CNN versus Fox: Ideologically Driven News

Today I watched the CNN Newsroom and the Fox Newsroom from 4:00 PM to 5:00 PM. Ah, the modern marvels of DVR! I wanted to see how the stories that were being presented at the same time overlapped with one another and the different ways in which they were presented. I found that through the hour, both news stations covered many different stories, but only five of them contained similar content (discounting the weather). Of those five, only three were presented in a significantly different fashion.

Both stations discussed the Republican party's desire to change their image. CNN covered the story from a skeptical, bordering on mocking perspective. Both stations described a Town Hall meeting led by Eric Cantor, a young House Republican and growing force in the Republican Party. CNN focused on how badly Republicans are doing in the polls and how they desperately need a new image. They even implied that they are utilizing the same tactics Obama did in the hopes of gaining some popularity. CNN also pointed out that the Republican party is at an all time low as far as popularity. They went on to state that this initiative, the Nashville Council for America, is officially declared as a nonpartisan initiative, although all of supporters the appear to be republicans. They are going around America trying to a more positive message for the country and a more positive image for the party. CNN ended the segment by adding that the Democrats are calling the Republicans the party of "No". Fox's coverage of the issue was focused more on the future of the Republican party. I was surprised that the Fox anchors did seem skeptical of Representative Cantor's efforts and mentioned that perhaps the party leadership should focus on other prominent members of the party. Fox news generally portrayed the pizza party as a positive effort, much more so than CNN. Fox did mention that the Republican electorate is shrinking and changes do have to be made to the Republican party if it hopes to have the future Fox was so focused on.

Both news stations also spoke about mourning the loss of former Congressman Jack Kemp. Fox news spent a few minutes praising former Congressman Kemp and tracing his career all the way back from when he was a college football player. Fox called him a "champion of Conservatism, a crusader for lower taxes who helped inspire President Reagan and a leader who helped shape and strengthen the Republican party." Their coverage was in depth and actually seemed sincere. CNN on the other hand spent probably a minute or less on the story just stating that former Congressman Jack Kemp passed away last night from cancer at the age of seventy-three. They briefly discussed his career and stated that lots of tributes "from both sides of the aisle" were coming in about him. They then aired President Obama's letter of condolences, which spoke about former Congressman Kemp in high regard. However, after watching both, it seemed as if, in comparison to Fox, CNN had rushed through the issue and did not give him adequate attention. Although, CNN also covered the untimely death of Reverend Vernon King, the nephew of Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.. He passed away at 48 years old, in Greensboro, North Carolina, and there was still no word on cause of death. Fox news did not even report this story.

Finally, both news shows addressed some aspect of President Obama's current administration. While CNN was singing President Obama's praises, Fox news in essence attempted to tear him apart (I wonder if that is what they do every night). CNN reported on President Obama's scheduled meetings for the upcoming week and the big decision to be made with regard to a Supreme Court nomination. The coverage about President Obama was all very positive, which is to be expected I suppose. Even if there were significant, measurable problems with Obama's policies up to this point, I do not think that CNN would be covering them. However, the Fox news coverage of Obama was exactly the opposite. It was as if they were trying to create an issue where there was none to report on. The anchor began the segment by stating that President Obama spent his first three months in office saying he inherited all these problems from the Bush Administration. She then posed the question: Is it time for President Obama to start accepting responsibility if things do not turn around? Then with a huge grin on her face she said that she believed that time came last week, and asked the Fox news correspondents (one Democrat and one Republican) to weigh in. This basically turned into a back and forth between these two correspondents, with the two Republicans getting more and more excited (visibly) at the idea that with a super majority in Congress and power in the Executive branch, the Democratic party will start getting blamed for some of the mess the country is in. The Republicans of course stated that Obama is not taking any responsibility that none of his plans have helped the economy out of turmoil yet. At that point you could see that the Democrat was getting more and more frustrated that they would not let him talk. When they finally did let him speak, he said one hundred days is too early to assess President Obama's programs and how they are working; to give him more time. At that point the Republican correspondent started going on about how Democrats all blame Bush for all the ails of the world and that the Obama supporters will find a way to blame Republicans when none of Obama's plans work. By the end, both correspondents were speaking over each other and the anchor eventually had to cut them off. This childish display was embarrassing in my opinion, to all three parties involved. It was obvious before they even started speaking where each of them stood on this issue, and they all ended up looking very unprofessional.

