General Petraeus or General Betray Us?

A recent advertisement in the New York Times, put out by MoveOn.org has set off a firestorm in Washington. The ad has an image of General David Petraeus with a caption underneath that reads "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?"

Republicans are outraged by the accusations made in the statement that Petraeus is trying to mislead United States citizens.

This argument ties into our discussion in Mass Media and Society about the power of language.

It is similar to the use of the word "liar." We heard in class that the New York Times would never use the word liar in a story because it is such a charged word. There is a difference between accusing someone of not telling the truth and accusing someone of lying.

In the same way, accusing someone of betrayal is also very serious. As O'Shaughnessy and Stadler stated, language is not neutral. The word "betray" is a very charged word. By definition, betray means to deliver or expose to an enemy by treachery or disloyalty. This ad accuses General Petraeus of deliberately misleading the American public. It could go as far as to claim that Petraeus even sided with the enemy.

CNBC Chief Washington Correspondent John Harwood stated on the Diane Rehm Show, "It's one thing to raise serious questions about whether Petraeus is wrong. It's another thing to sort of have this childish name-calling thing surrounding the guy's name. I don't know of any evidence that David Petraeus, whether he's right or wrong about this surge, is somehow trying to betray the United States."

From a journalistic standpoint, MoveOn.org's pun on Petraeus' name is an attempt to show off. According to Ron Peter Clark from Poynter Online, the ad's message was tainted by the cunning headline. People are now so focused on the "General Betray Us" line that they miss what the rest of the advertisement has to say.

Clark goes on to say that the headline is not even supported by the arguement of the advertisement:

"I do not believe that the headline writer thinks that General Petraeus is a traitor to his country. Nothing in the ad under the headline supports the pun in the title. Instead, I think writer and editors succumbed to the oldest literary temptation in the book: to look clever in front of the world -- meaning and consequences be damned."

I agree with Clark that MoveOn.org was trying to look clever, but I do not agree that is was a bad thing. I think the whole purpose of the advertisement was to taint General Petraeus, to make him look like a bad guy to the American public.

The word betrayal has such a negative conotation to it, that the public doesn't need to know the rest of the argument to grasp that negative image of General Petraeus.

Do Partisan Newspapers Result in a More Informed Public?

One major complaint about the media today, is the lack of objectivity. More and more newspapers and media outlets appear to have either a left or right slant. FOX News, for example, is a very conservative news outlet. CNN has been accused of having a more liberal stance, as has the New York Times.

Our nation is more divided along partisan lines than ever. The goal of most newspapers is to maintain unbiased, objective reporting, but would people actually benefit from a partisan press?

The British press is primarily partisan. There is a spectrum of partisan newspapers, from the Mirror on the far left to the Sun on the far right. Two of the most popular hard news publications are the Guardian and the Telegraph. The Guardian has a liberal slant while the Telegraph is more conservative.

British journalists tend to be tougher and more agressive in their reporting tactics. However, there is less in depth research. Standards for accuracy are not as high as those in the United States, and therefore the credibility is lower.

Despite having media outlets that are more in tune with their views, the British public still reads tabloid news, such as the Sun and the Mirror, two to three times more than they read hard news.

Simply providing people with news that is reported from their political viewpoint will not get them interested. Media outlets still need to find a way to make the American public to stand up and pay attention.

(**Information for this blog was taken from my Mass Media and Politics class)

Waiting on the world...

In class we discussed whether or not celebrities should be able to use their status to promote social issues. I was listening to John Mayer's song Waiting on the World to Change, and it got me thinking about this point.

The whole song is a political message. Mayer talks about how his generation, my generation, takes a bad rap for not trying to do anything about all of the problems we face today.

One way to read the text of the song is to say that the song itself is a signifier of the way our generation lives and our beliefs. It signifies Mayer's belief that we cannot do our part unless those ahead of us are willing to cooperate.

The music video reinforces this reading. It also has some added features. The whole video is shot in black and white. I think this is reflective of Mayer's mood. He is disappointed and frustrated with how things are right now. However, the actual instrumental part of the song is upbeat. This shows that Mayer is hopeful that things can change.

The video also says that our generation has a different way of expressing ourselves. Rather than just speaking out, the people were spray painting their messages on billboards where they would get more attention.

One particular line in the song, fits in perfectly with what we discussed in Mass Media and Society:

And when you trust your television
What you get is what you got
Cause when they own the information, oh
They can bend it all they want

In this verse, Mayer is referring to two key issues. First, that the media industry is owned by five or six powerhouse companies including Disney, Time Warner, and News Corporation. With so few people controlling what we see, we are not given as many different viewpoints or as much information.

