Tuning in to All Things Considered a Sunday story really caught my interest. The name of the story is entitled Dunkin Donuts vs. Starbucks Democrats. http://www.npr.org/templates/
First of all, if I ever wondered what kind of political side this station was biased towards, my wonderment is no more. Every time I tune in to All Things Considered, the majority of the stories are targeted towards the Democrats. A democrat of the country and especially the political delegates as this is that time of year. This story is four minutes and 16 seconds, a very long story comparing the alleged “Obama Starbucks Democrats” to the “Hillary Dunkin Donuts.” The reporter mentions Dunkin Donuts poking fun at the high maintenance and empty promises of Starbucks, mocking their wii-access and comfy couches, trying to parallel the way each delegate feels about each other. The big issue in theis article claims that you can determine what kind of voter you are based on who you buy your coffee from; A big high maintenance place with flamboyant names for drinks that are incredibly overpriced OR a simple cream and sugar coffee, no gimmicks or confusing names about it, the cup is even as simple as it gets. NPR actually takes a stab at Hillary as the reporter says “Customers are looking at the rational factors: the high cost of coffee or Hillary Clinton’s Healthcare plan” inferring that both are incredibly far fetched and ridiculous to most people. The main point of this article is that customers and voters alike are swayed by their emotion, Barack leaving many voters feeling a sense of hope and excitement, while Hillary has more of a secure tone to her campaign and presence. I don’t know if it is fair to say that if I drink Starbucks I will be voting for Obama, but I do think that if politicians studied consumer and voter habits as much as big corporations did, this would be a very smart move. Both candidates could establish their brand more effectively as well as develop better relationships across the board, leading to brand, or in this case “voter loyalty.” If the big companies are doing it and becoming so successful, this could be a great way to further the progress of political candidates in a brand new way never tried before.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Girl Scouts Join the Rhetoric of Change
What is with this "change" thing that people seem to be obsessing over nowadays? It seems no one is satisfied with a single social institution and that the general consensus seems to be that everything needs reform. The Girl Scouts seem to have jumped on this bandwagon, revamping their structure to supposedly attract more people.
This really does seem like an informed decision. A common complaint among young women seems to be that they see the Girl Scouts as being too "girly," with their emphasis on crafts, cookies, and badge gathering. The new system is leaning towards a tougher program - camping out in the cold, learning to things such as change a tire or unclog faulty plumbing. Not exactly the kind of thing I see a bunch of little girls lining up to do - but nonetheless, the goal here is to shape young leaders who can function independently in society. All in all, a good plan, I think.
This reform, however, makes me wonder why the Girl Scouts chose now to change. People are pushing for change in several different areas - the Boy Scouts, the public education system, the military, the war effort, the health care system - so why are the Girl Scouts the ones to fold? Well, perhaps they aren't folding. I can't criticize the change - they do seem to be molding their system to better benefit modern young women. Nonetheless, I find it interesting that they did this now. Maybe they are anticipating future criticism. It seems that nobody is safe, after all. I just hope they keep the cookies.
NPR: May the Fluff Be With You
Often times when I think about NPR expect to see stories on subjects like the war in Iraq or immigration. Typically I think of local news channels giving in to the cheesy medium of the bleeding heart public interest features or the silly little pieces on recent pop culture phenomenon. However on visiting the front page of NPR.org in a small flash window scrolling a few fluff pieces one of which caught my eye. Being a bit of a Star Wars buff (this is the largest understatement in history) I couldn't help but click on a piece entitled "Rejected: 'Star Wars' Merchandise You'll Never Own" next to a picture of a Death Star BBQ Grille. 
Owning more than my fair amount of Galactic trinkets I was immediately distraught to hear of a potential possibility of more Bantha fodder no longer available. As a parade of forbidden treasures flashed before my eyes I mourned the loss of the Cloud City Lamp and my personal favorite the Jabba the Hutt Bean Bag Chair. It was about this point when it hit me that this was no social news website, but what most consider to be an elite and hard news source. While I do cut down those stories that are fluff, the truth is I probably spent more time thinking about this piece than any real news story all day.
