Thanksgiving and Mass Media

The media is all abuzz that Trump is working on Thanksgiving Day.  What should seem like a good thing is still being spun as a bad thing.  When will the media move on and embrace trump?  Maybe never.  It seems that social media has provided more opportunities for people who were unhappy with Trump winning the electoral college to band together and organize protests most easily. While many people are unhappy about the protests, and I totally understand why, I think it's the essence of thriving Democracy here in our great nation.  The fact that peaceful protests are allowed and that people can complain and organize petitions means that our freedoms still exist and we must claim them if we want to keep them.  The freedom to gather peacefully, to protest, our freedoms of speech and religion... all of these are fundamental to democracy.  Really, even being able to sit during the national anthem when you are on television is a great expression of those freedoms.  Again, not my favorite expression, but I'm glad to see that it is an option.

I recently read an article about what democracy in America looks like today by USA Today.  http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/11/24/eb-white-colin-kaepernick-what-does-democracy-mean-today/94344960/

The article discusses what democracy looked like 70 years ago, centuries ago, and now.  How do you justify a president winning the electoral college and losing the popular vote by about 2 million votes? To be honest, I think people just don't understand how the electoral college works and why it was necessary centuries ago - and why it still is!  

All I know for sure is that this great nation still has thriving democracy and I am proud to be a part of it.

Trump wins!

Clearly the election was rigged...

The media that hates Trump has had an awful week. I immensely enjoyed the looks on their faces as it became evident that he had a fighting chance...as they transitioned to shocked realization that he would likely win...and best of all, when he won!

At the end of it all, I feel sure that Trump was right all along.  The media wanted Hillary to win.  The media did not try to filter their bias or remain impartial.  But as soon as the results were finalized, I feel that they have all been very mature about accepting that Hillary Lost and Trump won.

President Obama's leadership in accepting Trump as the winner certainly has paved the way for a smoother transition than we expected.  Hopefully now that he has won, hopefully Trump will rise with dignity to the office and make us all proud.

Division in America

There's nothing like a presidential election right before
Thanksgiving to bring families together...

After three very entertaining presidential debates, sides have been taken and people are now sure of who they will vote for.  From my own circle of friends and family, it seems that since most people are not really happy with either candidate, the majority of people I know are strictly voting along party lines.

I find this simultaneously frustrating and smart.  Although it's true that your party's candidate will likely make decisions that you will agree with, both of this candidates have serious flaws.



And although people keep asking themselves how these two candidates won their party's nomination and if that can't still be changed, it is a moot point now.  They are the nominees and we must choose between them.  I think that Gary Johnson will probably receive more votes than any other independent candidate ever has, but I doubt he will win even one state.  I feel confident that the electoral vote will never go to him.

The media has really short-changed Johnson.  Feeding into the bi-partisan system, they excluded him from every presidential debate, which I feel was wrong.  If he had been able to get into a debate or two, he may have pulled more votes away from the other two candidates and it would have been interesting to see that play out.

Trump also feels the media is unfair to him, but I can't talk about his incessant whining any more.

Hillary seems to love the media and I believe that feeling is mutual.  It does seem rather suspicious to me that even when Hillary's email scandals and other such things are being released, the television media glances over it as if it were a minor thing.  Social media, on  the other hand, seems to be willing to crucify her for it.  And as social media becomes more and more powerful in the world of campaigning, I can't wait to see how things play out in this election.

The Media That Loves Trump

I think it's pretty well understood by the general public that Trump believes the media is against him and that he thinks they want Hillary to win the election.  But what about social media?

During the last debate, their was a terrible flurry of tweets that promoted hate rhetoric within their posts.  Twitter does not have the same well-prepared methods that Facebook has to try to block hate rhetoric.  But what did Facebook do?

In the face of Trump-inspired comments, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerburg made a decision NOT to authorize Facebook employees to block the Trump posts.

So why has social media not blocked Trump's hateful rhetoric and his supporters' hateful comments?

I think it's a simple game called Follow the Money combined with the knowledge that when Facebook or Twitter begin to moderate our political opinions, people will move to a new social medium.  Facebook's advertisements have been a major recipient of campaign money in this election and I think that they're smart enough to avoid biting the hand that feeds them.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/10/21/facebook-employees-tried-remove-trump-posts-hate-speech/92524494/

Trump: Sex Scandals are Media Conspiracy

This election is in the tank - and not the military vehicle!

