As of this afternoon the court upheld a 1981 law banning public radio/television stations from "from transmitting paid advertisements on behalf of political candidates, issues of public importance or interest and for-profit entities."
As I read this news on Reuters I thought: shouldn't this have been a no-brainer? Political smear campaigns are already polluting political elections on every other facet of media, shouldn't public broadcasting stations stand independent of these negative political tactics?
I had not learned until this year that political ads were banned in most other countries. Banned. And while some may argue this breaches the first amendment, I would argue that barring political ads would help our country.
Enough of these smear campaigns. Let voters go out to rallies, go online, find real, factual information for themselves and then make an educated vote.
Monday, December 2, 2013
Saturday, November 30, 2013
PostSecret
PostSecret is currently the largest advertisement-free blog in the world. Frank Warren is the founder and mastermind behind the website which is updated every Sunday with secrets (submitted via postcard) from around the world. All submitted secrets are completely anonymous and range from comedic to breathtakingly serious.
The site originally started off as an art exhibit in 2004 by founder Frank Warren and in 2007 he decided to experiment with making these secrets even more public. Warren started a blog on the popular site BlogSpot in 2007 and has been an international hit ever since. Warren has countless best-selling books full of these secrets and goes on tours across the world to share the secrets he has collected over the years. The site always displays the visitor count at the bottom of the page and the site has reached over 640 million people.
Warren has expanded PostSecret to all social media platforms and highly encourages user participation. Occasionally Warren will get a secret that he can not decode or translate and he throws it up on the PostSecret Facebook page and asks for the help of his followers.
PostSecret has always been one of my favorite blogs because of the raw honesty of the project as well as Warrens commitment to working with The National Suicide Prevention Hotline. So, go on and check out PostSecret every Sunday morning just like I do, send in a secret a two, maybe one day you'll see your very own postcard at the top of the page.
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
America Needs a Press Council
In class on Thursday we talked a little bit about how media can manipulate messages. Cutting and editing clips to make a soundbite which properly depicts the message the media is trying to get across has almost become commonplace in news outlets (unfortunately mainstream media are not the only guilty parties).
The big example of the day was a video of US Dept of Agriculture employee Shirley Sherrod at a NAACP speaking engagement. A website called biggovernment.com ran a clip from the speech and the lack of context made it out to seem as though Sherrod was a racist and deliberately helped white farmers to a lesser extent. This manipulative video caught on and as other news outlets ran the story Sherrod was eventually fired from her position only to be asked back when all the details were pieced together. Sherrod declined the offer.
Sherrod is not the only victim of this media manipulation. Stories are twisted to fit political agendas all the time which begs the question in my mind: where is the retribution? Even in smaller missteps by media such as misprints or inaccurate numbers there is no official punishment set in place. While some news stations do abide by the ethical principle of retractions just as many news stations do not.
During my time in Australia I took a journalism course called Press and Society. For my final paper I explored the Gillard government's attempt at media reform laws. These laws had a bunch of different proposals but I thought the most logical was the idea of an Australian Press Council that had legitimate power to punish the media for a failure of ethics or accuracy. Like in America, the majority of news outlets are owned by the media mogul Rupert Murdoch, which in turn leaves Australia with many of the same problems as America. Their media is highly concentrated and intensely infiltrated by vested interests.
The Australian Press Council as it functions now (the media reform package was shot down in late march) acts as a more symbolic body. The APC can send out letters of disapproval or suggestions of how to address discrepancies in reporting but in actuality they have no real power to enforce any kind of action. Perhaps even more ironically the Press Council is funded mainly by the papers that it has been created to monitor, putting the APC in a sticky situation. If the APC was to fire out harsh crackdowns (despite the fact that they would not have any real legitimacy) they could risk losing funding and potentially shut down for good. So, the ever-growing conundrum of a media without regulation lives on in Australia.
The same issue rings loud and clear all the way on the other side of the world. While there has been no real solid proposal for media regulation in America to my knowledge I think this is something that needs to be legitimately addressed. A lot of the argument against media regulation in Australia centered around the reluctance of both journalists and citizens to have government oversight into the press. However, the Gillard government repeatedly assured that this new Press Council would be elected democratically and be free of government attachments.