Owning more than my fair amount of Galactic trinkets I was immediately distraught to hear of a potential possibility of more Bantha fodder no longer available. As a parade of forbidden treasures flashed before my eyes I mourned the loss of the Cloud City Lamp and my personal favorite the Jabba the Hutt Bean Bag Chair. It was about this point when it hit me that this was no social news website, but what most consider to be an elite and hard news source. While I do cut down those stories that are fluff, the truth is I probably spent more time thinking about this piece than any real news story all day.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Choosing Sides (less obviously)
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/
With the understanding that the news media “should” abide by the standards of objectivity I listened to Jim Lehrer’s “Newshour” and although not nearly as bad and one sided as the FoxNews video we watched in class, there are several hints of who is on whose side. In the beginning of Friday’s news segment the headlines started off as objective as they could be; stats, figure’s and numbers all inclusive of the DOW Jones Industrial Average and how the slump in Wall Street has been affecting everyone, touching on oil and energy. The second headline talked about the nation’s observance of the 5th war in Iraq. Jim Lehrer mentions every negative thing about the war, showing his ”non-objective side”. He says that 4,000 American soldier’s lives have been claimed as well as 90,000 Iraqi lives. This automatically delivers a sad and negative pathos among those viewers who were already against the war, adding more fuel to their fire. On top of this information, he mentions the outrageous figure it has taken the United States to push through on this venture: a big 500 billion dollars. They play a clip of Bush, sounding almost unintelligent on the topic; pausing and mottling his words as if signifying some uncertainties. After this clip, the host Jim Lehrer makes it a point to recognize (as if he thought they were doing justice to this issue) the hundreds of people who protested and all of the students who walked out of class from Universities just to recognize the 5th anniversary of a sad and angry time in the United States. Overall this clip was a good for minutes and one of the longest, especially for the “News Summary” portion of the show. Interestingly enough, the next story was a positive one regarding Obama and his strong eagerness to get into the white house, with promises that this cruel war will only stop if he is elected. He is modeled as almost a superman who will save us from our impending doom of 5 years. The next story discusses the Dalai Lama and all of the violence and tear gas that is just destroying a nation. After this story we touch right back home in Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas as the flooding is acknowledged and flight cancellations are mentioned. It seems to me that going from the Dalai Lama and mass deaths to flooding in DFW is pretty far stretched. In the next story gender is touched upon as the infamous Louisiana murder case about the “Black” man killing his wife is told, later Jim reports “Blacks were kept off the jury.” This seems like a very liberal thing for him to say in my eyes. Maybe that is that culture and understood, even his audience quite possibly. The first impression from just viewing the first half of this show is that is more left-winged liberal. And to make the comparison between NPR and CBS, they both strongly gave Obama air time through discussion of his campaign, successes, and speeches. This leads me to believe that the Democratic Party (unlike FoxNews) has a strong hand they play in these media outlets.
