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.