While it is hard to guarantee such strings-attached representatives it is undoubtable in my mind that there needs to be some sort of penalty for missteps by the media. When the mainstream media today is largely functioning as an arm of the government there should be some form of outside ombudsmen to make sure innocent people like Shirley Sherrod are not painted to be something they are not by way of savvy video-editing and sneaky omissions of fact. And that if this kind of unethical behavior flies under the radar that it is addressed quickly in a highly visible retraction/formal apology to the parties affected.
The big example of the day was a video of US Dept of Agriculture employee Shirley Sherrod at a NAACP speaking engagement. A website called biggovernment.com ran a clip from the speech and the lack of context made it out to seem as though Sherrod was a racist and deliberately helped white farmers to a lesser extent. This manipulative video caught on and as other news outlets ran the story Sherrod was eventually fired from her position only to be asked back when all the details were pieced together. Sherrod declined the offer.
Sherrod is not the only victim of this media manipulation. Stories are twisted to fit political agendas all the time which begs the question in my mind: where is the retribution? Even in smaller missteps by media such as misprints or inaccurate numbers there is no official punishment set in place. While some news stations do abide by the ethical principle of retractions just as many news stations do not.
During my time in Australia I took a journalism course called Press and Society. For my final paper I explored the Gillard government's attempt at media reform laws. These laws had a bunch of different proposals but I thought the most logical was the idea of an Australian Press Council that had legitimate power to punish the media for a failure of ethics or accuracy. Like in America, the majority of news outlets are owned by the media mogul Rupert Murdoch, which in turn leaves Australia with many of the same problems as America. Their media is highly concentrated and intensely infiltrated by vested interests.
The Australian Press Council as it functions now (the media reform package was shot down in late march) acts as a more symbolic body. The APC can send out letters of disapproval or suggestions of how to address discrepancies in reporting but in actuality they have no real power to enforce any kind of action. Perhaps even more ironically the Press Council is funded mainly by the papers that it has been created to monitor, putting the APC in a sticky situation. If the APC was to fire out harsh crackdowns (despite the fact that they would not have any real legitimacy) they could risk losing funding and potentially shut down for good. So, the ever-growing conundrum of a media without regulation lives on in Australia.
The same issue rings loud and clear all the way on the other side of the world. While there has been no real solid proposal for media regulation in America to my knowledge I think this is something that needs to be legitimately addressed. A lot of the argument against media regulation in Australia centered around the reluctance of both journalists and citizens to have government oversight into the press. However, the Gillard government repeatedly assured that this new Press Council would be elected democratically and be free of government attachments.
While it is hard to guarantee such strings-attached representatives it is undoubtable in my mind that there needs to be some sort of penalty for missteps by the media. When the mainstream media today is largely functioning as an arm of the government there should be some form of outside ombudsmen to make sure innocent people like Shirley Sherrod are not painted to be something they are not by way of savvy video-editing and sneaky omissions of fact. And that if this kind of unethical behavior flies under the radar that it is addressed quickly in a highly visible retraction/formal apology to the parties affected.
You Could be the Next Fantasy Football
Reading this blog post about entrepreneurial journalism by Jeff Jarvis really got me thinking about the idea of originality today. It's not uncommon to hear the concept that "nothing is original nowadays" but how true does this statement ring? This article was full of new markets that were just waiting to be filled by entrepreneurs such as these young journalism kids.
Professor Mead Loop spoke in my journalism ethics a month ago about the Fantasy Football section of journalism. This is a legitimate (not to mention well-paying) subdivision of sports journalism that did not exist ten years ago. Credible news organizations such as The Washington Post and The New York Times have writers designated to cover this beat of journalism.
Up and coming journalists (like us) should be on the look-out for markets like fantasy football. These unfulfilled bubbles in the market are where opportunities lie in the future of journalism. Who knows? Ten years from now we could be covering one of the hottest beats for the NY times, perhaps a beat that we have no idea even exists today.
Professor Mead Loop spoke in my journalism ethics a month ago about the Fantasy Football section of journalism. This is a legitimate (not to mention well-paying) subdivision of sports journalism that did not exist ten years ago. Credible news organizations such as The Washington Post and The New York Times have writers designated to cover this beat of journalism.
Wednesday, November 13, 2013
Comedy and News: The New 'It' Couple.
One of our very own Ithaca College students has hit it big! Huffington-Post blog big that is. This afternoon Ithaca College junior, Cain Azar, was featured on the Huffington Post for one of his vlogging videos regarding safe-sex practices.
This video might take a funny tone about the issue but this is yet another example of vloggers using their following on YouTube as leverage to discuss important issues. This particular video from Cain is very reminiscent of fellow vlogger Philly D. who used his comical tone to discuss the real issue of pepper-spraying during peaceful demonstrations.
