations, one's that may have lived through the struggles of women's suffrage and civil rights battles for African Americans, hold onto identity politics more than our younger generations who simply read about the historical challenges. 

I think it is cool that African Americans and women began a battle together in the 1900's, and today we see them once more making history together. Abolitionism and feminism have partnered throughout history, and I'm thrilled to see the progress has continued. 

So to answer the question: Who's turn is it now...who is more deserving? 

I don't think it has anything to do with race. I think it has to do with experience, charisma, and the campaigns' media strategy.  May the best candidate win...and let race and gender not be the reason why. 

Redemption

The subject of "political movies and their role of informing citizens" has come full circle and tied itself to our new subject of "conspiracy". Last night I watched, "Redemption" a movie that focuses on radical muslim terrorists in Northern Africa. With increasingly sophisticated explosives, our government takes a United States, NYU graduate hostage. He is believed to have been in contact with the terrorist group via phone calls. 

This movie is parallel to a resent political debate...the United States use of torture, Guatonoma Bay prisoners, and the rights of US citizens that are held. Do these detainees  deserve to be protected by the Bill of Rights and should they be given the right to Due Process: right to an attorney, a right to know the charges brought against them, a right to a public and speedy trial? 

I thought this movie introduced the public to the inhuman elements that these detainees may be facing. The victim (detainee) boarded an airplane in Africa and was removed at the airport in DC--his flight record was erased. CONSPIRACY--COVER UP. He was brought to an unknown location and the interrogation began.   I just thought it was interesting how these two subjects tied together. The movie also demonstrated waterboarding--a controversial debate topic in our political sphere right now. 

A stimulating movie...very timly. Check it out. In class you asked if anyone believed in conspiracies....well I believe that we don't know all the details about the jails which hold detainees and that possibly there are individuals covering up inhuman actions. I know too little about the subject, but I enjoyed having my eyes opened a little more and learning about this subject. I do think movies sometimes have a place in society to teach, if they so choose.   

Post Your Own Political Video!

I was just watching MSNBC and saw an interview about VoterVoter.com. This website allows individuals to post homemade political advertisements on the web. According to the MSNBC interview, the website makes sure that the video is technically sufficient and that the claims made are valid..this adds a bit more credibility to the posted videos (as opposed to a website like YouTube). 

Check it out. VoterVoter.com is a cool website that allows the public sphere to engage in today's political arena. Old school "bowling alley and town hall" politics are know being combined with citizen involvement through the world wide web! I enjoy seeing and hearing the political perspective of other citizens.  With anything, we have to receive these political messages carefully and mentally participate. It would be useful to know a little about the producer of the video...but for now, we can cautiously receive the message and make our own political judgments. Let me know what you think. 

 

2008 Byrd Symposium, "This war is about our influence in an important region"

Tonight I attended the 2008 Byrd Symposium, experts compared and contrasted former president George H. W. Bush and, the current, President George W. Bush. 

Bluntly stated, one of the experts stated that weapons of mass destruction and democracy are simply "convenient rhetorical arguments that helped rally public support." Once again, this SCOM 353 issue of ideographs has resurfaced. 

According to "Media Politics" by Shanto Lyengar and Jennifer A. McGrady, Going Public is "a strategy used by presidents and other politicians to promote their policies by appealing to the American public for support. If a president enjoys strong public support, that president creates an important bargaining advantage and is capable of persuading congressional members to rally in support of him/her." 

According to this evening's symposium experts, The Bush Administration used common, positive ideographs to inform the public and gather support. The public was fed a message it was likely to support. Looking back now, we know there are no weapons of mass destruction. The public was misinformed...but was this intentional and did this message simply make it easier for the Bush Administration to carry out its plan? 

The sad thing is though, according to these experts, this war is not about Weapons of Mass Destruction or Democracy...this war is about our environment and about the United States' influence in an important region. According to the experts, this war and the wars to follow will all focus on "Fossil Fuels"; also when given a choice, the current administration has consistently focused on expansion instead of conservation. 