I just realized that I really do not like partisan news coverage. I am aware that completely objective news does not interest most people, (I can not even guarantee that it would interest me fully) but I believe that the extreme nature of these news stations is out of control. I do not mind if there is some leaning in the news I receive, but when it is so focused on blatant digs at the other party, the sense that the information you are receiving is legitimate is completely lost. When the news is centered primarily on benefiting one party and hurting the other, the stories get further and further from the truth. In this situation both sides are only obtaining propaganda, and being distracted more and more from the issues that really matter. That is a scenario I am simply unwilling to support.

Pandagon Blog

Today I read the past few days of posts on Pandagon, an obviously liberal blog which features outrageous political stories. A few of the posts from the past few days stuck out to me. The first was about an abstinence educator named Keith Deltano. It remarks on how abstinence only education does not work, but money is still being given from the government to fund these programs. The post includes a video of a Keith Deltano conducting his abstinence only routine for a group of students. The post is clearly mocking the routine and implies that Keith Deltano is having a negative impact on students, reinforcing gender stereotypes and insulting the intelligence of females. The author, Pam Spaulding, uses a very informal tone in the post, which appears to be aimed at getting a rise out of people by explaining that, as outrageous as this program is, it is funded by United States taxpayers. I know I am offended that any of my money would support the programs of this "cinder block wielding lunatic."

The next post that caught my attention was by Amanda Marcotte and is about the controversy over President Obama's commencement speech at Notre Dame. This post is also informal in tone. Ms. Marcotte states that there really is no controversy, and that only a small number of right-wing "wankers" are objecting. The post says that those who are creating the problem say it is a relgious issue because President Obama is Pro-Choice, which goes against Catholic teaching. However, Ms. Marcotte cites the inconsistency that Notre Dame had no problem with President Bush who initiated the Iraq War, but war is also against Catholic teaching. The post insinuates that is really a race issue, but then does not address that for the rest of the post stating that discussing it would result in "bunch of pearl-clutching faux outrage of the sort we’ve seen from Donna Barstow or Byron York." The author seems to dismiss this as a non-issue, implying that the right wing minority at Notre Dame will not have any impact whatsoever.

Another post that really stood out to me was written by Pam Spaulding and described a school in Kentucky's new policy of banning homosexual students from the restrooms. Allegedly, an Assistant Principal of Franklin County High School in Kentucky sent an e-mail to teachers directing them to not allow homosexual students out of the class to use the restroom. This e-mail came as a result of two female students being caught kissing in the restroom. Ms. Spaulding states the obvious health issue, and also points out the laughable irony that the word of the month at Franklin County High School is tolerance. I agree that there is no need for students to be making public displays of affection in High School entirely, whether it be heterosexual or homosexual, but this Assistant Principal went way too far in her attempt to prevent this specific type of incident. I can only wonder what her policy is on the heterosexual students (who, if my high school is indicative of what other schools across the nation are like, do the same thing). In this instance, I really hope that this report is mistaken, because I would like to believe someone who could be an Assistant Principal would not be that ignorant.

I was very entertained by reading Pandagon. The authors of the blog use the shock factor to their advantage, taking any outlandish story and addressing it as you would if speaking to a friend. The informal tone of the blog tied with the type of posts they write makes it a fun read. However, I am not sure how informative the posts really are, because they seem to be more aimed at getting a reaction than explaining both sides of the story. I heard about things I had not heard about elsewhere, so I suppose it is informative, and I was annoyed that people could be so ridiculous when I read them, but I can not help but suspect that in some instances there is probably more to the story.