With Trump's degrading description of women and accusations of sex scandals and Clinton's criminal e-mail deletions, we have poor choices for the next person to occupy the White House.

I'd like to start by pointing out something.  In any relationship, it is important to apologize when you've made a mistake.  After Trump's nasty remarks about women, he apologized.  After Hillary's e-mail scandal, she did not.  I think being able to apologize says something about your character... Trump made a huge mistake.  Colossal.  Bigger than his you-know-what.  But at least he had the balls to apologize.

I feel like the election is between a political crook and a business crook, but I'll be honest - I'm fairly cynical when it comes to any politicians.

Although Trump freely admitted to the degrading comments about women (that would have been tough to deny), he has defended himself against the sex scandal allegations.  His words were:

“These lies spread by the media, without witnesses, without backup or anything else, are poisoning the minds of the electorate. No witnesses, no backup or anything else.” - Trump

He feels the media is conspiring against him, muckraking because they would rather have Hillary in the White House than him.  He then made a point, questioning why she had not brought it up before... which I found to be valid.  Why did she not bring it up before? Or did the media just not care before?

In any case, I definitely see the media as pro-Clinton.  I don't find that surprising since they tend to be liberal in general.  But I feel that they will play an important part between keeping Trump accountable and being fair to both candidates.  

You can check out an interesting WSJ article here: http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-denies-new-sexual-misconduct-claims-calling-allegations-a-conspiracy-1476478799

Social Media & Politics

The world of advertising is undergoing major changes.  The radio has lost many listeners to companies like Spotify, Amazon Prime, and Pandora.  The television industry is also changing due to the popularity of TiVo and DVRs, which allow viewers to tape shows, then watch them back and skip the commercials.  Although billboards and mailers are still viable options for campaign advertising, a new leader has arrived: social media.  And it is pretty well recognized that Facebook (at least for now) is the king of social media.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Facebook is leading in 2016 election campaign advertising.  I, for one, must say that I am on social media almost constantly, so their advertising dollars are paying off on my account.  Most (if not all) of my friends have Facebook accounts, and although they may not check their social media as often as I do, they can easily be targeted for ads.

You may or may not know that I am a Disney travel agent.  For my business, my Facebook page and blog use Facebook ads frequently because one of the biggest perks of social media advertising is that you can design a target audience.  According to this article, campaign dollars have been wisely spent on targeted audiences through Facebook advertising.  Facebook, which is already uber-profitable, has hit yet another home run.

Feel free to weigh in and let me know if you find Facebook ads work well for you. And have you seen political ads on your news feeds?

You can check out the WSJ article here:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-facebook-is-dominating-the-2016-election-1475429365?mod=e2tw

Thoughts on Media and Immigration

Trump and Mass Media on Immigration

On September 21, 2016 at 2:52pm, MSNBC tweeted a video clip of Trump discussing the lackadasical American policies on immigration. The clip was incredibly entertaining and brief - you can watch it here. I agree with Trump that the immigration policies here are too lenient and require immediate change.  I don't think the solution to that is a giant wall, but I recently had a personal eye-opening experience that made me re-think my opinion of security even within our country.  My friend is married to an illegal Mexican and she had to fly to Texas with him so that he could return to Mexico and re-enter legally with a visa.  They flew from Atlanta to Dallas in July.  He does not have a valid driver's license, photo ID, or passport.  And yet he boarded an airplane... which brings me back to Trump.

Trump's assessment that terrorists can not attack us unless they enter our country is blatantly incorrect.  Hopefully his staff owns a history book and reminded him of 9/11 and Pearl Harbor - two enormous attacks on the United States that did not require border entrance to the US.  Terrorists could have chosen a Canadian airport to board a plane and taken it into a New York building.

Sometimes I feel like the media just wants to crucify people for having an opinion - no matter what that opinion is.  If you want to admit Syrian refugees into the country, they say you're too lenient and are opening the US up to terrorist attacks.  If you don't want to let them in, you're heartless and defying the very foundation of our nation - immigration.

I don't have a perfect answer on the issue, but I know that the media will continue to play both sides of the issues up to gain attention.  I just hope we can come up with a viable solution soon.

Politics Sells

Mass Media and Politics - For Profit

Of course we know that journalists must be paid for their professional expertise.  They have college degrees, work long hours, and keep us informed on important matters that don't respect holidays or late hours.  But deeply ingrained to their task of delivering news is a need to gain attention and make profits.  And so we are presented with controversial and biased questions that will get a reaction out of the candidates - and these two particular presidential candidates are more than happy to oblige.

