My opinion of the reading is that Fox News and their partnerships with politicians is absurd. Quite Frankly, I just dont understand how it is even legal, shouldnt those politicians have some sort of obligation to be available to all networks for anything from an interview to a debate. Clearly everybody in the country doesnt only watch Fox News. Also, the fact that all the politicians that have these partnerships are republican is just further showing the bias that Fox News carries.
Now, I am no politician, but if I were, I think I would want my message to be spread to as many people as possible. How else will people vote for you? I am a voter, however I dont watch Fox News, so how will I really know what these candidates have to offer, when the next presidential election rolls around. If they really expect me to do research to figure out what they stand for, they cant just disregard my vote now.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Wait, what election?
So prior to Tuesdays class I had no clue that we had an election approaching for a new Governor in California, among other things. So this assignment helped me figure a few things out about whats going on.
So basically it is Jerry Brown (D) vs Meg Whitman (R). Surprising news seeing as Jerry Brown used to be the mayor of Oakland so seeing a familiar face was interesting.
Jerry Brown has once been the Governor of this great state and has a political resume that can go to bat with plenty of people. His 2010 campaign slogan is "Lets get California working again", which implies that he will be trying to open up jobs for citizens of California I guess. On his website JerryBrown.org he has a page titled solutions that list 7 topics that Jerry Brown is commited to fix. Im not the most political man in the world so I dont know what many of these solutions actually mean but here they are.
Those 7 are:
Jobs for California's future
Education
Budget
Environment
Clean Energy Jobs Plan
Pension Reform
Fighting to Protect Civil Rights
On the other side of the ballot is Meg Whitman who was once the C.E.O of Ebay (a website that I adore) so she must have tons of money. However in class on Tuesday I heard that she had never voted in her life, which is odd for any type of politician.
When I visited her website, MegWhitman.com i went to her platform page. The page was basically a bunch of pictures of her around Califonia and a letter in the middle gubenortorial of the page titled 'Dear Fellow Californian'. The letter outlined her campaign platform and she spoke of three main goals she has is she is elected. She wants to create 2 million new jobs in California, establish long-term fiscal stability, and last to fix the schools.
I dont know much about each person but it seems as if they both are focusing on the same things so I dont know who I would, or will for that matter, vote for. And seeing as this will be the first ballot I ever fill out, it is a pretty big deal.
Aside from the two main candidates running, I also learned about the election process in general, on the
gubernatorial level that is. So there are elections every four years, and this year the election will be on November 2. Also primary elections were held on June 8. Arnold S. has been our Governor since 2003, and is ineligible to run this year. Also in addition to the election of a Governor, there will be many propositions on the ballot as well; such as Prop 19 aka the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010.
Well, Im being kicked out of the lab right now, so there ends my blog, however I feel as if I learned a lot more than what is presented, which is a good thing.
So basically it is Jerry Brown (D) vs Meg Whitman (R). Surprising news seeing as Jerry Brown used to be the mayor of Oakland so seeing a familiar face was interesting.
Jerry Brown has once been the Governor of this great state and has a political resume that can go to bat with plenty of people. His 2010 campaign slogan is "Lets get California working again", which implies that he will be trying to open up jobs for citizens of California I guess. On his website JerryBrown.org he has a page titled solutions that list 7 topics that Jerry Brown is commited to fix. Im not the most political man in the world so I dont know what many of these solutions actually mean but here they are.
Those 7 are:
Jobs for California's future
Education
Budget
Environment
Clean Energy Jobs Plan
Pension Reform
Fighting to Protect Civil Rights
On the other side of the ballot is Meg Whitman who was once the C.E.O of Ebay (a website that I adore) so she must have tons of money. However in class on Tuesday I heard that she had never voted in her life, which is odd for any type of politician.
When I visited her website, MegWhitman.com i went to her platform page. The page was basically a bunch of pictures of her around Califonia and a letter in the middle gubenortorial of the page titled 'Dear Fellow Californian'. The letter outlined her campaign platform and she spoke of three main goals she has is she is elected. She wants to create 2 million new jobs in California, establish long-term fiscal stability, and last to fix the schools.
I dont know much about each person but it seems as if they both are focusing on the same things so I dont know who I would, or will for that matter, vote for. And seeing as this will be the first ballot I ever fill out, it is a pretty big deal.
Aside from the two main candidates running, I also learned about the election process in general, on the
gubernatorial level that is. So there are elections every four years, and this year the election will be on November 2. Also primary elections were held on June 8. Arnold S. has been our Governor since 2003, and is ineligible to run this year. Also in addition to the election of a Governor, there will be many propositions on the ballot as well; such as Prop 19 aka the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010.
Well, Im being kicked out of the lab right now, so there ends my blog, however I feel as if I learned a lot more than what is presented, which is a good thing.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Will evolving forms of journalism be an improvement?
Yes. I believe the evolving forms of journalism will be an improvement, because with all the new mediums there are to get news and information these days it makes it easier to stay in the loop. Before the internet, one either had to watch the news on television, or read some sort of news publication. However, with the rise of the internet and the downfall of print news almost anybody can find what they are looking for, especially iof you know where to look.
But, there are alwasy two sides to every story. With the rise of internet news comes the rise of citizen reporters, who dont necessairily have the proper qualifications to broadcast news. With that being said, if one were to search for a topic that is all over the news, chances are 4 or 5 of the ten results you get may not be reliable.