Girls Next Door

The Girls Next Door is a show about three women, Bridget, Holly and Kendra who live with Hugh Heffner in the Playboy mansion. I watched the show today in order to determine whether or not I think the show has an impact on the socialization of young women. I have never seen the show before, but it was pretty easy to understand the basic premise: three playboy bunnies use the unlimited supply of money they have to do whatever they want.

The show today was about the women taking a trip to New Orleans for Mardi Gras. Bridget has a radio show, and they were broadcasting from Mardi Gras. The three went there, partied at Mardi Gras, held a fundraiser to benefit victims of the Hurricane Katrina disaster, and toured the area that was primarily effected by the Hurricane. After watching it, I believe that it definitely would have an impact on the socialization of girls who watch it.

First of all, the girls are all beautiful (a requirement for being a Playboy bunny). Any young girl who is exposed to any type of mainstream media knows what "beautiful" women are supposed to be, and these three meet the criteria very well. They are all blond, tall (from what I can tell on television), thin and large-chested. It is drilled into the heads of young women all the time that these qualities are what makes a woman attractive. This has all kinds of effects on the socialization of young women, as they aspire to look like the women that they see portrayed as attractive. If there was not so much emphasis in our society on being attractive, I do not think that we would have nearly as much of a problem with teenage girls and eating disorders. This is serious problem among young women especially, and I have personally seen too many people struggle with eating disorders. As if that were not bad enough, the girls then try to imitate how these women act, and that really worries me.

These women live in the lap of luxury. In the episode I just saw there is the mansion they live in, limousines that take them everywhere, make-up artists that travel with them, extravagant hotels and a lot of partying. Everyone in the show, even the news anchor when Bridget appeared to talk about the fundraiser, seems to worship these women. Who would not want all of those things? However, most girls will equate looking and acting like these women as being the only way to get them. During this show, there were surprisinly not more than a few instances where I thought the women were portrayed as being stupid, but I am sure that is shown in some episodes. They definitely were not shown as intelligent women. So girls think they have to act dumb in order to obtain this kind of life. Also, the women dress in skimpy clothing and act as if they are always a sex object. At one point Kendra said "I'll get the most beads because of my new and approved babies right here" while rubbing her chest. Does it really surprise you that you see young women sporting less and less clothing everywhere you go? Society cannot figure out why teenagers are becoming sexually active at earlier and earlier ages, but I have a pretty good inkling why. Girls are exposed to behavior like this and think that acting like a tramp is the best way to get everything these women have.

I have no problem with Playboy, or with this show existing. If people want mind-numbing entertainment, they can have it. However, if I were a parent, I can guarantee my children would not be watching this show. Unfortunately, I think this type of influence over the socialization of young women (and men; they expect women to look and act this way as much as the young women think hey have to) permeates deeper into all of the media in our society. I do not think the show is powerful enough to have a vast impact all on its own. However, within the context of our society where women are portrayed in this way, it definitely does. Hopefully, the media will find a way to stop reinforcing this stereotype and help young women realize there is lot more to life than trying to be like the women they see on television.

No Child Left Behind Act: Response

One of my classmates, Chris Doyle, recently wrote about the failures of the No Child Left Behind Act in response to the New York Times front page coverage of the issue. After reading the post, the New York Times article and watching the video of Obama's comments which was embeded in the post, I have the following response:

When I first heard about the No Child Left Behind Act, it sounded like a great thing. Who does not want to promise equal education to all students in the country? However, that is an ideal that is complicated to actually obtain. There are many issues with this process, but I will address only a few which I think to be the most important.

