"Taxation without Representation"

That's what you'll read on a Washington D.C. license plate. The theory has always been 'no taxation without representation' right? That's what led to the Revolutionary war. That's what led to the Declaration of Independence. That's what led to a democracy where "citizens of every state" are represented.

So why did citizens of D.C. change their license plates in 2002 to read "Taxation without representation"? Because, those living in the nations capital are not being represented.

Citizens of the District of Columbia do not actually live in a state. They do have a representative in the House, Eleanor Holmes-Norton. However, Norton is not allowed to vote on the floor of the House of Representatives. For this reason, she is known as a silent representative.

It seems very ironic, that in the nation's capital, the birthplace of democracy, the people are not given a fair say. It goes against the very ideology of democracy that we discussed in Mass Media and Society.

We examined democracy as an dominant ideology in America. People believe in the right to vote and the need to have a say in who runs their government and how that government is run.

Not allowing residents of Washington D.C. to participate actively in the democratic process goes against this dominant ideology.

Now, residents are fighting back. As stated, they changed their license plates in 2002, and added the phrase, "Taxation without Representation."

In September of this year, a bill that would give the District of Columbia one full-voting member in the House of Representatives went before the Senate. The bill was shot down. Opponents said that the bill went agaist Article I of the Constitution, which says that the House of Representatives will be elected by citizens of "several states".

According to an article on About.com , more than 500,000 Americans are residents of the nation's capital. They pay the second highest per capia federal income taxes in the country, yet they have no say in how that money gets spent.

There has been a call to add an Amendment to the Constitution, allowing DC voting rights. Some strides have been made. Citizens of the District of Columbia were finally granted the right to vote in presidential elections in 1961. In 1973, Congress passed the District of Columbia Home Rule Act which allowed citizens to elect their own mayor and city council.

Not allowing citizens of Washington D.C. an active member of the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate goes against the very foundation of America.

Democracy is one of the strongest ideologies in our nation. There is no reason that those who live in our nation's capital, the heart of our democratic world, should not get to participate in that.

Debate of the Century?

There has been a continuing drop in news readership and viewship over the last decade or so, particularly among young adults.

It seems that everyone in the media and those who study the media are particularly fascinated by the trend. Those who own newspapers and television stations are trying desperately to entice audiences to return to their programming. Those who study the media are analyzing trends and making theories as to why people are no longer paying attention.

One person who hasn't been losing ground in the viewship battle is Jon Stewart. Stewart's television program, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, is a hit on Comedy Central. The Daily Show is a parodied news program that gets rave reviews for it's comical twist to real stories.

The polar opposite of the Daily Show, is the godfather of news stations, CNN. Particularly, CNN's political coverage with programs like The Situation Room. The man behind the Situation Room, and all of CNN's political programming is CNN Political Director, Sam Feist.

Now, with the presidential primaries around the corner, candidates are in full campaign mode and have been for months. Feist brags that CNN alone is hosting nine debates for the presidential hopefuls,including one earlier this year on YouTube.

As interesting as presidential debates are, I think a debate between Stewart and Feist would trump all.

In a 2004 C-SPAN interview (video) Stewart berated the media industry, saying that reporters were lazy and organizations were more interested in earning money than serving the public.

Stewart referred to presidential debates, the ones that Feist thinks so highly of, as horseraces. He argued that they are merely political pundits who've fed their words to the candidates, and the public doesn't really get anything out of the scripted banter.

Stewart also said in the same interview that CNN is no longer the tough, go to newstation it once was.

"CNN has the saying, 'CNN, news you can depend on.'" Stewart said. "Well guess what, I've watched CNN and no you can't!"

Feist has taken a few jabs at Stewart and his audience as well. He said that he doesn't understand why people watch the show. He personally does not like it.

In a speech earlier this month Feist said, "I don't know how people can watch that show. It's not real!"

In the end, it all comes down to what each feels they are offering the viewer. Feist believes they are drawing in a younger audience with their Election Express. They are conducting focus groups and doing in-depth research. Although, their idea of in-depth research is debunking the Obama Madrassa story Perhaps if they put as much work into their every day issues, people could be informed again.

Stewart, on the other hand, is reaching viewers. They are drawn to his witty bashing of the candidates and over the top anecdotes. How much they actually learn about current events and the presidential candidates is questionable.

Feist and Stewart should go head to head in the media battle and argue it out about the affective way to reach young viewers and what is wrong with the media today. That would be a debate worth watching.

Genres of journalism begin to blend

There are several genres to jounalism today. News, editorial, lifestyles and sports are some of the most popular.

As with movie genres, each has its distinct characteristics, a typical iconography. The lifestyles section includes feature stories, profile pieces, and movie reviews. This where you find the 'feel good' stories.

The news section includes breaking stories. Crime and politics are hot topics. These are front page articles. They are likely to have the greatest impact on readers.

The editorial page is where you find the witty columnists who usually have strong opinions on one side of the political spectrum or the other. Other op-ed writers simply provide their insight on life or the local community.