Mayer's point about bending information ties in with O'Shaughnessy and Stadler's idea that one of the ways media works is to construct and re-present reality. A majority of what people know they did not experience first hand. A lot was provided to them through media.
If our only knowledge of Afghanistan is what we see on television or in the news, we only know what those in charge of the media felt was important for us to know. Our idea of the reality of Afghanistan is going to be very different from the idea of reality of someone who has been to Afghanistan.

People have to be cautious of the media for several reasons. When newspapers or television shows are trying to make money, they won't necessarily show what's important. They will show what sells. Therefore, people have to be a little questioning of the media. If they take everything they see to be truth, they will have a very distorted idea of reality.

Also, there are many different readings for any text. People need to understand that not everyone see things in the same way.

FCC considers restrictions on media mergers.

A recent article in the Chicago Tribune discussed recent hearings by the Federal Communications Commission. The FCC is considering placing tighter restrictions on it's media-ownership rules. The rules would make it more difficult for organizations to create large media empires.

Restrictions on media ownership would come at an important time. Currently media moguls like Time Warner, Disney and Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation own several different outlets, including newspapers, book publishing companies, television stations and movie studios.

When only a few companies own a majority of the news and media outlets, it limits the amount of information we receive. Those companies have more control and power to decide what the public sees, as far as news and entertainment.

'I believe in you, and I believe in your destiny...'

I believe that you are contributors to this new civilization.
I believe that you have inherited from your forefathers an ancient dream, a song,a prophecy, which you can proudly lay as a gift of gratitude upon the lap of America.
I believe that you can say to the founders of this great nation "Here I am a youth, a young tree whose roots were plucked from the hills of Lebanon, yet am I deeply rooted here, and I will be fruitful.

These are the words of Khalil Gibran, a Lebanese-American philospher and poet and the inspiration of students and staff at the new Khalil Gibran International Academy in New York City.

An article in the latest issue of The Economist reports that the Academy opened this week despite protests and scrutiny from fellow citizens. The school will teach Arabic and Middle Eastern history and culture which has some people uneasy.

According to The Economist some who oppose the school have "muttered that it will be a training ground for terrorists."

New York operates almost 70 dual-language public schools, howeve, Khalil Gibran International Academy is the first to offer Arabic. Because the school has a focus on the Middle Eastern culture, some people are worried that the school will spread the belief of Islam to its students.

This article ties into Mass Media and Society particularly well with our discussion about language and how it is not neutral.

The Arabic language and the religion of Islam can be sensitive issues with Americans today. Generally, they are seen in a negative light, because of events of the past six years. The terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 marked the real beginning of an uneasiness even fear of the Islam religion.

As O'Shaughnessy and Stadler state in Media and Society, an introduction, "Language always carries some associations, connotations, or values with it." (65)

For Americans, the Arabic language might evoke fear and anger, particularly when discussing the Islamic religion. However, for Muslims, that very same topic may be considered sacred.

The power and struggle model of language can also be seen here. According to the text, "Language meanings are not fixed and can be struggled over by different people, and by different social groups. Historically, such struggles have been very important, particularly those that occur between different ethnic groups." (68)

In the case of the Khalil Gibran International Academy, many are worried about the education students will receive there, because they have only seen a negative side of Islam. They do not understand Arabic or the traditions of the Middle Eastern Culture.

This school could go a long way in teaching more than just its students, but maybe the country as well.

Blockbuster...Netflix...now Vudu?

In the New York Times today, they introduced a new movie service called Vudu. It is basically your own personal video store. Connect the product to your television and your internet cable line and for $400.00 you have access to 5,000 movies that will download within minutes.

This is important, after all, because we cannot be expected to drive all the way to the video store to rent a or movie, or wait one or two days to get one through the mail from Netflix. You could download the movie onto your computer, but then who wants to watch a movie on that tiny screen?

Don't get me wrong. I enjoy movies as much as the next person. But is this really necessary? It's a great idea, but how hard is it honestly, to order a dvd online and wait for it to arrive? If you're really that impatient then just drive to the movie store!

Vudu doesn't have a monthly fee, but you do have to pay to rent each movie, and they only stay on the product's harddrive for 24 hours. What happens if I get interrupted? I have to rent it again to see the ending, I could buy the movie for that price.

The critic who reviewed the product referred to the Vudu's scroll wheel remote as a breakthrough. Seriously, a breakthrough? It's a remote control! A breakthrough is finding a new treatment for some deadly disease or catching a suspect in a serious crime. A scroll wheel on a remote control is not a breakthrough.

Technology is great and I have no doubt that the creators of the Vudu are very intelligent. There are better things they could use that technology for than creating more and more products to make American's lives easier and more convenient. Besides, the Vudu will be out of date in five years anyway.