Firstly, as long as school districts are primarily funded by local property taxes, there will always be a disparity among the quality of education from school to school. I live in a southern Bergen County town, and our school district relies upon the approximately 8,000 citizens of the small town to pay for it. Things get a bit more complicated to explain in my district because the town next to ours does not have a high school and also pays to send their high school students to ours. But in theory, they are paying an equal amount in their property taxes to sustain the cost of the eduction for the students of their town. While my school was always struggling for funding, we could afford Advanced Placement classes, computer labs, and apparently (recently) an artificial football field that cost millions of dollars. A few miles in pretty much any direction, one could find schools in towns with higher property taxes which had all of these things and extras, such as more selection in Advanced Placement classes, personal laptops issued to all students, student-run televison and radio stations, etc.. However, within these same few miles, towns with lower property taxes and a lower median household income can be found. In these schools you hear about a tremendous dropout rate, not having enough books to go around, and not being able to pay high quality teachers enough for them to consider working there. Although there are Abbott Districts in New Jersey, which receive extra funding from the State based on these problems, I can attest to the fact that children in Passaic (an Abbott District) do not receive even close to the quality of education I did at my small high school. These problems of inequality will subsist until the funding process for New Jersey schools is reevaluated. Right now, if you can afford to live in an affluent district, you get a better education. It is unfortunate and wrong, but it is the status-quo.

Secondly, from my own experience in speaking with grammar and high school teachers in my personal life, the No Child Left Behind Act places too much burden on the educational systems in the less affluent towns. To be honest, the more affluent districts do not have much to worry about as far as holding up to national standards because they usually have less students in classes and can provide individual attention, students are usually coming from fairly stable homes and parents with some level of education, and teachers would rather work there than in a less affluent district. However, the districts in which the income is lower, the population of the schools is higher and the overall education level of the community is lower are the places that cannot meet these expectations. The teachers in the districts that are struggling with this find themselves teaching children not about math or science or reading, but about how to pass a national test which focuses on these areas. When children are simply being taught how to take a test due to the district's fear of penalization, no one benefits. The teachers cannot do their jobs correctly due to pressure to make sure the students pass the test, and the students are not really learning substantive information. From what teachers in my life have told me, the No Child Left Behind Act merely reinforces this cycle, and the districts that need the help the most are penalized for not achieving the minimum standards.

I agree with my classmate that President Obama must critically reevaluate the No Child Left Behind Act if it is ever to be successful. President Obama remarked that he intends to change the assessment tools, and rather than relying on a blanket national standard, evaluate each district as it stands and create a growth model. Then, based upon this growth model, schools would have to show a certain level of improvement each year until they met the national standards. This seems like a great place to start in my opinion, but I think New Jersey needs more. I cannot speak for other areas, but I do not see why there is any reason to have 70 (or more) school districts in Bergen County. While it is nice to have your high school right in your town, I think regionalizing the school districts is worth considering. Each town could contribute less money, while at the same time levelling the playing field of education for their children. Although I am sure this is not what many people living in more affluent school districts want, I think it is what is best for our society as a whole. If every county in New Jersey did this, perhaps some of the major disparity between districts would be lessened. I know that some counties already do and are still struggling, but then those districts would be evaluated and receive state funding appropriately. I am no policy genius, and I do not claim to know the nuts and bolts of exactly how all of this would work, but it makes sense practically, and is worth some attention as an option from our government and our media.

CBS Evening News

I just watched the 6:30 CBS Evening News with Katie Couric. There were seven main stories presented in the 30 minute broadcast and they are as follows:

1. Supreme Court Justice Souter announced that he is stepping down. The coverage included a portion about Justice Souter's appointment and background on the Court, why he was leaving and speculation of who President Obama will/should nominate. There was a clip of President Obama saying that he would only nominate someone who supports abortion rights and empathizes with minorities and the disadvantaged. There was also a clip of a Senate Republican stating that President Obama will receive a tough fight from the Senate Republicans if that is part of his criteria. Then Katie Couric spoke with Correspondent Jeff Greenfield who talked about different possible candidates to fill the slot on the Supreme Court. I would say that this segment took between ten and fifteen of the thirty minutes in the show.

