Monday, March 30, 2015

Special Project

You are to analyze various news sources - at least 4 different sources. Record your observations & answer the following questions:
  1. What biases appear in the media regarding the branches of the federal
    government and interest groups?  
  2. What presidential and congressional actions seem to create the most media coverage?  
  3. Do you feel the media covers the most important issues?  If not, why not?
  4. What are your views of the President's and Congress's policies, including foreign policy, domestic policy and relations with the other branches of government? 
Dana Miller
Special Project

SOURCES:
1.      SALON. www.salon.com/category/politics
2.      NBC News. www.nbcnews.com/politics

OBSERVATIONS:
1.      SALON
This is a liberal/left website, and they have an entire section to discuss “the right”.
Many articles on the website showed a clear, and unashamed, bias against some interest groups, especially the GOP (and conservatives in general), among others like the NRA, Citizens United, National Right to Life, etc. Noticed one article that criticized the “conservative” Supreme Court of the US for the Citizens United v. FEC ruling. Throughout the entire website, much bias, not all unfair however, was seen. Most of it was toward conservative people, especially the idea that conservative interests are always money-focused or in the best interests of the wealthy.  There is a bias about conservatives that they are “anti-woman”. Words like “delusional”, “hypocrite”, “extreme religious views”, “blowhard”, “dubious”, “love Israel”, and “screw the environment” were used to describe conservatives or their views. This site knows it’s biased and is proud of it.
2.       NBC News
This is also a liberal website. However, at first glance, I saw a more balanced collection of reporting than on SALON. In one article, for instance, there was mention of a problematic headline for Hillary Clinton, as her organization-The Clinton Foundation, apparently unethically accepted an unsolicited donation of $500,000 from Algeria. The site is clearly against most things conservative, but not as one-sided as SALON. They took an opportunity from CPAC to poke fun at conservative Presidential hopefuls with a video of their smirks set to old-timey country music. Fairly balanced coverage of the Homeland Security Budget issues was found. Some statements were not in favor of the President, although many were. I found that the site had many posts in favor of equality which in a way might remove some social order. An example would be their positive coverage of Eric Holder calling for lower proof standards in civil rights cases. They frequently cover stories of GOP leader blunders, such as recent comments made by a lawmaker about female anatomy. There is great bias among liberal websites regarding their pro-choice views.
3.       NPR
NPR is a pretty neutral news source, funded by the government and all, however, I noticed that there were a lot of references to “conservatives” and no mention of “liberals”. It is almost like they want readers to identify or agree with their reporting and then to see conservatives as “the other guys” or as a group that readers are not a part of. Maybe this is due to the great partisan divide in Congress and the fact that our Legislative branch has a GOP majority and our Executive branch, namely our President, is Democrat. I notice strong equality themes in NPR and also a lot of legitimately balanced reporting as well.  Both NBC and NPR were less biased than Salon.
4.       FOX News
This is a conservative news outlet on the opposite end of the spectrum from the liberal ones. Not as harsh as SALON, but not quite as neutral in its views as NPR. Like SALON, they are not trying to hide their biases. It used the word “coffers” with a negative connotation to get across a negative slant on Obama’s affirmative action in regards to illegal immigrants, and the immigrants getting to go to college free here in America. They focus on some issues that other news stations ignore, for instance the Benghazi scandal which has been lightly reported by liberal news outlets, although I did see it mentioned on one of the liberal sites. I see a bit of a bias toward Christianity as there are mostly posts about Catholicism in their Religion page. FOX was the only major, fairly reliable news outlet that I found that did not bias toward the left.