While our SCOM 353 class saw that IRAQ was a hot topic in the recent State of the Union Address...it is apparent that the underlying issue of the Environment will be an important issue for the next president elect. 

Also, the market demand must change. We as a public must take our own steps towards change. Congress acts as our representatives...if we don't demand a change, one will never come. 

Which candidate will be the most influential in resolving this crisis? 

Governor Spitzer Scandal Sparks an Important Media Discussion

This evening I was watching MSNBC--I literally jumped off the couch and came running to this blog to publish my thoughts. 

This link will lead you to an interesting article which discusses the topic of sex slaves in the United States: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22083762/ 

While many find this topic offensive and are unable to watch, I am relieved that the issue is being investigated and reported on. I think that a positive has developed from New York's Governor Spitzer's sex ring scandal--people are talking about the issue. 

What I gathered from the MSNBC segment is that this problem is not new, and it is not small. Women are often misled into spa massage parlors or restaurants, expecting to find the American Dream, a luring ideograph.  While seeking quality work and prosperity, these women find quit the opposite. They are forced to participate in sexual acts with men (no women specified in the segment). These victims have little or no money and no way out. I am disgusted that this exists. I am especially disappointed that it has a presence in the United States. 

As we discussed in class, it is interesting how media has changed. Looking back at Thomas Jefferson and his "sex slaves", I am happy that reporters today are not overlooking this crucial issue. It is imperative that reporters bring this topic into our public discourse. Although it may make some uncomfortable to discuss, it must be addressed. Much like myself, I am sure many educated individuals never imagined that this could occur in the United States. 

The segment and link also explore sex slave situations abroad. While the domestic sex problem seemed to focus on girls about 18 or older, the abroad situations heavily focus on girls much younger...some 15, some 12, and even some that are 8 years old. Take a look, it's worth your time. This topic certainly deserves some attention. 

Commemorative Debate: Charting A New Course Toward Peace in the Middle East

As requested, I will post my reaction to the Commemorative Debate. 

I really enjoyed the opening comments about debate as audience participation. I agree that debate is only successful when someone is listening and evaluating the claims made. Ideally this participatory element will lead to new ideas and societal improvements. 

I thought it was a little difficult to be a major participant due to the fact that I know little about the middle east and the role of the United States abroad. I must admit, that I have not made a conscience effort to track foreign politics as much as domestic politics. And as we know, the media covers very few foreign policy issues and many domestic issues. I found myself thirsty for background knowledge and expertise. If anything, the debate exemplified that the general public must make an effort to seek news regarding international/foreign policies. 

It was intriguing to hear the debaters use terms like rally around the flag, an ideograph  that SCOM 353 actually addressed at the beginning of the semester. 

In sum, I gathered that the negative side was opposed to the new dialogues and favored the status quo. But my question is, "If we shouldn't start a conversation/dialogue about these critical issues, than what should we do?" It is easy to say no and not give an alternative suggestion. I understand that due to the nature of a debate the negative side is merely expected to oppose, but it left me wondering, "If we shouldn't engage with Iran with dialogue, then how and what are we doing?" 

Also, I just wanted to point out that I found the debate format a little hypocritical. Throughout the debate one affirmative individual suggested that the "free exchange of ideas" is necessary and we should allow "moderates to have a voice in open debate." Immediately following, the debaters brutally and insensitively cut off one another (time constraints make this understandable in a college debate format.) But in real life, where debate will hopefully resolve conflict and prevent war, I don't think this type of hostile Q&A is beneficial. 

Ultimately, I know little about the debate subject, but I hope in the least that the United States has opened a dialogue. It seems to me that conversing  and open discussions are the first, and most vital step to solving any problem. 

March 11th, Lecture Continued...

