Alright everybody, so for this week’s CI blog, I thought I could take about 700 words of your time to talk about something in the news: Iran and nuclear warheads. For my first few CI posts, I felt like I was only criticizing one side of the media aisle at a time. And while that’s all well and good, I thought I would take this week’s post to show some concrete evidence as to how the media can twist a single issue into two or three different stories. I recently heard in one of my classes that the media and news networks are only “drama seeking organisms” that want the best story. In other words, they don’t care what the real story is, they only want to tell the one that will sell best. Now don’t get me wrong, in a country where freedom of the press is protected and capitalism is still strong, this is a pretty smart business strategy. That is, unless you’re a consumer looking for the real story.

To help me this week, I’ve recruited three articles. Two from our old favorites, FOX and MSNBC, in addition to a slightly more moderate, yet still slanted CNN. Just an FYI, all three have videos embedded, if you have time to watch! Let’s get to it!

FOX article link: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/04/07/obama-iran-nuclear-deal-breakout-time-year-13-israel/

NBC article link: http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/iran-nuclear-talks/obama-iran-nuclear-deal-they-cannot-fight-us-n336161

CNN article link: http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/02/politics/obama-iran-nuclear-deal/

Now what I would like to do with these three articles is dissect them. In other words, tear them apart to reveal how they are aimed not at telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, but instead toward pleasing a given audience. First, let’s compare the titles of these three articles. Fox leads off with

Obama admits Iran nuclear deal only delays inevitable, leaves problem for future presidents

As compared to MSNBC’s

Obama on Iran Nuclear Deal: ‘They Cannot Fight Us’

and lastly, CNN’s

Obama heralds ‘good deal’ with Iran

Now if we pay careful attention to the rhetoric used here (which is sort of the point of this class), most of us should see that one of the three is not like the other. Now don’t get me wrong, I understand these three articles are not entirely indetical, but keep in mind each of these networks has published so many articles on the issue that it would be impossible to pick three absolutely equivalent articles. Thus, there’s still a pretty big gap between the three titles. Notice how the tone of FOX’s title is totally different. Instead of mentioning a general summary of the deal or perhaps another quote from Obama on the subject, FOX focuses on the deal’s drawbacks, which, conveniently enough, is what FOX viewers want to hear. In all seriousness, tell me the last time you heard someone say “oh yeah, I watch FOX,” and “oh yeah, I love Obama” in the same sentence while the person wasn’t under the influence of a Schedule I drug. What I’m trying to get at here is that FOX wrote the article to match what its audience wants to hear. Now at the same time, let’s notice how CNN and MSNBC completely ignore that the deal might disadvantage future leaders. Nobody can say with absolute certainty which title is more accurate, the point is just that the media can and does choose to spin the information however they want.

With regard to the meat of each article, let’s talk about how Netanyahu and Israel are mentioned. Fox makes it painfully obvious that the deal does not do enough to help Israel when it notes “Obama also rejected a call by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for any Iran nuclear deal to recognize his nation’s “right to exist,” claiming it would be a “fundamental misjudgment” to link the two issues.” Meanwhile, the NBC article reads “[b]ut when it comes to Israel, Obama told the columnist, the U.S. has “got their backs.” Lastly, as CNN puts it, “Obama said he plans to call Netanyahu today and noted that he’s already spoken to the king of Saudi Arabia, another country concerned that the deal doesn’t take a hard enough line on Iran. The President said he plans to invite other Arab leaders to Camp David to discuss security this spring.” Obviously, CNN has the most neutral take on it. But does that make them any less guilty of writing to please the audience?

This subject can be really tough to isolate, but I hope I’ve done it justice here. On the whole, what I’m getting at is that no single source of news will ever give you the whole story, especially when it comes to politics. So what can you do? Read/listen/watch several sources! After reading CNN, flip the tv to ABC, or even read BBC, or Al Jazeera. They all do the same thing in that they write to the audience, but I’m convinced that if you constantly vary your sources, somewhere the truth will manifest itself.