DISCUSSION:
What biases appear in the media regarding the branches of the federal
government and interest groups?  
~In the media I see some biases regarding the executive branch from the Conservative side especially. They seem to be critical of his actions (not necessarily bad, since elected leaders must be accountable for their actions) especially regarding his foreign policy and immigration reform. I am not sure of the reason for this bias, maybe it is to get more GOP (interest group) support among voters, but after perusing the White House website, I see quite a bit of reasonable policy coming from the White House regarding the issues most criticized.  I see some bias however throughout the majority of media outlets toward the left/liberal direction. Judging from our close elections in recent years, the American people are not so shifted in majority. This denotes a bias.  The media, even if in minor ways, tend to support, or write about in more positive ways, typical liberal agenda, i.e. abortion, equality, higher taxation of the rich, entitlements, political correctness, civil rights, immigration reform, and much more.
The biggest means of biases I saw was a bias against interest groups.  I felt that most criticisms and biases arise when a person (i.e. President, lawmaker, member of executive branch, etc.), group of persons (i.e. Supreme Court judges, Senate majority, etc.), or interest group (GOP, Democratic Party, Nat’l. Right to Life Committee, Planned Parenthood Action Fund, etc.) is polarized into “liberal” or “conservative” camps. Then once labeled, the respective news sources keep those labels and take sides. Partisanship and “liberal vs. conservative” were definitely the number 1 and 2 avenues of biases I saw. 
I’d like to take a moment to note an interesting confirmation I found after I had answered this question and done my research: http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664 is an article I ran across while studying for this special project. Although published in 2005, I feel that it still reflects what I have seen in doing this project. I thought it was worth mentioning.
What presidential and congressional actions seem to create the most media coverage?  
~The actions of the President and Congress which seem to generate the most media coverage are ones that are hot-button issues of the day. Anything that will bring about a buzz. Some major topics include: immigration(like Obama’s recent executive order), foreign policy(currently ISIL/middle-eastern issues), anything to do with LGBT rights/civil liberties/abortion/voter ID, funding/budget shortfalls, partisan conflicts, education reform(budgeting/common core), healthcare (Obamacare), and religious freedom/equality/extremism.
Do you feel the media covers the most important issues?  If not, why not?
~Yes and no. The important issues are covered, but honestly, you have to dig through so much soft news, that it is sometimes hard to find the stories you’d like to read. Some examples: #TheDress-is it gold and white or black and blue? or the inevitable “5 Sex Secrets” articles and celebrity gossip in many news outlets. I feel that news dilution by soft news is one of the major problems with media today. But this will not go away any time soon, because the public enjoys the “wow!” stories so much.
What are your views of the President's and Congress's policies, including foreign policy, domestic policy, and relations with the other branches of government? 
               ~I will openly admit that I am a bit confused on what to believe at this point in some areas. I like reading the www.congress.gov website and the www.whitehouse.gov website for information because I know that the only slant that I will encounter is that the government officials are doing just the right thing. I can anticipate that and think for myself. Navigating the media reports on these issues is more tricky, because it brings in many other slants, liberal v conservative, partisanship, personal opinions of reporters, and more. However I know that a free press is necessary to hold the government accountable and to have reports that are independent of direct government control. Knowing what I do now about bias on both sides of the liberal-conservative spectrum, but especially liberal bias, I struggle to bring forth a stable group of ideals for myself about the current foreign and domestic policy, and relations between the branches of government. However, upon researching, I do know some basics and will set them forth.
               My view of the President’s foreign policy, is positive. I have read his positions thoroughly on www.whitehouse.gov and am thankful that he is taking a stand against ISIL.  I think that the American government handled the Ebola outbreak efficiently, although the media would have had the public think otherwise and go into a panic. I do not appreciate the way that the media sensationalizes the issues of foreign policy. They instill much fear into citizens. I think that Congress, is also doing a decent job with their foreign policy. I appreciate the increased sanctions on North Korea, however, I am not very happy that the President and Congress are becoming more open to trade with Cuba, and that we are major trade partners with China. Both of those countries, and others, are extremely oppressive to their citizens and restrict freedoms extensively with their communist governments. I note that many upcoming bills in the Foreign Affairs category of Congress have to do with promoting peace, freedom, and equality in other countries. I agree that a peaceful world is a major part of maintaining security for our country. As long as international support does not take away from domestic needs, I am okay with this approach. Isolationism does not work in today’s connected world.
               My views on the current domestic policy of our President and Congress are more mixed. This is where the rubber often hits the road with the media. They have a hay-day with these issues. Domestic policy is the main stuff of our life in America. In Congress, it is divided into 6 main groups of issues. (1) Children and Families. I feel that the current approach to handling these issues is solid. The government seems to attempt to provide at least equality of opportunity to the disadvantaged. However, I feel that welfare is taken advantage of and needs greater oversight to prevent abuse by recipients. (2) Domestic Security and Immigration. This is also a tricky subject, however upon reading the President’s statements about Immigration, I tend to agree with what he is saying. However, media reports that crime rates in border areas is greatly increased and that it is a mess in those areas. Border security has been increased, but to what effect? How exactly does the President plan on implementing his plan to legalize certain immigrants and get them started paying taxes like they ought? There are a lot of unanswered questions for me in this area. As for domestic security, police brutality is a current issue that is ongoing. I feel that this, while immensely important to punish when it occurs, has been overblown by the media and also citizens. The majority of police officers are not racists and do not arbitrarily kill citizens. (3) Education and Labor. Obama is a huge proponent of education and Congress is currently working hard to continue improving our education system in America. I agree with Obama’s raising of the Pell Grant. This is immensely helpful. I am grateful for student aid offered to individuals today through government grants and loans. Obama has proposed free community college opportunity for all, and I am currently unsure about this as I wonder where the funding will come for such a thing. (4) Health Insurance and Financing. I am very disappointed that in the Land of the Free we are penalized for not purchasing health insurance. I understand why the legislation requires that, but am still disappointed that another way could not be found. I am also discouraged that the passing of the “Obamacare” Act was so disorganized and wrought with failures, although it has succeeded in being enacted. (5) Health Services and Research. Under this category, I am supportive for the most part of actions, but as has been recently in the media, am unsatisfied with the actions of our government regarding veteran’s health affairs. (6) Income Security. Social Security…I am not sure what to believe on this one. Conservative media uses this topic to vilify government spending on entitlements. “Will there be any Social Security money left when we retire?”, they ask. I truly don’t know.
               Relations with other branches of government can be tense at times. Most recently, the President’s veto of the Keystone pipeline bill is an example.  I see much partisan conflict, even on the part of the President between Congress. I wish that the different branches would try to compromise more with one another and stop the filibustering and delays to necessary funding and laws that need to be passed.  I think the media likes to cover these issues and use them to make one side or the other look bad. 