Lately, there has been a shift to a new type of journalism genre known as news analysis. News analysis typically involves a reporter writing a hard news story, but including his or her editorial sense.

In a recent article in the New York Times , author Adam Liptak, used news analysis in his coverage of a Senate hearing. Liptak does report the facts from the hearing, but he throws in subtle opinion in comments like the nominee for attorney general "seemed so pleased," and things were perfectly aligned.

News analysis has grown out of the use of political pundits by papers and news broadcasts. Pundits are experts that media organizations use to break down or analyze certain situations, particularly decisions made by the government.

O'Shaunessey and Stadler stated that sometimes genres change and evolve to keep up to date. The news genre of journalism is evolving to include reporter bias. I think this it's the media organizations' attempt to cater to a new audience's desire to have everything shown from their perspective.

News analysis reflects a media that is unwilling to simply provide the facts. It also feels that it must interpret those facts for the public, rather than letting us come to conclusions on our own.

Apple Ad Paints Hilary as a Big Brother Wannabe

In class we have been talking about culture-jamming and media activism. According to O'Shaugnessy and Stadler, culture jamming is a form of media activism that subverts and reworks the intended meaning of existing media texts. This form of activism often involves parodies.

One form of culture jamming discussed in the book is adbusting. People modify advertisements to undermine their intended meaning.

Similarly, people can alter a popular ad to give it an implied meaning.

Take for example, an famous Apple advertisement from the 1984 Superbowl. The commercial shows men, all dressed in the same prison-type, uniform marching down a long dark hallway. A woman dressed in bright clothes is running down a similar hallway carrying a sledge hammer. The men enter a room single-file and sit down in front of a large screen where an angry man is shouting. The men all stare at the screen as if absorbing the message. The woman runs into the room being chased by police, but before they can catch her she shatters the screen and a message about Apple appears.

On January 24th Apple Computer will introduce Macintosh. And you'll see why 1984 won't be like "1984."

Essentially, the ad is saying that Apple's new Macintosh computer would save us from the totalitarian society described in George Orwell's novel, 1984.

More recently, a similar adverisement was posted on YouTube. In fact, it was the exact same ad, but with a few major adjustments.

It starts off the same way, with the men marching and the woman running down the gloomy hallway. She's wearing a similar outfit to that of the lady in the first ad, accept that she has an Apple iPod on her waist and a Barack Obama symbol on her shirt.

Instead of listening to an evil dictator, the men are absorbing the words of Hilary Clinton.

After the woman breaks the screen a message comes up that says,

On January 14th the Democratic primary witll begin and you'll see why 2008 won't be like "1984".

The advertisement, which was created by Obama for America, was clearly trying to relate the idea of Clinton as president to having a totalitarian leader.

The Obama for America campaign was using media activism to portray a very negative image of Hilary Clinton.

The nature of the ad also ties into the idea of hegemony, dominant ideology, and interpolation.

First, Clinton appears to be forcing her ideas on the masses by making them sit in this room and listen to her speak. It is almost as if they have been brain-washed into believing everything she says.

Second, Clinton is trying to impress upon the people her own ideologies. Clinton says, "I don't want people who already agree with me. I want honest, serious, patriotic, hardworking people."

She keeps talking about the conversation they are having together, but really it is her speaking to them without any opportunity for feedback.

Finally, there is a point in the commercial where Clinton says, "I want people who want to be part of a team, the American team."

She is addressing the people as part of her team, so they will feel included and not question her motives.

The Obama for America campaign used an already popular commercial to portray a negative image of Hilary Clinton in an attempt to make her appear like a dictator from a "Big Brother" society. The ad has obviously caught on, with over 3.7 million views and 13,500 comments on You Tube since it was posted in March of this year.

The real test for advertisments such as these is not whether or not they are popular but how much of an impact they have on the audience.

Journalist was within her rights

This week in class we discussed whether journalist Elise Ackerman of Oakland had the right to write a letter to the mayor of her city and send it not only to the mayor, but also to the editors of the newspaper she works for and other local newspapers.

I think that Ackerman had every right to send that letter. As a concerned citizen of her community, she should be able to express her beliefs regarding the mayors handling for crime in Oakland. She does not lose that right simply because she is a journalist.

I think it could be argued that she has a responsibility to speak up if she feels something is wrong. She gave sound evidence in her letter of issues that need to be addressed. She gave examples of times when the police have not been able to act accordingly to crimes.

Ackerman was not the only resident of Oakland to create an anti-Dellums website. According to an article in the Alameda Times-Star, at least two other similar domain names had been purchased with the same intent.

I understand that Ackerman needs to check her feelings at the door when she goes to work. It is important for her to remain objective. However, Ackerman covers technology for the Mercury News. Such a beat relates little to Ackerman's feelings as a concerned resident of Oakland.

It might not have been in Ackerman's best interests as a writer to create such a firestorm, but she still has that right, and she will have to take responsibility for her actions.

I don't think it would be any different than if say a local store owner published a similar letter. He has every right to do so, and people who disagree with him have every right to stop shopping at his store.