Alright folks, so we’re (unfortunately) back from break, but luckily for all of you, that means it’s back to blogging. Yeah, I wasn’t really that excited about it either, but for this week’s edition of my CI blog I get to talk about an experience of mine that really, well, heightened my awareness. Most of you will get the joke in like 20 words, be patient. The event I’m referring to is Dr. Mazant’s class’ deliberation on the decriminalization and/or legalization of marijuana. Get it, heightened? if not, just stop reading. The jokes will get no better, I promise you that. Nonetheless, for those of you who, unfortunately for both of us, get my jokes, let’s get to it.

First off, I had the strangest suspicion that I would be one of the only not-high people in the audience. I can’t speak for the other two mini-groups (I’ll explain), but at least for my little circle, I was spot on. Now granted, what else would you expect other than weed’s strongest supporters to show up?? Really it was entertaining for all of us. Anyways, the first point about this deliberation that I found notable was the turnout. More than 20 people showed up who were not in the group! Especially given the marvelous turnout at our own deliberation, I was thoroughly impressed. Again, this event was on a Sunday night, and talked about a topic that college kids care (very much) about, so it made sense, but still!! At least in my opinion, the large turnout really elevated (sorry about another pun) the conversation.

Next, the venue added a certain atmosphere to the deliberation, in that the cozy Webster’s cafe added a sense of warmth and openness to the discussion. I personally would have loved to see a deliberation on weed held at the new LEAF initiative, but that’s not the point. Perhaps I’m over-analyzing this, but I found that it did help to encourage participation from the groups. Also, food is never a bad item to have at an event where participation is imperative! The group members also made the deliberation feel very friendly, which obviously helped the atmosphere even more.

Now, onto the real meat of the matter. The presenters clearly made a joint effort, and it showed. Things went smoothly, and several excellent ideas were exchanged. However, I’m still unsure of a few things logistically. For those of you who weren’t in attendance, the group opened up the deliberation as one large event, introducing and explaining the topic, followed by the personal stake segment. This was Then, they divided the entire deliberation into 3 groups (just based on numbers) and had the three mini-teams (each tied to a specific approach) rotate around to each of the smaller groups for about 20 minutes. Hence, I only heard the viewpoints of the people in my mini-group, and the order that we heard three approaches was different from the other two mini-groups. And as much as this approach made sense, especially in light of the number of deliberators, I disagree with how it was executed. Now don’t get me wrong, I understand entirely why they set things up this way, but I just get the feeling that it prevented people with interestingly-different ideas from being able to talk to one another. For example, in my mini-group, it was painfully clear in the first 10 seconds that everybody supports the full legalization of weed, no matter what (except me, my view is a bit more skeptical, but that’s for another post). And so really, there was nothing I could say that was going to change the minds of my mini-group, and that was honestly frustrating. I often found myself wishing that I could talk with some less-entrenched people, but it is what it is.

The other point that somewhat frustrated me was the order that we discussed the issues. The first approach was decriminalization, or the removal of such harsh penalties/fines. Can you believe that pot is a schedule one drug, along with heroin, whereas coke and LSD are SCH II? What the heck? Regardless, approach two was legalization solely for medicinal purposes, and three was complete legalization. Reasonably, I would have seen logic in each mini-group going in that specific order, but our group saw the three issues in a different order. Frankly, I think it hindered discussion on the first 2 issues after we almost “decided” that approach 3 was the “best” option. Now remember, I was in a mini-group with a bunch of kids under some kind of influence, so yeah… I’m not saying that the design didn’t make sense, what I’m saying is that had our specific group tackled the first approach first, we may have avoided the whole “yeah, we should decriminalize it because it should just be legal.”

That’s all for now, folks. Stay tuned next week to hear me ramble on about some other thing that just might relate to politics!

