Analysis of Propaganda Take 1!

The visual aid that serves to highly criticize the anti-american sentiment possessed by the New York Times depicts a picture of a sketched soldier listing four reasons to why the New York Times should be hated.  By saying they are "anti-american, freedom-hating, america-hating and traitorous bastards" is to instigate anger and establish concrete evidence to support the claim that the public should steer clear from the New York Times.  By closing in such large print on the bottom of the advertisement "That's Why!" provides a to-the-point conclusion to the article.  

By the soldier providing the argument, it symbolizes the military's support for this advertisement as well as establishes an aura of honor, integrity and strength that is associated with armed forces.  The aged appearance of the ad provides the realistic idea that these principles were existing in previous decades and that the morality of mankind and the support of ones country should remain in our present society.  By criticizing the New York Times in such a political attack has one realize that the message is to steer clear from the misconceptions that are presented from the New York Times.  

Participation Please!

Okay, as we are working on our annoted bibliographies, I realized that a lot of my sources are relying on events that occurred twenty or more years ago. The analysis really wasn't helping me too much other than to connect the dots between then and now.  However, through certain new articles I have read over the weekend, I decided to step it up and act accordingly... write to the news stations!

Now KCRA is our most known news station here in sacramento. I wrote to the general manager asking certain questions that might or might not help influence my paper.  An inside source would be very helpful. :)

Here it is. :)

To: General Manager

Hello.

My name is Rachel Kovach and I am a student at Sacramento State University.  I am writing a paper about media bias and corruption in our current society, especially looking at what is projected through our news stations toward non-discrete positions and opinions about our current presidential candidates and their proposed policies, as well as those proposed by state and local governments.  Speaking from your position, I am curious to know if our current societal pressures for instant gratification effect what and how your present the news.  Is there pressure from your superiors to present certain truths, or is it apparent coating of bias vision simply a cry from the cynical voices who doubt government and the media?  Where is the line in your profession between bias and corruption where the media is concerned?  Are government officials really involved with setting the agendas of our own news reports by influencing big business?

I am sure you are a very busy individual and may not come across my questions, however an responses you can give me would be wonderful. 

Thank you for your time. My number if you have any questions or need any clarification about my questions is (***) *** ****

Rachel Kovach

Narrowing It Down....

SERIOUSLY!!

I feel like a took on a topic that would issue novels upon articles upon journals to answer my question.  I am glad I chose it, but I swear narrowing it down is a total drag.  

It is important for my paper to distinguish between media bias and media corruption.  Media bias is the slanted or tainted perception that the media displays upon its facts and knowledge in order to emphasize their position and properly support their bosses.  Media corruption ties with the ending of the media bias definition to where the agendas and desires of those in power have become so dominant that the news has become unreliable with false statements and opinions to be served as fact.  

That is a definition that I found might help my quest in researching my paper.  I am very passionate about what knowledge is absorbed by myself, my peers and those around me.  When what we hear determines what we believe, how we dress, what we think, it is the responsibility of those who distribute the news to publish what is actual instead of what they want to be actual.

I have personally been peeved with our recent media positions.  As the election appears to be less than a month away, everyone (even Lindsay Lohan) wants to express their area of support.  Personally, I don't want to know who Lindsay Lohan, Drew Barrymore, P. Diddy Combs or any other media elite support in this election.  That is a private matter and it is in acts of vanity that they believe that I, or the rest of America, really care about what they believe or how they vote.  

Unfortunately, as passionate as I am about this subject, I am also a realist.  I know people do get swayed by the media elite simply because they serve as our "idols" in our society. 

With that, I am going off topic.  I am hungry, tired and think I need to stop.  This week I will develop my research question. For now, this is just some paths that I can take with my topic.  Wish me luck! 

Corruption Stated in 1983???

RESPONSE TO:

"Corruption and Political Culture in America: An Empirical Perspective" by Michael Johnston

After starting my research and finding this article, I found that not many aspects of corruption have changed in the past decades.  Yes, I cannot use these statistics as current fact, but some terminology and evidence proven can help me find more recent research to support or disprove Johnston's claim.

What Johnston writes about political culture being the harbor ground to corruption is very well stated.  The two most common forms analyzing political participation are studying voter turnout and political competitiveness.  More often than not, more people vote when they (the voter) feels that their position must be defended in some way.  By voting, they are participating in a united front to further their participation in government.  Political competitiveness a term identifying when a particular group is strongly fighting for their voice and message to be heard and dominated in government.  Such an example we are witnessing in present day.  The competitive nature between Senators McCain and Obama are very strong and almost vicious.  With the election approaching within the month, the political mudslinging will be enhancing the competitiveness of this election and each candidate. 

I must take into account when this article was published and when the statistics were found and conducted.  Johnston references to statistics founded in the seventies (Term dominated by President Jimmy Carter) and end just after Reagan's honeymoon period (meaning the 12 to 18 months of congressional and media lee way and overwhelming support).  Many of these altering/ unmoving (determining on which data you analyze) statistics are in reference to such decisions made by government at that time.  

Overall, the article probably won't benefit me much other than referencing other points of media failure and corruption, but it did make me think if Johnston's points could be validated and supported today. 

Genuine Criticism or Disappointed Defeat?

http://www.talkleft.com

http://www.powerlineblog.com

After the presidential debates tonight, I managed to check out both extremists' (liberal and conservative) blogs (TalkLeft and Power Line). What surprised me was what was presented by both arguments. 

TalkLeft was mainly statistical in their posts, supporting Senator Obama with numbers rather than position.  Their blog was short, but to the point. Their title entitled "Post Debate Polls: Obama Wins" left me intrigued.  Looking at their sources, I wasn't surprised to find "liberals in denial" news stations CNN and CBS as their sources.  It was a good blog for their audience and their purposes. 

Shifting to Power Line, they were first to admit that Senator Obama succeeded in winning the visual debate, but were quick to defend Senator McCain by referencing his age as a disadvantage to Obama's aggression. It was clear that they still supported McCain but gave debate victory to Obama.  McCain had a better handle on "economy" where Obama had "vocabulary".  

Personally while looking at the two sources, TalkLeft was doing a celebrated happy dance of sorts while Power Line attempted to state fact of McCain's defeat while not turning overly biased and sour.  

Bias Versus Corruption....

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/09/24/150207.php

This blog piece does a very good job of deciphering bias from corruption.  Just like HIV is the precedent to AIDS, media bias is the beginning cancer that leads to media corruption.  As dramatic as my analogy is, the blogger, TRUE FOCUS, does a very thorough jobs of identifying each term and applying it to our own focus.  

True Focus first starts by explaining that regardless of how one tries, their own bias is going to be presented.  Whether it is their writing style or their own vocal presentation, a bias is going to be presented by the deliverer.  Whether it is what their industry or what the public demands, the reporter will release what is necessary with demanded attitude and position.

What has bias evolve into corruption is when the competition for success and demand has the reported news be filled with unreliable sources and facts which the unknowing public believes.  There is no protection from bias or good will. Rather, it is gossip meant to be presented as gospel.  

Though the blog is short, I cannot help but agree.  However, with further research, I wonder I can be swayed.  

First Post...

Okay world. Here we go...

So now we have blogs. Blogs to project our thoughts, opinions and perceptions of our world and society. However, we know this blog is going to have set rules and standards. This is going to reflect my research journey for my paper due toward the end of the semester.

What an adventure this will be. This won't necessarily be the happiest cheeriest blog, but feel free to comment on any of my cynicism, commentary or research. It only helps with my journey.

Lets go for a ride...