Perhaps comedy is the way to catch the attention of people today. I can't even count the number of times that kids in my intro politics classes have said that The Daily Show or The Colbert Report were their main source of news (often followed by a hesitant giggle). And really, what is wrong with that? A lot of the issues being faced today are hard, oftentimes even depressing so why not take these issues, report on them but give them a funny twist so that people are being informed without feeling like they want to jump off a bridge? I say power to satirical news-tellers, they are modernizing the packaging of news one snarky comment at a time.
This video might take a funny tone about the issue but this is yet another example of vloggers using their following on YouTube as leverage to discuss important issues. This particular video from Cain is very reminiscent of fellow vlogger Philly D. who used his comical tone to discuss the real issue of pepper-spraying during peaceful demonstrations.
Perhaps comedy is the way to catch the attention of people today. I can't even count the number of times that kids in my intro politics classes have said that The Daily Show or The Colbert Report were their main source of news (often followed by a hesitant giggle). And really, what is wrong with that? A lot of the issues being faced today are hard, oftentimes even depressing so why not take these issues, report on them but give them a funny twist so that people are being informed without feeling like they want to jump off a bridge? I say power to satirical news-tellers, they are modernizing the packaging of news one snarky comment at a time.
Sunday, November 10, 2013
Brave New Films: A Catalyst for Change
At the screening of two Brave New Film documentaries this Friday I started getting irritated by the amount of empty seats in the auditorium. I kept thinking back to when Dave Franco and Christopher Mintz-Plasse came to campus. It was a madhouse. People lined up for tickets to get into the presentation at 6 am, the auditorium was jam-packed.
I guess it might sound a little bit dramatic but I was getting furious that the auditorium was not filled for these documentaries. Who really deserves to be revered? A couple of guys who star in movies about drinking and smoking or a man who dedicates his life to unearthing the truth about real hard-hitting issues?
My emotions aside, I could not believe how informative and disturbing the drones documentary truly was. I thought I had a somewhat solid grasp on how drones were used by the US air force but I was considerably far off. When the former air-force member mentioned that drone cameras are capable of seeing a soccer ball, I was blown away. I had always thought that the visibility of objects on drone cameras were weak at best. In my head this explained (but did not justify) the high number of casualties.
The fact that we use drones at our own discretion is deplorable. It sounds cliche but one thing is undoubtedly true: violence breeds more violence. We are single-handedly fueling the fire of anti-American sentiment abroad by killing and maiming innocent civilians.
Kids. School teachers. Tribal leaders. All targeted with no legitimate reason. There needs to be an end to this. We are digging ourselves in a hole so deep that finding our way out might just prove impossible.
Brave New Films is such an inspiring Indy Media organization. Their documentaries (from what I've seen) strike a brilliant balance between factual and emotional testimonies to the horrors of largely ignored issues.
This is a personal opinion but I think there is a revolution brewing. Something that is a long-time in the making and I think indy media sites like Brave News Films are beginning to become a catalyst for change. Something needs to change. We are at a boiling point and its only a matter of time before Americans reach their final straw and something tips the pot.
I guess it might sound a little bit dramatic but I was getting furious that the auditorium was not filled for these documentaries. Who really deserves to be revered? A couple of guys who star in movies about drinking and smoking or a man who dedicates his life to unearthing the truth about real hard-hitting issues?
My emotions aside, I could not believe how informative and disturbing the drones documentary truly was. I thought I had a somewhat solid grasp on how drones were used by the US air force but I was considerably far off. When the former air-force member mentioned that drone cameras are capable of seeing a soccer ball, I was blown away. I had always thought that the visibility of objects on drone cameras were weak at best. In my head this explained (but did not justify) the high number of casualties.
The fact that we use drones at our own discretion is deplorable. It sounds cliche but one thing is undoubtedly true: violence breeds more violence. We are single-handedly fueling the fire of anti-American sentiment abroad by killing and maiming innocent civilians.
Kids. School teachers. Tribal leaders. All targeted with no legitimate reason. There needs to be an end to this. We are digging ourselves in a hole so deep that finding our way out might just prove impossible.
Brave New Films is such an inspiring Indy Media organization. Their documentaries (from what I've seen) strike a brilliant balance between factual and emotional testimonies to the horrors of largely ignored issues.