Alright friends, welcome back to this week’s edition of my CI blog. Instead of posting exclusively about politics this week, I figured I would keep with the trend of talking about what’s new and “improved” in the world of news/media. And given how/where I spent 35+ hours this weekend, nothing made me more irate than the stupidly outrageous, ignorant words tweeted by someone who actually used to be employed in the realm of political discourse. If you can’t figure out why he has since, been fired, hopefully this post can convince you. By now, I’m sure most of you have figured out that I’m talking about the one and only Keith Olbermann, who, per wikipedia’s post on him this weekend, “hates kids with cancer.” –As a side note, I would cite that, but some “honest” person has since changed the page on this reprehensible human being back to something less egregious. As another side note, I’m doing my best to be neutral here. Wish me luck. For some background on the issue, though, and to give me some time to cool off while I find this link, let’s turn to the Huffington Post…

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/24/keith-olbermann-suspended-penn-state-tweets-twitter_n_6745400.html

After reading this, I’m sure you can all figure out why I’m so frustrated. I will stand by my claim that Olbermann is a reprehensible human being, but aside from that, looking into his BS tweets exposed me to some of his other past episodes. Now if you’ll remember correctly, my first post for this blog was about the one and only Bill O’Reilly, who I attempted to critique objectively. That being said, I find it fair that I critique people on both sides of political discourse. Hence, I think it’s time we examine the actions/discourse of O’Reilly’s counterparts. Now as much as I would love to write a strongly-worded post about Olbermann, I understand that it would be anything BUT neutral. So, I hope you’ll agree with me that evaluating a colleague of his at MSNBC would be more reasonable. Hence, let’s talk about Rachel Maddow, host of the Rachel Maddow Show, which airs on MSNBC at 9:00 pm during the week (just after O’Reilly ends on FOX, what are the odds??). Maddow openly acknowledges her liberal opinions, yet every night she presents news from a reasonably objective standpoint (there’s always some bias on either side).

So with all of this in mind, let’s talk objectively about Maddow. Obviously, MSNBC is the premier left-leaning network in the United States. In fact, it has been called, by it’s own manager, “the place to go for progressives.” The guy’s name is Phil Griffin by the way, and he said this in an interview  with the AP’s David Bauder, ironically enough after the “resignation” of Keith Olbermann. Nonetheless, everyone understands that MSNBC is liberal, just as we all get that FOX is conservative (really, FOX?? Fair and Balanced?? You aren’t fooling anyone). Still, my main criticism towards Maddow comes in her acknowledgement of this dichotomy. It may seem shocking that I happened to stumble upon a video of her evaluating the suspension of Olbermann a few years ago, but trust me, the following video will hopefully outline for you what I’m getting at… She picks fights for no reason! Believe me, this video gets the point across better if you watch all of it, but if you find yourself constrained by time, allow me to suggest the 4:15 mark…

So now that we’ve all seen Maddow in action, let’s get to it. Yes, FOX is a conservative entity. True. But part of the issue I see in political dialogue today is that everybody has to criticize everbody else. In my opinion, even if Maddow is pissed about Olbermann’s suspension, which she has EVERY right to be, she has no business going after FOX on the air. All this did was escalate the conflict between the two networks, which resulted in even more polarization. And if you’ve been following the political scene the past few years, that’s the exact OPPOSITE of what this place needs. Maddow’s segment was supposed to be about defending Olbermann, not about another, competing network. So why on Earth would you start a pissing war with a skunk?? FYI, that’s a Joe Paterno indirect quote. It doesn’t matter at all what FOX anchors are allowed to do, if Olbermann broke the code for MSNBC. And while I get why Maddow could be frustrated with the double standard, there’s simply no need to go after FOX without provocation. Furthermore, don’t get me wrong: FOX is just as bad as MSNBC, but with all due respect, I’ve made my post towards them.