As our class discussed the "Permanent Campaign" I could not help but concluded that a politician's intentions and goals have somewhat shifted from those of our founding fathers. To my understanding, the founding fathers had careers separate from the government. While many were land owners or farmers, their legislative goal was to try to improve life for the colonists. 

Today, our representatives are generally focused on their position in Congress. This position is their new job. While most probably have the funds to support a family without this position, most representatives still find this position vitally important and seek reelection. 

So, I cannot help but compare these representatives to the individuals in our class. Currently, we are all running a Permanent Campaign. We are tweaking our resumes and deciding which employer should hear certain specifics. Not for all, but for most, life can be strategic. We have a plan. I know where I want to be in ten years and I am taking steps to get myself there. Like politicians, we generally don't job hunt on a whim. There is usually, for most, a plan. As college students, we are already running our own permanent campaign for our careers. 

I don't think this term strictly applies to political spheres, I think that in our society, citizens are generally campiagning themselves to get ahead. That is what makes the citizens of the USA, in part, individualistic and competitive in nature. 

Also, we must consider the influence of media. Obviously we (353 class) are not yet being followed around with cameras. The media certainly intensifies the permanent campaign. Maybe the media, and the publics growing concern/interest, can be linked to the change in political behavior (from the founding fathers.) As the public is now watching 24/7, politicians have no choice but to commit full time to their representative position. We as a public can hold them more accountable with the help of our media watch dogs. Everyone is always running a permanent campaign, the difference the public is constantly monitoring the representatives'. 

Madeline Albright: "Bouncing Effect"

Former Secretary of State, Madeline Albright promoted her new book  “Memo to the President Elect: How We Can Restore America's Reputation and Leadership," on the Daily Show this week. As she pointed out, "She knows where people get their news"--hinting to the influence that the Daily Show has on our society. She also made several great points, which I see as related to the concepts of new media and globalization. She discussed the importance of managing a diplomatic, or social, message worldwide. While we accept the Oscars or the coverage of Senator McCain and the lobbyist scandal, as a message targeted to an American audience, the truth is that these messages are "echoed" throughout many societies; thus, they help shape other individuals' view on our country. 

Albright talks about the "bouncing effect of diplomacy". It is imperative that we are aware of this concept. In my opinion, the use of new media (internet) has increased the importance of this concept. According to Albright, we as Americans must be educated and aware when a term such as "islamic terrorists" is applied to our discourse. Ignorant generalizations such as this allow other nations to mold a disappointing opinion of Americans. 

As new media encourages the bouncing effect and may cause our messages to be misconstrued or misunderstood, we can also use this technology to our advantage. We can embrace the internet and educate ourselves on other cultures and current foreign politics; thus, we can slowly start to improve our international appearance. 

Even though leadership and diplomatic messages depend on our "President elect", we as individuals can engage in civic responsibility and help jump-start awareness. American values and messages certainly have been misrepresented in the world. 

View this website to watch the 2nd half of the Daily Show: 

http://www.eveningtalk.com/2008/02/27/madeline-albright-on-the-daily-show/

Just a little side-note...

Still unsure of who I am supporting, let's play devils-advocate. 

I feel that Hillary Clinton is faced with a unique challenge.  As a male, Barack Obama, is praised for his youthful appearance. He is relatable and knows how to excite a crowd. However, he doesn't have the track record or the "credentials" of Hilary Clinton. 

I wonder, if Senator Clinton had ran for president in her mid-forties, with much weaker credentials, if the public would be as responsive to a young, less qualified woman. 

I think our nation would have been shocked.  

As mentioned in class, being relatable and connected to the common man is an important characteristic; however, I feel experience plays an important role in running a country.  

In conclusion, I think Senator Clinton has faced a unique political challenge throughout her career. I don't think she would be as viable today if she didn't have her experience. 

Perhaps society expects a women to prove herself in office before attempting to change history. I just wonder if this is expected of both men and women. Would this be as exciting of a race if Obama and Clinton switched genders? 