Web Critique 8

Website Name: Vote Smart www.votesmart.org
Operated By:  Center for National Independence in Politics
Funded By:  Contributions/Donations
            Project Vote Smart is a pretty large-scale organization which exists to inform voters of the views of politicians so that they don’t have to rely on emotional and manipulative campaigning tactics that fail to provide important information to voters.  This organization’s website is very user-friendly. On the home page, there is a prominent video player providing an introduction to the organization, a summary of its services, and a tutorial for the website.  The website has two different interactive tools for voters. One called VoteEasy helps you decide who to vote for in an upcoming election, and the other called Political Galaxy gives a visually appealing avenue for finding information on government leaders searchable by ZIP Code or by name.  I wish that more local politicians were included on the Political Galaxy and VoteEasy. Also, it was a bit annoying that there was no way to easily navigate back to the main site from Political Galaxy. Even hitting the back button did not take me back to the main site. One unique thing about this organization is that they have a phone number you can call at which a researcher will be available to instantly look up information for you. Visitors to the website can also register for myVoteSmart which lets you track changes or additional information on politicians of your choice. It would be helpful if there was actually some information on local officials. It seems that most effort is focused on federal leaders, understandably, however.  There is also a great amount of information for voters available through several links at the bottom of the home page. Something worth noting on a more critical side, is that there are many pop up requests for help (monetary, volunteer, etc.) while on the website. Since almost 95% of their revenue is generated from donations, it is necessary that they request monetary donations and volunteer help. Some site visitors may find this annoying, though. It didn’t really bother me or impede my viewing of the site. 