2. Swine Flu: Katie Couric said the swine flu outbreak is "looking a bit less ominous tonight". There was a clip from a press conference with the CDC in which they stated that the strain does not carry the genes necessary to turn into a mass killer. Then there was a related story about a plane making an emergency landing because a passenger on board felt ill and they were worried about the swine flu. CBS continued the coverage with a story about American Farmers who are worried about the virus. Harvest is in three weeks, and since no Mexican workers are able to get work visas to come to America for the harvest season, they are worried that they will not have the manpower necessary to harvest all of their crops. Not only will this be a huge problem for the farmers, but it will also effect prices for consumers. They concluded the swine flu coverage with a piece about the perils of the pork industry. Several countries including Russia and China have banned North American Pork products, thinking that the swine flu could infect pork (which it cannot). The total amount of money at stake for American and Mexican industries as a result of the swine flu is $350 billion.

3. Hydroxycut recall: The popular weight loss supplement Hydroxycut has been linked to severe liver damage and at least one death. The FDA is urging Americans not to use Hydroxycut anymore. The manufacturer is recalling fourteen Hydroxycut products, but 9 million packages were sold last year alone.

4. Chrysler files for bankruptcy: All the sales in the auto industry are down. Chrysler is idling all North American plants for sixty days and closing five plants all together. They are leaving the dealerships open to try and sell the already manufactured cars with big incentives to buy. The American government is backing all of Chrysler's warrantees.

5. John Demjanjuk: A retired auto worker from Cleveland is closer to being deported to Germany to face charges that he was a guard at a Nazi Concentration camp during the Holocaust. He claimed he was too weak to travel, but the Prosecutor released a video of him walking on his own.

6. Danny Gans, a star impersonator from the Vegas strip, passed away. The segment included a feature of his acts in Vegas and a history of his career.

7. Assignment America Segment: Seventy year old Andy Mackee was told that he would die without his medication a long time ago, but stopped taking it anyway. He uses the money he would have spent on prescriptions to buy musical instruments for children and travels to different schools to give lessons. He has already given children over 13,000 harmonicas and has made thousands of string instruments. He gives free lessons and occasionally buys other instruments for children who seem really interested.

Overall, I felt that the stories were ordered from the most important to the least important. I do not know if I would have put the Hydroxycut recall before the Chrysler bankruptcy, but otherwise the stories seemed to be ordered properly. Since there were only seven stories, it is hard to tell what there would have been with more stories or a longer broadcast, but from what I saw tonight, it appears that CBS Evening News chose to put the most important stories first, leaving the feel good story for last. I also thought that the length of the segments varied from beginning to end, with the most important getting the most time, and the least important getting less time. I have to say good job to CBS for properly presenting the stories in order of importance.

First Supreme Court Justice Appointment for Obama

Today the New York Times announced that Supreme Court Justice Souter will be retiring at the end of the term in June. The Times article notes that this will be the first Supreme Court appointee for President Obama and the first appointee under a Democratic President in fifteen years. The two most recent appointments, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, were both under President George W. Bush. The confirmation process for these two slots on the Court were long and drawn out, and as the Times states, "intensely partisan and divisive moments in Washington". However, since the Democrats have such a large majority in the Senate, it does not seem as if President Obama will have as much trouble getting his nominee confirmed.

Justice Souter has expressed his disdain for Washington quite clearly and has apparently been telling friends since before the election that if President Obama won, he would be leaving the court. He was appointed by President George Bush, Sr. in 1990. Obviously, he was expected to be a conservative, but surprised many by becoming one of the most reliable members of the liberal side of the court. The Times article points out that replacing him with a liberal will not make any big impression on the overall ideology of the court. I have to disagree with that idea. Right now, there are five conservatives and four liberals on the court. Justice Kennedy, a moderate conservative, tends to be the swing vote in most circumstances. If Souter, who the Martin-Quinn Supreme Court Ideology Project scores as having about the same level of liberal leaning as Breyer and Ginsberg (which is less than the most extreme liberal on the Court: Stevens), is replaced by someone who does not have near that same level of liberal leaning, there can be many different outcomes. I am not saying to appoint an extreme liberal because I do not think that would have any type of positive effect on the court, in fact, I think it would make it more divisive. However, if President Obama appoints a Justice that is more moderate than Breyer and Ginsberg, the new Justice may be apt to side with the conservatives on more issues than the others would. This would definitely give the conservatives on the Court a clear advantage. Ideology is something that President Obama should carefully consider in the appointment of the new Justice, especaially when there are so many more extreme conservatives on the Court than there are extreme liberals.