Rather than getting to the nitty gritty platforms of campaign issues, the media pushes issues like Trump's obsession with Obama's birth certificate.  And for a man who says that he does not value political correctness, Trumps response to the media's criticism is highly entertaining.  

Although it is clear that the media prefers to spin things their own way rather than simply reporting the truth, we held on to hope that presidential debates would be a time of presenting facts rather than continuing to spin biased opinions.  But now we know that the spin factor has trumped the truth.  It is more important to make profits than inform the American public.

I think W. Lance Bennett summed it up perfectly in his book "News: the Politics of Illusion" when he said, "When powerful newsmakers engage in open public debate, news organizations are more likely to cover issues in depth and follow the political process through the halls and hearing rooms of government, and citizen comprehension often increases."

Can accuracy, balance, and fairness be achieved in the future?  We must hope that they can.  I believe that social media can help reign mass media into check on this issue.  If we can band together and show the news outlets that we want a true debate, one that forces the candidates to speak on important issues.  I need to know that Hillary has learned from her past mistakes and that Trump can bring himself to listen to reason and take advice.  One of those two people will be our next president and I am confident that the media can be objective and still gain viewership for the debates with Trump and Hillary at the table.

Thoughts...

Twitter did not inspire anything interesting or inspiring today, so I think I'll go off topic and answer a few random questions...

ONE
Can the news be entertaining AND true?
Hmmm... I believe the best answer is "sometimes."
In all honesty, I think only part of what any news source reports is fact. The Spin v. Facts factor dictates that people won't watch the news if it's boring, so dramatizing and exaggerating may seem necessary.

TWO
2. What kind of news would best fill the needs of a democracy with citizens?
I prefer a weekly re-cap over a daily dose of drama.  I find that with a weekly paper or report, you get more of the big picture items whereas the daily reports tend to have lots of "filler" crap mixed in with the rest.

THREE
3. Is big media a problem?
No.  Not as long as local and small media still thrive.  I think that big media is important.  We need blockbuster channels and news sources that help keep governmental leaders and businessmen accountable.  But don't discount the local papers and channels that shed light onto areas where you can get involved and make a difference in your community and your state.

Soft News, Hard News, and the Election

In a presidential race that makes most people cringe as they consider casting their ballot, things continue to get interesting.  Trump is struggling to carry the Republican vote in several states that have been strictly "red" in the last several elections and Hillary is having the same problem with several  states that have been won by the Democratic party in recent years.

This is no surprise, and the media is having a hayday because Trump and Clinton are supplying a plethora of soft and hard news.  This week Hillary has drawn attention with her collapse at the 9/11 Memorial services in New York. And who could forget her statement from Friday:

"To just be grossly generalistic,

 you can put half of Trump supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic, you name it."-Hillary Clinton

These are people whose president she wants to be AND whose votes she would like to have... right?

It seems that both candidates have made comments throughout this election.  Let's face it - we all knew it was going to be entertaining from the first debate when Trump refused to raise his hand to say he would not run independently against the Republican party if he did not receive the nomination.

But in an election like this, we can't be distracted by all of the soft news of name-calling and mud-slinging.  Rather we must continue to seek to determine who will help our nation most. Who can help the economy?  Who can unite our country and bring justice to the racial inequality that still lingers here?  Who do we want making decisions if there is another terrorist attack? Who can most improve the education systems for our children?

These are the issues we must consider as we vote in November.

You can check out an article that I found interesting here, if you are interested:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-contest-expands-to-new-battlegrounds-1473591782

Should I Sit or Stand?

Free speech is a beautiful thing.  And we know for a fact that it spreads to certain areas that could be considered questionable, such as the burning of the flag.  I am extremely thankful that we have the right to protest and take a stand for what we believe in here in the US.  That being said, I feel that people, celebrities and sports icons in particular, should pick their times and ways of standing for what they believe in carefully.

The national anthem is not part of the civil rights movement, nor is the American flag.  I'm all for being passionate and making a point, but this feels disrespectful even after reading all of Kapernick's statements about his decision to sit as everyone else stood to honor veterans, the men and women in the Armed Services, and our nation's history.

So what if a team bands together and sits for a game to make one, coordinated statement?  I think that would be far better and more significant.  And elect a spokesperson to make sure it's clear that this is what the team has chosen to do for a day to support the cause.  Then everyone who did not stand can make a personal statement.