With the understanding that the news media “should” abide by the standards of objectivity I listened to Jim Lehrer’s “Newshour” and although not nearly as bad and one sided as the FoxNews video we watched in class, there are several hints of who is on whose side. In the beginning of Friday’s news segment the headlines started off as objective as they could be; stats, figure’s and numbers all inclusive of the DOW Jones Industrial Average and how the slump in Wall Street has been affecting everyone, touching on oil and energy. The second headline talked about the nation’s observance of the 5th war in Iraq. Jim Lehrer mentions every negative thing about the war, showing his ”non-objective side”. He says that 4,000 American soldier’s lives have been claimed as well as 90,000 Iraqi lives. This automatically delivers a sad and negative pathos among those viewers who were already against the war, adding more fuel to their fire. On top of this information, he mentions the outrageous figure it has taken the United States to push through on this venture: a big 500 billion dollars. They play a clip of Bush, sounding almost unintelligent on the topic; pausing and mottling his words as if signifying some uncertainties. After this clip, the host Jim Lehrer makes it a point to recognize (as if he thought they were doing justice to this issue) the hundreds of people who protested and all of the students who walked out of class from Universities just to recognize the 5th anniversary of a sad and angry time in the United States. Overall this clip was a good for minutes and one of the longest, especially for the “News Summary” portion of the show. Interestingly enough, the next story was a positive one regarding Obama and his strong eagerness to get into the white house, with promises that this cruel war will only stop if he is elected. He is modeled as almost a superman who will save us from our impending doom of 5 years. The next story discusses the Dalai Lama and all of the violence and tear gas that is just destroying a nation. After this story we touch right back home in Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas as the flooding is acknowledged and flight cancellations are mentioned. It seems to me that going from the Dalai Lama and mass deaths to flooding in DFW is pretty far stretched. In the next story gender is touched upon as the infamous Louisiana murder case about the “Black” man killing his wife is told, later Jim reports “Blacks were kept off the jury.” This seems like a very liberal thing for him to say in my eyes. Maybe that is that culture and understood, even his audience quite possibly. The first impression from just viewing the first half of this show is that is more left-winged liberal. And to make the comparison between NPR and CBS, they both strongly gave Obama air time through discussion of his campaign, successes, and speeches. This leads me to believe that the Democratic Party (unlike FoxNews) has a strong hand they play in these media outlets.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
All Things Considered
In exploring the rhetorical strategies employed by the media from the eyes of NPR, I will be analyzing “All Things Considered” as aired on March 18, 2008.
http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=2&prgDate=03-18-2008&view=storyview
I listened to this news show using the website media they offer after 7:00 p.m. As a newcomer to the world of National Public Radio, I had assumed that there would be stories ranging from across the globe about issues that were of high importance that the nation would be interested, as a nation should have unique and varied curiosities. Interestingly enough, I realized a few other things that I did not expect to. The term National Public Radio sounds like an unbiased place where the nation can tune in and gather necessary information that will affect them in their daily lives. While listening to the radio broadcast via website the audience hears the first two stories and some of the longest (5:13sec.; 6:47sec.& 3:53sec.) on the topic of Barack Obama. The stories covered were about the racial divide Barack has had to face in the Southern states and still managed to come out on top. The second story addressed how Barack has a developed sense of speaking to different audiences through his various citations of “women hitting glass ceilings and families struggling with healthcare, jobs, and good jobs.” In both of these first two stories it is mostly Black men that are interviewed and they have nothing but positive pathos towards him. This is biased because these views are one sided, on the side of his Black male supporters, giving him free advertising in a way through NPR. The last story about Barack Obama is under the panel called “religion” explaining Barack Obama’s faith, relating the misunderstanding of it to racism. By this time in the show the listener may feel that NPR is left-winged Democrat, and that they are just trying to back their political favorite. These two stories definitely make a gender and cultural statement that they are varied in race, as the white man interviews the black interviewee. The other stories on NPR hit on the Dalai Lama being concerned about the peace in Tibet, threatening to step down if it gets worse. There is a story about China censoring the internet among its people, which may emote a sense of fear in the American public, as many fear they are already being intruded on anyway. Issues that liberals may be interested in are the gay rights in Massachusetts story, in which an amendment was looked up from long ago that “should never have been written” claimed a guest. NPR seems to have a very liberal tone, using many racial teasers as stories.