This is a personal opinion but I think there is a revolution brewing. Something that is a long-time in the making and I think indy media sites like Brave News Films are beginning to become a catalyst for change. Something needs to change. We are at a boiling point and its only a matter of time before Americans reach their final straw and something tips the pot.
Whistleblowers: The Real American Heroes
For my Politics Seminar this semester I'm doing a research paper on modern activism in America, essentially examining whether or not activism is dead in America. The screening of War on Whistleblowers really brought this paper to the front of my mind.
During the Vietnam era the release of Daniel Ellsberg's Pentagon Papers added fuel to the already burning fire of activism and protests against the war. But do whistle-blowers today have the same affect on protests and political mobilization of the masses? Where has the activism gone on college campuses?
Perhaps the framing of whistleblowers as unpatriotic/betrayers of our country has severely affected the mindset of the American people. According to TheEconomicCollapse.com, the average American citizen tends to consume 153 hours of television a month. Most of these average Americans consume and believe what the mainstream media presents to them. Assuming no further investigation is done in relation to the news outside of what the mainstream media is presenting, most Americans would be more concerned with capturing and jailing whistleblowers oppose to listening to what their leaks said and how it affects their every day life.
In simpler terms: the mainstream media squashes the American spirit of rebellion by framing whistleblowers in a negative light. This undoubtedly plays a major role in activism. Whistleblowers should be commended. They should be acknowledged as bold heroes not framed as criminals that need to flee the country. Releasing important information that is directly pertinent to the lives of American citizens is not treason it is patriotic. Perhaps if we flipped this perception of whistleblowers as evil or bad or wrong then the American people would start listening to what these whistleblowers have to say and consequently get upset enough to do something about it.
During the Vietnam era the release of Daniel Ellsberg's Pentagon Papers added fuel to the already burning fire of activism and protests against the war. But do whistle-blowers today have the same affect on protests and political mobilization of the masses? Where has the activism gone on college campuses?
Perhaps the framing of whistleblowers as unpatriotic/betrayers of our country has severely affected the mindset of the American people. According to TheEconomicCollapse.com, the average American citizen tends to consume 153 hours of television a month. Most of these average Americans consume and believe what the mainstream media presents to them. Assuming no further investigation is done in relation to the news outside of what the mainstream media is presenting, most Americans would be more concerned with capturing and jailing whistleblowers oppose to listening to what their leaks said and how it affects their every day life.
In simpler terms: the mainstream media squashes the American spirit of rebellion by framing whistleblowers in a negative light. This undoubtedly plays a major role in activism. Whistleblowers should be commended. They should be acknowledged as bold heroes not framed as criminals that need to flee the country. Releasing important information that is directly pertinent to the lives of American citizens is not treason it is patriotic. Perhaps if we flipped this perception of whistleblowers as evil or bad or wrong then the American people would start listening to what these whistleblowers have to say and consequently get upset enough to do something about it.
Does Objectivity Affect Substance?
We talked a little bit about the political spectrum and where journalists should or shouldn't fall on this scale. The whole concept of centralism really struck me as interesting: the idea that objectivity is not obtainable no matter where you identify yourself. If you are a journalist that claims to report right down the middle with no biased-lean to either side then you are inevitably making yourself centrally-biased.
As our professor Jeff Cohen said: "That's not political journalism that is merely more stenography for those in power."
So, how do you stay objective in journalism? David Carr in his article about objectivity in journalism in the NY Times pointed out that sometimes a balancing act in articles can read as if you are dancing around the issue and not making any real headway.
This makes for wish-washy articles with no substance. So, how do you stay relatively neutral on subjects while providing legitimate analysis for your readers?
Maybe you don't. Neutrality is good in hard news stories, sensationalism is obviously problematic but with political journalism a stance sometimes need to be taken. Standing in the middle of the political spectrum gets you no-where. As I've mentioned before maybe a disclaimer could help remedy this problem or perhaps it will merely discredit journalistic work. Regardless I think all news needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Read up on the journalists you get your news from. Try and discover their stance and then take their reporting for what it is.
In my opinion objectivity is never truly possible but there are ways to report without becoming an PR writer for your political ideology.
As our professor Jeff Cohen said: "That's not political journalism that is merely more stenography for those in power."
So, how do you stay objective in journalism? David Carr in his article about objectivity in journalism in the NY Times pointed out that sometimes a balancing act in articles can read as if you are dancing around the issue and not making any real headway.