Discussion 8

Prompt: 
What five (or more) important traits or qualities do you want your elected representatives to have?  

My response: 
Five important traits I want my elected representatives to have:
(1) Track record of fiscal responsibility
(2) Love of our country and our people
(3) Pro-life/pro-woman
(4) Pro-education
(5) Works well to coordinate efforts regardless of partisan affiliation
(6) Makes sensible decisions
(7) Not capricious; stands firmly on principles

Instructor's Notes- Congress and the Presidency

Americans must consider carefully when making decisions about who to vote for and put into office in Congress and the White House.  We need to consider the traits that are most critical for a person to lead our nation. I personally want someone who is above average intelligence. I want someone with a clear vision and a steady hand as our Commander in Chief.  It is important to have a leader who understands international affairs and will not embarrass our country or get us into an unnecessary war. I feel it is important to have a leader who believes our government is important and understands its importance to the great majority of Americans. This is a very important decision.

The League of Women Voters is nonpartisan national organization and they actually have a guide online to assist people in this important decision making. They state:  “Candidates can be judged in two ways: the positions they take on issues and the leadership qualities and experience they would bring to the office. Your first step in picking a candidate is to decide the issues you care about and the qualities you want in a leader.

When you consider issues, think about community or national problems that you want people in government to address. Also consider what party the candidate belongs to and the typical stance the party takes on the issues. For example, you may be interested in national security, government funding for student loans or unemployment.”  You can see the full article at  http://www.lwv.org/content/how-judge-candidate (Links to an external site.)

Web Critique 7

Website Name: www.cfinst.org
Operated By:  The Campaign Finance Institute
Funded By:  Foundation grants, individual contributions
            The Campaign Finance Institute website is devoted to presenting online the research and education materials produced by the Institute. They describe themselves as “The Nation’s Leading Think Tank on Money in Politics in Federal and State Elections” and state that they are “Nonpartisan, Policy-Relevant and Timely” and are “Meeting Peer-Reviewed Standards” and “Serving Public Needs”. They have a plethora of useful information about campaign finance for Federal and State elections, including Presidential and Congressional elections.  Some types of research included are: analyses of money in elections both recent and historical, the cost of winning different types of elections (by year), information on small donors, including citizens, information on donor diversity, how campaign finance has changed over the years, particularly since the Citizens United case, implementation of 527 groups, and BCRA, the impacts of different theoretical changes in donations, and much more. They include a press section, easy email sign up, and tables and charts to help users view data over periods of time. I particularly appreciated the Law section, because they make it really simple and at-a-glance. I also appreciated the sections offering information and tools dedicated to citizens. Finally, a website that has high-level political material, but is also willing to offer education to regular citizens. 

Instructor's Notes- Interest Groups

Interest groups now have a tremendous influence on our government and you will learn about this as you study this chapter in the text this week and go through the class activities online. The activities of these interest groups not only affect the manner in which our nation is governed via our government, they can actually affect each one of us as citizens living in this country. Here is an interesting article that you should read and think about as you consider the many ways that interest groups spend their funds to influence and affect the American public. The article is entitled:


Discussion 7

Prompt: Should former members of Congress be free to become lobbyists once they leave office?

My response:
Yes, for two reasons. 
(1) To restrict this would be infringing the freedom of both the interest group and also the ex-Congressperson.
(2) The whole reason for hiring ex-members of Congress is that they are knowledgeable about how the government works. They are highly desired for their experience. It makes sense for interest groups to hire members of Congress. Interest groups are fine and are an important part of the pluralist model. We don't want unqualified people running interest groups in America. I think it's best if we have great minds working in the interest groups and then they can all duke it out together. :)

Discussion 6

Prompt: How should public elections be run?