http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=2&prgDate=03-18-2008&view=storyview
I listened to this news show using the website media they offer after 7:00 p.m. As a newcomer to the world of National Public Radio, I had assumed that there would be stories ranging from across the globe about issues that were of high importance that the nation would be interested, as a nation should have unique and varied curiosities. Interestingly enough, I realized a few other things that I did not expect to. The term National Public Radio sounds like an unbiased place where the nation can tune in and gather necessary information that will affect them in their daily lives. While listening to the radio broadcast via website the audience hears the first two stories and some of the longest (5:13sec.; 6:47sec.& 3:53sec.) on the topic of Barack Obama. The stories covered were about the racial divide Barack has had to face in the Southern states and still managed to come out on top. The second story addressed how Barack has a developed sense of speaking to different audiences through his various citations of “women hitting glass ceilings and families struggling with healthcare, jobs, and good jobs.” In both of these first two stories it is mostly Black men that are interviewed and they have nothing but positive pathos towards him. This is biased because these views are one sided, on the side of his Black male supporters, giving him free advertising in a way through NPR. The last story about Barack Obama is under the panel called “religion” explaining Barack Obama’s faith, relating the misunderstanding of it to racism. By this time in the show the listener may feel that NPR is left-winged Democrat, and that they are just trying to back their political favorite. These two stories definitely make a gender and cultural statement that they are varied in race, as the white man interviews the black interviewee. The other stories on NPR hit on the Dalai Lama being concerned about the peace in Tibet, threatening to step down if it gets worse. There is a story about China censoring the internet among its people, which may emote a sense of fear in the American public, as many fear they are already being intruded on anyway. Issues that liberals may be interested in are the gay rights in Massachusetts story, in which an amendment was looked up from long ago that “should never have been written” claimed a guest. NPR seems to have a very liberal tone, using many racial teasers as stories.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
TCU's Obama Frenzy
If you've stepped onto the TCU campus today you've probably noticed the ridiculous amount of Obama signs littered about. These are handwritten and student-made, with a peace sign in the O of Obama's name. I've got nothing against these fliers - the issue I have is with the fact that I've been seeing nothing but OBAMA for the last few days, and it's getting a little ridiculous.
Where are the McCain fliers? The Hillary fliers? I feel like young people are completely backing Obama and no one else, and my question is: Why? What's the obsession, guys? I feel like the only thing I've heard Obama say is "change" - sure, change would be fantastic, but I feel like his real success is due to his oratory skills and the fact that he's got this "presence" when he's before a crowd. Something that can be extremely useful - or dangerous.
Anyway, this isn't a criticism of Obama. I just feel that it's pretty sad how the Obama-supporting community is rallying people together at TCU, but no one else. I at least expected something from the Hillary supporters - I spoke with her campaign group at the mall yesterday and it seems they're fairly well represented in Texas.
It's disappointing how one-sided TCU's political scene is. I expected a little more diversity - instead all I see is pro-Obama, anti-Hillary, and absolutely nothing regarding the Republican party. Still, I feel that the Obama mini-campaign running here will probably be effective. A group of students marching together to go vote is a lot more appealing than someone feeling like an outcast while going to cast their vote for Hillary. The Obama campaign is daunting - it's making those not supporting Obama feel highly underrepresented here, thus possibly discouraging the hesitant voter.
More power to them, I guess. I just hope everyone knows what they're doing.
Monday, March 3, 2008
Questionable TCU Political Agenda?
I feel that something on this campus has gained attention (as it should) and I also do not know how to perceive this “attention.” As many students, faculty, and staff know Chelsea Clinton came to campus today and spoke at the student Main. Most affiliated with TCU found this news out at interestingly enough 4:13PM the Sunday night prior to her Monday showing. Here is the email, put out by the Young Democrats on the TCU listserve:
To all TCU Students, Faculty, and Staff,
Chelsea Clinton will be on campus Monday morning (March 3, 2008) at 10:15 AM in the Student Center Memorial Lounge doing a Q&A session lasting approximately one hour. The event is free and open to TCU Students, Faculty, and Staff.