People who disagree with Ackerman have every right to stop reading her articles. If the Mercury News' ratings begin to fall as a result of her speaking out against the mayor, they might have reason to take action against Ackerman. Until then, she has every right to speak her mind, especially about an issue as important as this.

Football picture not too shocking.

When the Carroll High School football team took their team picture in late August, no one could predict the controversy that was to follow.

The picture set off an uproar after three of the football players made an obscene hand gesture in the picture. The three players made the shocker gesture, a sign considered derogatory towards women because of its obscene sexual nature.

The photo was to appear in the local Daily Times Herald newspaper. Instead of retaking the picture or not publishing it at all, the paper decided to blur out those players.

The editor's reasoning was that they did not want to waste the team's time or the newspaper's time or resources. Ann Wilson, who owns the newspaper said they would do the same for any type of gesture, even a "thumbs up" sign.

The administration suspended the boys from one game and required them to write an apology to the newspaper and the photographers. When the players' parents learned that the game they'd be sitting out was against cross-town rival Kuemper Catholic High School, they complained that the punishment was too harsh.

As reported in the Daily Times Herald article, "School board reduces players' suspensions", parents of the punished players spoke out against the administration's decision.

Dan Stevens said that they didn't mean for it to be disrespectful. He claimed they were imitading a gesture done by other athletes. Duke basketball star JJ Redick has been known to make the gesture.

Mike Bach said that the symbol could have been interpreted several ways, as a "W" for win, as the number 7, or even as a symbol of love.

However, when the head football coach was asked if he thought the boys knew what the sign meant, he said yes.

Ultimately, the school board voted to reduce the boys' punishment to only a half-game suspension.

The boys' claim that they did not mean for the gesture to be rude shouldn't matter. The fact that they made a gesture that could have had a derogatory meaning should be cause enough for punishment.

This ordeal ties into our discussion of discourse and ideology. According to O'Shaughnessey and Stadler an ideology is "a set of social values, ideas, beliefs, feelings and representations, by which poeple collectively make sense of the world they live in."

First of all, the image of a football player has always been a tough, powerful, strong male. I think to a point a disrespect for women also goes along with the whole football player persona. It shouldn't, but there are often stories of star athletes who sleep with different women everywhere they play. Over the years, this idea has been molded.

One of the boys involved claimed that they had been using the gesture for so long that they never even thought about it. It seems it had become like second nature, which often happens with ideologies.

So, the highschool football players were most likely just trying to look tough. Essentially, they wanted to fit the ideology of a football player. It's the same reason athletes don't smile in their pictures. They aren't supposed to necessarily be happy, they're supposed to be intimidating.

Women have always been in this battle to gain respect as a gender. An ideology is not consciously thought out. People don't think twice when they see an athlete like JJ Redick make a shocker sign. He is an allstar, that's what allstars do.

If there is a negative ideology such as this, I think it is important to discourage it early. Those football players were punished, and the whole situation was surrounded in controversy. Now, everyone involved might think twice before using the shocker or any other derogatory symbol.

However, I think the fact that the boys had their punishment lessened is part of the ideology too. Athletes have been making those gestures for so long that most people don't even think twice about it. If the newspaper hadn't blurred out their images, it's possible that noone would have said anything.

This ideology was found in the representation of the shocker symbol. As it is a derogatory sign towards women, I believe that the boys deserved a harsher punishment than they received. However, I think that the ideologies of "boys will be boys", and the tough-guy image seem to override the idea of respect towards women.

Soft News is Driving Young Viewers Away

I'd like to expand on my idea from class, that it isn't necessarily the way the news is packaged, but the actual news that is being reported that is driving viewers away.

I think this holds true, because stunts like the nude news broadcasts and even news sites on the internet are not attracting viewers.

In a recent report, Doing Well and Doing Good: How Soft News and Critical Journalism Are Shrinking the News Audience and Weakening Democracy-And What News Outlets Can Do About It, Thomas Patterson from Harvard discusses how the downfall of journalists and the media to present quality products has aided in the loss of viewers.


In the report, Patterson sites a turn to soft news as one problem. Soft news is defined as news that highlights incidents anddevelopments that have little to do with public affairs and that are selected for their capacity to shock or entertain can distort people's perceptions of reality.

In contrast, hard news refers to coverage of breaking events involving top leaders, major issues,or significant disruptions in the routines of daily life, such as an earthquake or airline disaster.

The amount of soft news has increased, from less than 35% of stories in 1980, to around 50% today.
Soft news is associated with increased ratings, which explains why entertainment news is so popular. However, in Patterson's research, he discovered that a majority of people would rather hear about hard news stories.

In addition to soft news, the media has taken to providing a much more negative view of society. The place this is most evident is in politics.

In 1990, negative coverage of Congress was over 80%. Also, negative coverage of presidential candidates exceeds positive coverage.

Journalists and media outlets need to find new ways to reconnect with their audience. That has to include a trend change away from soft news.