My response:
I have seen a lot of dissent about the electoral college. Many think that elections should be determined by popular vote alone. However, I think that the general populace has proven that it isn't willing to put in the time required to study each candidate and the issues thoroughly enough to make a good decision. The general public is very easily swayed by media and pressure from others. For the presidential election, the electoral college is an attempt to compromise between general election and representatives electing the president. However the electors in the electoral college nearly always vote according to party lines since they are largely chosen by political party. I honestly feel okay about the technical way our elections are run because I think that they do strike a needed balance. I wish however that it were more clear or publicized widely who the electors are and how they were determined to be in that position. I also wish there were more propositions and referendums on big issues.

Instructor's Notes- Nominations, Elections, Campaigns

Instructor Notes for Chapter 9  Nominations, Elections, & Campaigns
This is always an exciting time to be studying campaigns and elections when the USA is approaching or in the midst of another long campaign. As was noted in the textbook, the USA system for choosing candidates for office is unlike the process most other nations engage in: the American electoral process is complex, time-consuming, and—for many citizens—ultimately confusing. I personally believe that we would all be well served if they would greatly shorten the campaign season and take the big money out of campaigns. Last week I pointed out that  the Corporate owned media in our country is a great disadvantage to citizens, but an even greater threat to our democracy is the Supreme Court Ruling that designated corporations as persons. 

Allowing corporations to spend unlimited money in campaigns without disclosing the donors until long after the election is essentially like allowing corporate interests to buy our government in the opinion of many scholars and others. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/30/citizens-united-justice-stevens_n_1557721.html (Links to an external site.)
Complete Text of Justice Stevens' Dissent on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission                http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/08-205P.ZX (Links to an external site.)
Try to pay more attention than usual at this time to what you read, see and hear concerning the election and the campaigns. Keep in mind what we learned about the various media outlets available in our study of the media and try to select the most credible sources to obtain information. Lastly, be sure that you are registered to vote in the upcoming election at
This link works for any address and any voter in the US. sponsored by League of Women Votershttp://www.vote411.org/ (Links to an external site.)  
If you don’t have a photo ID in the state of Kansas, you will not be able to vote this November. Hopefully, you have all heard about the laws recently passed in a number of states that have essentially restricted the vote. In my opinion, these new laws are ill-advised and wrong but barring court blocking them (not likely in Kansas) many states will be affected by these laws in the upcoming election. Here is a video that does not support the new voter ID laws.
Voter Protection or Voter Suppression? (Links to an external site.)   
Here is another short video on the money that is spent on campaigns - where does it all go anyway??

Web Critique 6

Website Name: Federal Election Commission www.fec.gov (Links to an external site.)
Operated By:  The Federal Election Commission
Funded By:  U.S. Government, allocated by Congress

The website of the Federal Election Commission is a great resource to anyone involved in elections: candidates, treasurers, organizations, attorneys, parties, donors, and more. Even the average citizen can gain some helpful information from the FEC website. For instance, the Quick Answers page offered me helpful information about election finance that I wasn’t aware of, and the library page (located at the bottom of the site) offered easy access to older publications. They have pretty full disclosure of financial matters all right there on their website. I felt that the FEC does help those closest involved with election finances by having all of this information available and easily accessible online. Especially for treasurers, they have a specific tips section to help them fulfill their legal obligations. I feel that one good addition may be to have a learning section for curious citizens. It was all very confusing for me, as I have little experience with organizational or election finances. If they truly want to offer full disclosure, it may be helpful to have a small part of their site devoted to helping people understand the basics of what they are presenting on their website.  They do have in their Press section, a tutorial for reporters to use the website, however something geared toward informing citizens would be great as well.