Additionally, Mary L. Dudziak of the blog, Balkinization, wrote a post entitled: "What should Obama look for in a Supreme Court Justice?" defining what she thinks the most important issues the President should take into consideration are. Beyond mere ideology, I agree with Ms. Dudziak that the life experience of the appointee are invaluable in helping them to form their legal opinions. Justice Ginsberg has been an outspoken advocate for the rights of women, not only because she is a woman, but because she experienced the discrimination women all over America have faced (and some are still facing). Her ideas of possible experience that would bring the necessary kind of diversity to the court are stated by her as follows:

"The next justice must understand that legal principles are not simply abstractions but have immediate and long-term consequences in the lives of individuals and communities. Perhaps Obama's nominee will have represented clients in deportation hearings, served low-income families in a legal aid office, or advised gay and lesbian members of the armed services. At this moment in American history, a nominee who has represented detainees at Guantanamo could bring important insights into the court's deliberations and further signal a change in the nation's posture toward human rights."

She also states that the appointee should be someone who can bring the opposite ends of the Court together, a mediator of sorts. I could not agree with Ms. Dudziak more. I want a Justice who has seen the real problems of the country and actually experienced them, and I can not think of another President who I would legitimately expect to use that as criteria. However, I have faith that President Obama will pick someone who will bring real world experience to the bench as well build some bridges between the conservatives and liberals of the Court.

Daily Show Versus Network News

After our discussions in class, I found myself wondering why people opt to be entertained by people like Jon Stewart rather than finding out about the actual issues going on in society. I personally do not have a lot of extra time to watch television, and have never really watched the Daily Show (besides the clips we have watched in class). After having watched both the network news and the Daily Show yesterday, I am beginning to understand why people, especially people in my age group, prefer Jon Stewart's take on the news.

Since yesterday was the day after the 100 days mark for President Obama, a lot of attention was given to Obama's progress thus far in office. After watching the network news coverage of that and other issues (like the ever intensifying swine flu panic) it was actually very fun to watch Jon Stewart's interpretation of the recent events. While I did not feel The Daily Show gave me any substantive information, (other than a few really good jokes) I have to agree with our in class discussion and reading, that the network news did not provide much substance either. Given that I read the New York Times online in the morning on most days, I feel fairly informed as to the daily news. Watching the network news is usually not very informative and is very repetitive at that point. Jon Stewart takes the stories that the media is focusing on and points out the comical aspects of each one.

During last night's show, Jon Stewart remarked on the "Snoutbreak '09" and joked about the various requests for main stream media to stop referring to the outbreak as "swine flu". He addressed many other issues, in a very funny manner. I honestly found myself laughing through a good portion of the program. However my favorite segment was the following:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
Obama 101
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis First 100 Days

In this segment, Jon Stewart makes a great point about the main stream media. He compares Fox, MSNBC and CNN and the different ways they presented the 100th day in office coverage. His observations were hysterical, yet somewhat unsettling due to their level of accuracy. I loved that he criticized all three networks and pointed out how absurd all three were. If there was anything educational about the show, I would say it would serve to help make people better consumers of main stream media, helping them to realize that everything has a slant to it.

I can understand why shows like Daily Show can be helpful in our society. Other people in my age group are usually not as interested in the news as say, the average Political Science nerd, and shows like this can help gain the attention of otherwise disinterested twenty-somethings. While I do not credit its educational value, The Daily Show is entertaining, and may just result in a viewer doing their own research on a topic they see presented there. In my opinion these types of programs are not harming society in any way, and just might result in some good.