This race is certainly a great topic for discussion! 

Knowing the World

"Clearly to become a true leader, one must know the world as well as one knows one's self...Innovative learning is the primary means of exercising our autonomy, a means of understanding and working within the prevailing context in a positive way. It is a dialogue that begins with curiosity and is fueled by knowledge, leading to understanding...It allows us to change the way things are," a quote from Warren Bennis in "On Becoming a Leader" chapter Knowing the World. 

Although Bennis' text focuses on leadership, I found a connection between our class reading, "Popular Media, Political Cognition, and Civic Engagement: A Media Studies Perspective," written by Jeffrey P. Jones. It is obvious that in order to understand, we as individuals must be curious, we must take an initiative to learn more about subjects we know little about. 

A quote from Jones, "Whether we like it or not, in order to engage in the political debate we must now do so with media." Yes our civic engagement has taken a new turn; politicians are now using New Media (internet) partnered with old grassroots efforts on the campaign trail.  And the "News" has certainly become a window into the unknown political arena.  

Whether you are viewing numerous television sources or internet sources, media has created an opportunity to engage. In the very least, it has created an opportunity to learn. It educates those who are political enthusiasts via CNN, ABC, NBC, FOX, and it allows those less interested to learn through more entertaining media: The American President, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. 

Some argue that entertainment detracts from responsible citizenship; I believe that entertainment allows those uninterested, to at least learn a little. 

Traditional and New Media open a dialogue for the curious and allow individuals to better understand our own political arena, and the world's political arena. Ultimately, this technology has generated an opportunity for discussion and possible change. It can cross oceans and enlighten our society about other cultures. Even if you are unable to travel--you still have the world at your fingertips.   

As a broadcast journalist major, I am eager to join the industry that continues to engage and educate the public. 

Super Bowl Helps Prepare for Super Tuesday

I was shocked when I saw a political advertisement for Barack Obama, on Super Bowl Sunday. To my knowledge, this is a move that was  unmatched by his competitor Hillary Clinton.  

I have never actually seen a political ad on television before, yes we have analyzed them in class, checked out the popular ones on YouTube, but this was a first. I have never truly been included in the target audience. I think this is one thing that Obama has done well, reached out to a younger, refreshing support base. 

The advertisement contrasted images of war and environment. Simplistic words were bolded and reinforced Obama's verbal message, an over arching campaign theme, "Yes we can, change!"  

Additionally, the "super-bowl" ish music and crowds (packed and cheering) certainly give the ad a momentum...one that should positively carry Obama into Super Tuesday. I think this was a strategic campaign move.

I am impressed that the campaign was able to successfully create an ad to match the "Super Bowl" hype. I'm pumped to see how Super Tuesday will play out...I know that the newtworks have been talking about it for several days now! 

This just proves that campaigning is a strategic, thoughtful process. One must position him/herself very carefully in the public's view. 

Ad can be viewed @ 

http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/27930-obama-s-super-bowl-ad

One Man Down...

"Third Runner" John Edwards has officially dropped out of the 2008 Presidential Race. I think it is fair to anticipate a historical moment: after following the front runners Senator Clinton and Barack Obama, I believe the Democratic nomination will not be going to a white male.  I am eager to follow this primary and general election. Even with Edwards' new media campaign strategies, it is apparent that he could not reach crucial democratic supporters. I would not be surprised to see Edwards on another candidate's ticket. He has been striving toward the Presidency for numerous years; I can imagine that the past five years have been challenging and exhausting--I wonder if we will see more him. Edwards' actions solidify the fact that the Democratic party is ready for change--this race just got, a whole lot, more interesting.

"Without demonizing those with a different view."

I was watching an educational film today, "So Goes the Nation", featuring President Bush and John Kerry during the 2004 Presidential election campaigns. Throughout this film, it is clear that ideographs and campaign messages can motivate supporters; however, the film also demonstrated  that visible groups/supporters often represent the extremes of the political spectrum, isolating the more moderate individuals and ideals. 