It seems that the Seattle Seahawks may do that this coming Sunday. But this Sunday is the 15th anniversary of 9/11.  Sitting during the national anthem on one of the most pivotal days of modern history seems like an awful way to make a statement in my opinion.

Feel free to chime in with your thoughts and opinions - I always love hearing alternative points of view and a friendly debate.

Be a patriot today!
Emily

Social Media's Affects on Politcs

I have been exploring the ways that social media has been affecting politics through recent readings and research.  In my searching, I have come up with three common themes of how things are changing:

1. Everything can be shared so that news spreads faster.  
   Plus, you can share an article with all of our hundreds or thousands of social media friends/followers with a single click.  Just ten years ago, you had to call and tell each one of them about it to share that information!
2. It's easier to funnel news down to your preferences and interests.
   Where on ESPN you have to suffer through 90% talk of other sports or teams, in the world of social media, you can follow pages that report about your team.  And in politics, it's very similar.  In the past, you might have to watch a 60-minute show (with commercials -what are those?) in order to hear the main story that interested you or your candidate's speech.  Now you can choose what news you want to see.
3. Making a difference can be done more efficiently and directly.
   Organizing donations for politicians, emergency catastrophic relief, and even people going through tough times is easier now than ever.  Social media has made creating ways to share and donate to causes easy and convenient.  You don't even have to have cash in your wallet! A few clicks and you've supported a worthy cause or candidate.

Do all of these things mean that we are not as diversely aware of what is going on in our world? Perhaps.  But simultaneously we have more information more readily available than ever before.

Citizen Journalism

The old days of having to write a "letter to the editor" that was interesting enough to earn a spot in the paper are changing due to the internet and social media.  Now, it is entirely possible to gain attention and momentum by posting an open letter on-line, through social media, or even in a blog post!

This brings a ray of hope that the US government is NOT (yet) censoring the average American citizen and that free speech truly does extend to the internet.

I think that it is amazing (and so important) that the average American citizen can participate in journalism to help our world reach a new level of accountability.  In his speech The Net Delusion and the Dark Side of Internet Freedom, Evgeny Morozov points out that censorship can not be allowed to exist in other countries because it is fundamental for world development that freedom of speech exists everywhere.  Western-developed programs that are allowing governments to censor their citizens' freedom of online speech should be put to rest.

I hope that the increase in citizen journalism continues to keep government and corporations accountable on new levels as technology continues to improve.

Changing Media Landscape

In his book Mass Media and American Politics, Doris Graber asks three questions that I think are worth considering. His questions (verbatim) are: 

1. Are new media outlets more polarized than traditional outlets?
2. Do audiences purposely seek out news that agrees with their partisanship?
3. What are the implications when citizens only seek out news that fits their viewpoints?

As for the first question, I believe that new media outlets are more polarized because in order to gain more interest, they want to be extreme enough to draw people's attention.  If you see a news headline that says "Obama Passes Bill" you would probably be less likely to click on the article than if you come across a headline that reads "Obama's Controversial Decision."  

For the second question, I think that initially the general public gains their first information from a trusted source that they find agrees with their partisanship.  But if the topic is truly interesting, they will look further into the issue and see what others are saying also.  I tend to see articles from the news sources that align with my partisanship first because I subscribe to them on my newsfeed.  But after I read about a subject, I want to hear a balanced view so that I can be most likely to find the truth.

When citizens only seek news that fits their viewpoints, trouble arrives.  The idea of people only considering information that they agree with is much like a child who does not get the desired answer from one parent heading to the other to get what he wants.  We must guard against being blinded by partisan bias and open ourselves to researching news to find the truth.

Mass Media & Elections

Mass media is extremely influential in America today.  Between radio shows, television, print publications, and on-line stories, a significant portion of any American's day is affected by the media.  Although most stories start with facts, bias plays a large part in how things are presented to the public.

In Graber and Dunaway's Mass Media and
 American Politics, the authors write: 

"Media stories often create skewed impressions because they cannot report stories in detail or full context."

With a presidential candidate such as Donald Trump, I feel that the media could have quite a bit of sway in how the public will respond to his words if the full context is not conveyed. Unfortunately for Trump, there are times when all the context of the situation and what was said would appeal to the American public.

Is the media protecting Hillary?

I personally do not think they are.  News of scandalously deleted e-mails have not found in every form of media.  If anyone is protecting her, I would point toward paid-off prosecutors or judges.

I am interested to see if she will actually give under-oath answers before the election.