Thank you,
Celeste Greene
President - TCU Democrats
Wow. There are several things running through my mind in terms of analyzing this text. The first thing that pops into my head is: Why the late notice to all of TCU? Was this visit one that was not planned, because it seems this would be the only excuse for such tardiness. Chelsea Clinton is a figure of our generation, who has seen the ins and outs of a successful presidency and has been the cue of media attentions for years. I believe that this is a very big deal, one that was not accredited or given enough publicity or recognition by the university. The second thing that comes to mind that somewhat plays off the first one is this: Are the “Young Democrats” of TCU not much of Democrats at all? You would think that this party as a whole would be excited about this visit as I do believe it is an honor and a privilege, probably publicized nationally by several reputable news and television stations. The third thing is: Do the Young Democrats believe she will eventually be surrendering to Obama in the near future and this is why her backing was so half-baked? Does this say something about the Young Democrats and their loyalty to their candidates regardless if it is the “right” candidate or the “winning” candidate? There are many different questions and steps of analysis you could take, however it still stands that I am very surprised that a school such as TCU didn’t have their hands in this process better, as to have risen the hype and awareness of this important political visit. I almost want to come to the conclusion that TCU was not all that happy about her coming her with all these flaming Conservatives around that petition against Hillary everyday in class. I know that my professor gave us the option to go watch Chelsea speak, yet it was clearly an afterthought after everyone had already appeared in class at 10:00am, and when she said it was optional I could almost see the disproval in her eyes. Politics are sure interesting.
To all TCU Students, Faculty, and Staff,
Chelsea Clinton will be on campus Monday morning (March 3, 2008) at 10:15 AM in the Student Center Memorial Lounge doing a Q&A session lasting approximately one hour. The event is free and open to TCU Students, Faculty, and Staff.
Thank you,
Celeste Greene
President - TCU Democrats
Wow. There are several things running through my mind in terms of analyzing this text. The first thing that pops into my head is: Why the late notice to all of TCU? Was this visit one that was not planned, because it seems this would be the only excuse for such tardiness. Chelsea Clinton is a figure of our generation, who has seen the ins and outs of a successful presidency and has been the cue of media attentions for years. I believe that this is a very big deal, one that was not accredited or given enough publicity or recognition by the university. The second thing that comes to mind that somewhat plays off the first one is this: Are the “Young Democrats” of TCU not much of Democrats at all? You would think that this party as a whole would be excited about this visit as I do believe it is an honor and a privilege, probably publicized nationally by several reputable news and television stations. The third thing is: Do the Young Democrats believe she will eventually be surrendering to Obama in the near future and this is why her backing was so half-baked? Does this say something about the Young Democrats and their loyalty to their candidates regardless if it is the “right” candidate or the “winning” candidate? There are many different questions and steps of analysis you could take, however it still stands that I am very surprised that a school such as TCU didn’t have their hands in this process better, as to have risen the hype and awareness of this important political visit. I almost want to come to the conclusion that TCU was not all that happy about her coming her with all these flaming Conservatives around that petition against Hillary everyday in class. I know that my professor gave us the option to go watch Chelsea speak, yet it was clearly an afterthought after everyone had already appeared in class at 10:00am, and when she said it was optional I could almost see the disproval in her eyes. Politics are sure interesting.
iReport takes blogging to the next level
This morning while browsing the internet, I stumbled upon this interesting little section of CNN's website. Apparently CNN has the bright idea of implementing this iReport, an area where news can be generated by absolutely anyone. These reports posted include pictures, videos, and user-created news reports, none of which are fact-checked or are required to come from any sort of credible source.
Now, I'm all for blogging - blogging is a realm where opinions can be shared and issues can be discussed. But blogs are NOT disguised as news, and those literate enough to understand the blogs usually know the difference between someone's opinion and credible fact. Sometimes. But this iReport thing could actually look like legitimate news to someone. Say someone searches Barack Obama. They might stumble upon this video of Obama blowing his nose. I searched Barack Obama and also recieved links to a bunch of pictures of paintings with political dialogue, Hilary vs. Obama cartoons and articles, and other opinion pieces. Now, I'm not saying this is necessarily a bad thing. What bothers me is that it's labeled as "news." People are short on credible sources for news anyway. I feel like this just adds more to the mess of public discourse that is the news. Can't we just have blogs and news, without all this weird stuff in between?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)