On another note, as much as I disagree with the fact that Maddow put all this out there, she does make a solid point. “Fair” news companies should not be endorsing any kind of political party, regardless of whether they endorse a specific agenda. It’s just inappropriate. Just like much of what Maddow says on her show (I’ll leave out details for brevity’s sake), she makes excellent points. However, she just seems to go about bringing them up in less-than-ideal ways.

Let me know what you guys think, about Olbermann, Maddow, or whatever! I’d love some feedback!

Alright, welcome back everybody. For this week’s edition of my CI blog, I had this wonderful idea planned out that involved the President and all the discourse surrounding him, both over these last two terms, and the discourse involved with past Presidents. However, it was brought to my attention by a wonderful man named Jon Stewart that two members of Congress were engaging in a discourse so ridiculous it would have been un-academic of me to NOT cover it in this blog. And so, that old plan went out the window. Instead, though, I have here an entirely new post that hopes to question not only the dialogue used by the people we CHOOSE to elect, but also intra-party discourse that seems to continuously push the parties towards the poles of the political spectrum (no voting pun intended).

To begin, please allow me to introduce you to the segment in which Stewart goes over the hilariously childish interaction between Rep. Alcee Hastings from Florida and Rep. Michael Burgess from Texas. Notice how I didn’t put a D or R behind either of their names, as well. This is in no way about parties; it’s about the idiots we elect to office on both sides of the aisle. Below is the link to Stewart’s video, and while I hope you have the time to eventually watch all 9 minutes, the good stuff (for this blog at least) starts around 4:25 into the video. I tried to find a trimmed clip, but Comedy Central had to be a pain about it.

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/1t79ao/amender-s-game—southern-slam

If you don’t have time for the video, I would recommend this less-comical yet still informative article:    http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/rep-alcee-hastings-calls-texas-crazy-and-jon-stewart-cant-hold-his-tongue/2216572

Ok, so now that we’ve all had the pleasure of being indirectly introduced to Representatives Hastings and Burgess, might I ask why the hell these two men are in office? I understand that not a lot of people want to represent Texas or Florida (really, I get it), but for God’s sake where do they find these people?! Yes, you could make the argument that Hastings should never have opened his mouth in the first place to insult Texas. Sure. But just as that argument has a point, anybody can sit here and say that Burgess had no reason to get offended over the opinion of one man. WHO CARES?! As much as I hate to directly quote someone else, Stewart hits the nail right on the head — we are run by children. I don’t honestly know if Burgess took offense to Hastings’ words because of the party difference, but regardless, why are these guys getting so worked up over something so small?!

There’s really no point in detailing either argument, because the only point worth noting here is that many of the people we elect have the maturity of a nine-year-old who just heard his first yo’ momma joke and doesn’t know how to respond. Even if Hastings was wrong to make the first move, there have been plenty of chances to quell the tension instead of escalating. By this point the entire Texas Assembly has demanded an apology. Seriously people?

Reading about this incident reminded me of the 2009 Presidential address in which South Carolina’s Joe Wilson called out President Obama, saying “you lie” twice in the middle of the President’s speech regarding healthcare for illegal immigrants. Now many would point out that Wilson’s remark was far more inflammatory than Hastings’. I would agree. But Wilson’s rudeness came and went rather quickly (in the scope of what he said and who he said it to) because he apologized almost immediately to the President and the country. Now don’t get me wrong, he might still be an idiot. But he had the tact to do something that so many people, especially politicians are afraid to do in this country: apologize.

Think about it. How many problems have been created over the last few decades in politics because people were afraid to come out and say “I was wrong.” Watergate. Clinton/Lewinsky. People go so far to avoid saying those three words, and it only ever creates more controversy. Just like my mother used to tell me when I would get caught stealing cookies and then deny it until I was blue in the face. Had I just owned up to it the first time, she wouldn’t have even been mad. What I’m getting at here is that the Hastings/Burgess incident is identical to two kids on the playground. Somebody hurt somebody else’s feelings, and now they both have people pissed off over something so small. If politicians could just learn to apologize, much like Joe Wilson did, we could save a whole lot of anger and energy in the world of political discourse.