But, there are alwasy two sides to every story. With the rise of internet news comes the rise of citizen reporters, who dont necessairily have the proper qualifications to broadcast news. With that being said, if one were to search for a topic that is all over the news, chances are 4 or 5 of the ten results you get may not be reliable.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Stephen Colbert vs. Katie Couric
Before I begin, I just want to say that this has been the most frustrating assignment I have had to do in a long time. Finding the videos to watch and review must have taken an hour and a half. I couldnt find anything that matched up to review the same topic. On top of that the videos decided to load for what seemed like a lifetime, and that didnt make anything much better. But without any further adue I chose to watch two segments featuring a Joe Biden interview. One interview was conducted by Stephen Colbert and one was conducted by Katie Couric (hence the title).
So after watching both videos there was a clear difference between each interviewers approach. Katie was all about business throughout her interview, but slipped two jokes in while speaking with Joe Biden. On the other hand Stephen Colbert began his interview with a joke and was laughing throughout the interview. However Stephen Colbert did have moments when he was engaged in what Biden was talking about. The numbers on my tally sheet clearly show that Colbert has a much more humorous approach to his reporting, but it was all joking which was good.
So after watching both videos there was a clear difference between each interviewers approach. Katie was all about business throughout her interview, but slipped two jokes in while speaking with Joe Biden. On the other hand Stephen Colbert began his interview with a joke and was laughing throughout the interview. However Stephen Colbert did have moments when he was engaged in what Biden was talking about. The numbers on my tally sheet clearly show that Colbert has a much more humorous approach to his reporting, but it was all joking which was good.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Does Fake News Mislead The Public?
The reading for this week was interesting due to the fact that it is something that I can relate to. WHile reading I pulled out a few key pieces of the message being delivered. One of the points that stuck out to me was the part of the article 'No Joke'. The authors spoke about the 2004 election and the influx of young voters. The article went on to say that in the 2004 election there were more voters under 30 then this country had seen in a long time. That group of voters are also the voters who are relying on "fake news" to base opinions for their votes. The staggering fact is that 21% of these young voters came out and said that they rely on the "fake news", such as Jon Stewart's Daily Show.
This article was interesting because I personally find myself in the same demographic being written about. I was not old enough to vote in 2004, however as a registered voter now i still rely on "fake news" for my information. I just dont think daily news is entertaining enough so i dont watch it, but the comical " fake news is interesting and worth my time.
In terms of the central question of, does fake news mislead the public? i dont think it does, because it isnt necessarily fake news, it is just news with a different spin, and whats wrong with that?
This article was interesting because I personally find myself in the same demographic being written about. I was not old enough to vote in 2004, however as a registered voter now i still rely on "fake news" for my information. I just dont think daily news is entertaining enough so i dont watch it, but the comical " fake news is interesting and worth my time.
In terms of the central question of, does fake news mislead the public? i dont think it does, because it isnt necessarily fake news, it is just news with a different spin, and whats wrong with that?
Thursday, September 9, 2010
FoxNews vs. MSNBC
After watching two brief clips online of Keith Olberman and Sean Hannity i had two completely different experiences.
When deciding on which video of Sean Hannity to watch I of course went with the Jerry Springer interview. The interview was getting Springer's take on Obama and the job he has done thus far in his presidency. Hannity was pushing the fact that Obama was failing as a president and Springer was supporting our president. Throughout the conversation Hannity was raising his voice to get his point across. He interrupted Springer multiple times, to the point where Springer had to tell Hannity to let him finish. It also seemed as if Hannity was putting words into Springers mouth which was another thing that I didn't see as being right, especially from a host on a major television show.
Olberman's show wasn't as intense as the Sean Hannity interview but it was a lot more boring as well. Olberman began the segment by just talking, and talking, and talking some more. The weird thing was that as he kept talking, i couldn't figure out where he stood on what he was talking about. Maybe its just me, and not being the most political person ever played a part in that. However while watching Hannity i knew within the first thirty seconds where he stood.
At the end of the day I would rather watch Hannity's show because it was more entertaining, he was yelling and screaming, and had some controversy in his interview which made the show exciting. The funny thing is i didn't agree with anything that Hannity was saying but i was interested throughout. Olberman's show was just too boring for me, plain and simple.
When deciding on which video of Sean Hannity to watch I of course went with the Jerry Springer interview. The interview was getting Springer's take on Obama and the job he has done thus far in his presidency. Hannity was pushing the fact that Obama was failing as a president and Springer was supporting our president. Throughout the conversation Hannity was raising his voice to get his point across. He interrupted Springer multiple times, to the point where Springer had to tell Hannity to let him finish. It also seemed as if Hannity was putting words into Springers mouth which was another thing that I didn't see as being right, especially from a host on a major television show.
Olberman's show wasn't as intense as the Sean Hannity interview but it was a lot more boring as well. Olberman began the segment by just talking, and talking, and talking some more. The weird thing was that as he kept talking, i couldn't figure out where he stood on what he was talking about. Maybe its just me, and not being the most political person ever played a part in that. However while watching Hannity i knew within the first thirty seconds where he stood.
At the end of the day I would rather watch Hannity's show because it was more entertaining, he was yelling and screaming, and had some controversy in his interview which made the show exciting. The funny thing is i didn't agree with anything that Hannity was saying but i was interested throughout. Olberman's show was just too boring for me, plain and simple.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)