The executive branch and the press

The Executive branch and the media have a codependent relationship when it comes to image and power. Clearly typically Presidents dislike scrutiny and criticism because it causes a lack of control in their public image. The President needs the media for publicity and at the same time the media needs the President for access. The President must keep the press appeased because it needs information on how he feels on issues, other elites and foreign affairs. Along with information the President needs to play into the media because it is what the people want, they want to see their President out and about rather then hidden in a private world. The President is able to convey messages to the public and other elites was well. Although the executive branch and the press has a codependent relationship the struggle is still apparent in how the media portrays the President's image along with how the President treat and respects the press.

"Soft News"

The creation of 'soft news' is fairly recent being entertainment driven, apolitical (covers some political issues occasionally) and focused on gossip, crime, disaster, and human interests. When dealing with politics soft news will typically cover foreign policy crises although it does it the same way as it covers celebrites. This means the coverage is sensationalized and based in human interest rather then being focused on policy (known as 'cheap framing'). The issue is that those who watch soft news tend to be less educated in the political realm but now "know" more about foreign policy issues. The reason I state the "know" in quotations is because due to the cheap framing is it makes really complicated issues seem simple. The issue with this is there a new group of citizens who think they are informed when they are getting the kindergarden version of a serious foreign policy issue. I agree it is good for democracy that the citizens can now engage in dialogue over foreign policy but at the same time it may not be productive to democracy if US citizens hold ourselves to this elementary level of thinking.

Bias in the Media

There is a fine line between what is considered opinionated journalism and what is considered propaganda. The professional and financial incentives of the media to slant one way or another I believe is understated in our American culture. The fact only a handful of corporate new outlets control the information given to the citizenry makes it clear to see bias is rampant across the board. The exponential polarization of the US political culture has created the bias to represented on both the extreme conservative nature such as Fox News as well as the extreme liberal nature such as MSNBC. My perception of the media is it is extremely biased in what ever it believes will give them ratings and thus profits. Fox News found an opportunity to make money by representing the conservative voice and MSNBC similarity found one for the liberal voice. Although the perception of what the media should be to the public is as objective the news outlets still lead the public to believe it does not slant their news.

"Feeding Frenzies"

The term 'feeding frenzies' in the press refers to situations where a candidate's character is in question due to a scandal. The press is seen as a screening committee and has an obligation to reveal everything possible about a candidate. The belief in these 'feeding frenzies' is that the although policy and issues change the character of a candidate does not; the private character can reveal public action. The consequences of these 'feeding frenzies' are: a distrust between politicians and the press, dissuading strong candidates, denying voters' a voice and filling the media with trivial discourse. I strongly disagree with the idea the private character of a candidate always dictates public action. The perception of what is acceptable and not in someone's life is of much debate in the United States. I stand with the more progressive view that what someone does in their private life does not mean it will correlate to what they can do as a politician. There are certain issues where hypocrites are found where I believe it does correlate because one can then judge that politician for 'playing into politics' rather then being authentic. An example of this is when a strong typically Republican proponent of gay marriage/gay rights is outed or even worse found with a gay prostitute. To me this instance says he does not actually believe in the public policy he is promoting thus is not being real to the American people. On the other side I do not see someone committing adultery as a reason not to vote for a candidate. The only ones who can judge what someone did in a relationship are the two people actually in the relationship. A candidate can have an issue with their intimate relationships I do not believe that means it will translate into their career as a politician.

Stages of Crisis Journalism (Boston Bombings)

In the case of the Marathon Boston Bombings this year the media followed along with the stages of crisis outlined in the textbook. The first stage of a crisis media is the coverage of what is happening, consisting of spreading information and speculating on causes. In the initial attack on Marathon Monday the media coverage focused on showing people running from the scene and trying to put together whether it was even a purposeful explosion or an accident (such as a pipe burst). The second stage is of updating of information, at this point there is a focus on governmental responses and actions. The immediate information coming out from the government was that the bombs were not of extreme sophistication and there was no use of terrorism yet. The use of terrorism needed to used with care so in President Obama's first speech to the nation he refrained from using it. The third stage of media coverage of crisis' is the aftermath which is the final government actions, impact on events and ceremonies. This is the stage we are presently in for the Boston bombings, the media is covering the investigation into the lives of the suspects, along with further information the FBI had on the suspects and finally the prosecution of the suspect who survived the shootouts. Although this incident has been drawn out with mini crisis' within it (such as the shootout between the police and suspects) the timeline still follows the stages of crisis' as the textbook laid out.

Doris Garber in "Terrorism, censorship and the first amendment"

During a time of crisis the role and responsibility of the media is varied from the typical role according to Doris Garber. The argument is over freedom of the press and national security during these circumstances of crisis. Garber's solution lies in internal regulation, which is where the media creates its own ethical standards. I believe the government needs to have security over some information in dealing with national and international conflicts. At the same time the importance of the first amendment is at the core of our governmental structure in the United States. There is a line the media should not cross with the government in order to uphold national security but at the same time there is a need for the 'watchdog' mentality. The issue of only using internal regulations is that media fragmentation and media consolidation has presently created a corporate profit hungry business in the press. Therefore I believe the solution must go beyond internal regulation and to a shifting to an outside sources checking the corporate news outlets whose focus is on profits.

"Iron Core" Alex S. Jones' Argument

Alex S. Jones in the "Iron Core" promotes citizens to question what the trend of shrinking audiences (thus shrinking profits) is doing to the media and its role in democracy. The ultimate question is what is being cut with the profits exponentially shrinking in the media. Jones argues it is social responsibility. The traditional media in Jones' view is the 'iron core of information' which leads to verification of facts; he believes this promotes a healthy democracy. Alex S. Jones' fear is that without this 'iron core' the citizenry will not be informed properly in what the government, corporation and politicians are actually doing. His argument does include the possibility that new forms of media could hold intact the 'iron core'. Although, the question is yet to see whether or not citizenry journalism will hold up to the standards and ethics of so called professional journalism. Jones places the focus on all the great stories the 'iron core' has provided with Watergate, etc... An argument can be made that the connection to how this "feeds" democracy is not as clear. The common consensus is to make citizens informed enough to make intelligent political decision in participation of democracy, such as voting. Personally I believe that in a participatory democracy the best way to foster democracy as a whole is direct participation rather than the focus on journalism. The media is supposed to provide us with this 'iron core' but the media also has slanted what this 'iron core' should consist. Overall Alex S. Jones promotes an important question of how the media should present news. I cannot agree with his theory of 'iron core'-the media makes for better informed citizens.