Hey everybody, and welcome to the first edition of my wonderfully sarcastic, yet still tactful and informative CI blog. I decided to write my CI blog about the current state of political discourse in this country. We can all agree that there is tremendous room for improvement and that both sides (parties, more or less) share the guilt. However, for this post, I thought I would take a shot at a very likely, and rather easy target: the media. More specifically, the one and only Bill O’Reilly. Just for the record, I chose him specifically because there’s an unreasonable amount of material about him. If you don’t know him very well, Bill O’Reilly is a talk-show host on Fox News. His show airs every night at 8:00 pm, and he is regarded as one of the more “conservative” talk-show hosts in politics. I won’t talk much about his perceptions of our current President (that’s for later), but I will add that he claims to be moderate. It almost reminds me of Pinnochio claiming to be a real boy. Nonetheless, he receives considerable attention, despite his rather brazen style. Long story short, O’Reilly’s show shines light on some of the main issues I see in today’s political arena.

For our enjoyment, I have imported a youtube clip of O’Reilly interviewing our President. And while the clip unfortunately does not show the entire interview (I understand why, it’s long), it gets my first point across rather well. Political “rhetors” like O’Reilly in today’s media are so anxious to make their point that they forget the goal of an interview: the interviewee!  Correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t you interview someone so that you can hear his/her opinions?  So while you laugh at the ridiculousness of this video, keep that in mind…

Now that we’ve seen the O’Reilly in action, allow me to offer some insight. First, we can all tell these guys don’t like each other, and that’s ok!! Other than maybe Mother Theresa, everybody dislikes somebody. And this is politics, so all the more reason! But for heaven’s sake, you’d think the guy could show a little more tact when talking to America’s most powerful man. O’Reilly interrupts Obama 48 times in less than 12 minutes. The actual interview was more like 11:15 (the full transcript/video is available at http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/02/03/unedited-bill-oreillys-exclusive-interview-president-obama), but follow me through here. 48 times in 12 minutes is roughly one interruption every 15 seconds! Some people blink less often than that! My point here is that even in possibly his biggest interview of the last decade, O’Reilly follows the trend of showing little respect for his interviewee. Now don’t get me wrong, people have bad days, but he does this all the time, and he isn’t the only one. Think about the Romney/Obama debates during the Autumn of 2012. Neither of them could get a point across without being interrupted, and because of this, many viewers were left in the dark about what either of them was trying to say! In all areas of political discourse, interrupting people never helps anything. It’s rude, unnecessary, and it stifles constructive, informative dialogue.

After all that, let’s move back to the bigger picture. As much as O’Reilly lacks tact in many of his interviews, he does exhibit certain behaviors that, if followed by more people in the media, may lead to a more informed populace. 99% of the time, O’Reilly speaks his mind. And while, yes, he often goes waaaaay to far with his own opinions, I think there is something to be said for speaking one’s mind even when it does not follow the majority. The entire goal of political discourse is to exchange ideas, and more often than not, O’Reilly does offer a different point of view. Now granted, sometimes that point of view makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, but I appreciate his intentions.

Furthermore, even with conservative guests on the show, O’Reilly still asks the tough questions. I firmly believe that these “tough questions” are the ones that truly spark independent thought. Ponder this, If nobody ever got asked a question they didn’t know the answer to, would anybody ever learn anything? We learn and discover so much when we are asked questions that require us to actually think for ourselves, and I’m afraid that people are losing that skill when it comes to politics.

I know I’ve bounced around throughout this post, but allow me to sum up my main themes. First, nobody in the media or politics should interrupt somebody else. Even if you think they’re full of it, if you asked them a question, let them answer it. Furthermore, people in the media should never be afraid of speaking their mind for whatever reason! Lastly, we all need to start asking the tough questions, because that’s how we learn.