During one scene, the Bush and Kerry supporters engaged in angry, public discourse. Ultimately, this non-adversarial argumentation leaves individuals closed minded and isolated to their own views/ideology-- not a healthy environment (public) for positive political growth. 

 It is important to remember that our nation, our political culture, must understand, and at least acknowledge the middle ground and the moderate ideals. 

Today, I watched Caroline and Senator Edward Kennedy endorse Barack Obama, on www.CNN.com. Senator Edward Kennedy stated that Obama has the capability to lead "without demonizing those with a different view." 

I am not stating my support for Obama, rather I am stating my support for the importance of open, effective communication between all political sides. Without listening to one another, and by blindly shouting insensitive and ignorant remarks at one another, we will not make much progress. I believe this to be true in many publics, but certainly in our political public. 

Reference Endorsement CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/29/kennedy.reax/index.html#cnnSTCVideo

Two Families...Two Decades

A little off SCOM 353's topic, but relevant to the Presidential election...

Through conversation with a friend, it was brought to my attention, if Senator Clinton is elected President for the 2008 election, two families will have "ruled/lead" our nation for a little over two decades: 1989 former President Bush Senior, former President Clinton, President Bush, and possibly 2008-2012 Senator Clinton. 

 

A Democracy, gives power to the people, whether directly or through elected representatives. While this is true, these individuals are in fact elected representatives/offices, it is hard to ignore the fact that the elite and the well-financed tend to succeed in the game of politics.  

I wonder, besides "New Media Campaign Strategies," what else is out there enabling the candidate with the smaller war chest? I think it is worth reflecting on how and why two families could have the power and capability to influence our nation so profoundly. 

I am aware that Senator Clinton has not claimed victory yet; however, she is a leading Democratic candidate and I think she is worth thinking about. 

Scom 353: Ideographs in Action

Today, our class discussed the article "The Ideograph: A Link Between Rhetoric and Ideology." During our discussion we deconstructed the article and found a basic definition for the term "ideograph": a figure of thought, a term which summarizes an aspect of historical ideology. I won't elaborate too much on the lecture, but understand that an ideograph is something (text, visual, spoken word) that triggers emotions and thought.  

This evening, I was reading a chapter in "American Government: Continuity and Change," when I came across a section: The Huntington Theory of Hispanization. Previously the text had noted that the Hispanic population is the fastest growing and the largest minority population. 

The Huntington Theory intrigued me, considering that immigration has become a predominant focus of current politics.  According to the text, Huntington has proclaimed a highly controversial thesis regarding the recent wave of Latin American immigration. 

Huntington uses "ideographs" to project his thesis. He believes that these immigrants want to "reclaim" lands that were lost after the Texas war for independence and the Mexican-American War. Hence, he argues that this immigration wave is "fostering a type of dual national or cultural allegiance (or worse, loyalty to the home country) which can weaken ties to American core values." 

Huntington's Theory argues that these recent immigrants have formed enclaves that allow them to escape assimilation and avoid learning our language, history, political values. He believes that this will erode social and political bonds between citizens. 

Huntington is making a bold, controversial statement against a rising U.S. population, and he uses ideographs to reach his audience. 

Huntington agrees that the American melting pot has been historically successful due to new Americans' ability to absorb the "Fundamental Political Principles" as their own: these being equality, individual rights, and government by consent.   

 Fundamental Political Principles--sounds like another ideograph to help reinforce his argument.  I am curious if you all agree... does this new wave of immigration threaten or disturb equality, individual rights, or government by consent?

Anyway, I just thought it was interesting to see the use of ideographs in action. According to the text, Huntington's theory remains controversial. I assume some skeptics have seen his ideographs as empty, while others have effectively connected with Huntington's words. 

It will be interesting to see how our nation continues to react to this growing wave of immigration.  I am certain we will see more ideographs.