This makes for wish-washy articles with no substance. So, how do you stay relatively neutral on subjects while providing legitimate analysis for your readers?
Maybe you don't. Neutrality is good in hard news stories, sensationalism is obviously problematic but with political journalism a stance sometimes need to be taken. Standing in the middle of the political spectrum gets you no-where. As I've mentioned before maybe a disclaimer could help remedy this problem or perhaps it will merely discredit journalistic work. Regardless I think all news needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Read up on the journalists you get your news from. Try and discover their stance and then take their reporting for what it is.
In my opinion objectivity is never truly possible but there are ways to report without becoming an PR writer for your political ideology.
Wednesday, November 6, 2013
Activism in Journalists: Can they Co-exist?
An article in the NY times by David Carr called the age-old debate of objectivity in journalism into question. The question this particular article brought up to me was: Does an activist fundamentally make a good journalist?
I think yes. I feel like my intense interest in political issues/social rights movements is what led me to ultimately study journalism in the first place. Doesn't that kind of drive and passion make up the best reporting?
There is obviously a line to be drawn and precautions to be taken. A warning of biases perhaps? But as Glenn Greenwald points out:
I think yes. I feel like my intense interest in political issues/social rights movements is what led me to ultimately study journalism in the first place. Doesn't that kind of drive and passion make up the best reporting?
There is obviously a line to be drawn and precautions to be taken. A warning of biases perhaps? But as Glenn Greenwald points out:
“It is a matter of being honest or dishonest. All activists are not journalists, but all real journalists are activists. Journalism has a value, a purpose — to serve as a check on power.”
Saturday, November 2, 2013
Bill Jacobson of Legal Insurrection
In class on Tuesday we got the chance to talk to the founder of conservative independent blog Legal Insurrection, Bill Jacobson. In our discussion we got to hear about numerous insights to the pros and cons of starting your own blog as well as the hardships that being an independent blog-owner can present. Bill, being a professor at Cornell, really emphasized the backlash he faced professionally. As most colleges are, Cornell tends to be a predominantly liberal campus and upon reading his conservative views on Legal Insurrection many parents and students wrote (sometimes harsh) letters condemning his view points.
Bill also was careful to point out that blogs (that are looking to become high-traffic sites) need to be posting at least 3-4 times a day. "People are looking for fresh content" said Bill, "if there isn't any they won't come back to your site."
Other than the insider insight on how to create a successful blog I found a few points particularly interesting throughout our open-talk. One being the problem with the google algorithm. When scrolling through the Legal Insurrection blog we found two ads for Hillary Clinton's campaign, asking for support and donations. Being a specifically conservative/right-wing site this was very strange. Bill pointed out that this happens a lot. Google's algorithm factors in how much certain names or phrases are mentioned to produce ads for your site. So, despite the fact that when Bill writes about Hilary or other left-wing political players of the sort it tends to be negative, Google takes this as a sign to advertise left-wing ads on his site.
Perhaps the most important take-away I got from this talk was that marking politically-driven, truth-telling journalists as "extremists"is not a strictly left-wing problem. An earlier post on my blog talked about how many critics of Izzy Stone and or subjects of his investigative journalism (which actually tended to be one in the same) wrote him off as an "extremist" or a "crazy left-wing liberal." Bill discussed how Legal Insurrection was at the forefront of coverage on the Elizabeth Warren v Scott Brown campaign in Massachusetts. Bill was consistent in calling out Elizabeth Warren on her bluffs and painting a factual picture of her relation to the Native American community. The Warren campaign was quick to label Bill as a "far-right extremist" and write off his reporting as an extension of those beliefs. This re-affirms that regardless of the political side the ugly truth being exposed by journalists is never welcomed and is usually written off by throwing out labels like "extremist" in an attempt to discredit their reporting.
Lastly, I just want to mention my favorite quote from the discussion. Bill spent quite a bit of time discussing how he deals with inappropriate comments as well as the bad-intentioned users who produce them. At one point Bill talked about emails he had received from angry users who had been blocked from commenting on the site due to inappropriate comments. A lot of the users accused Bill of silencing their freedom of speech to which Bill replied "I'm not silencing your speech, you just can't come into my house and say it."
Saturday, October 26, 2013
Malala Takes a Stand
Malala Yousafzai recently made a trip to the United States. Along with countless interviews, Malala got the chance to meet with President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama. Malala is the youngest nominee for the Nobel Peace Prize, at the young age of 16, after standing up to Taliban members and being shot in the head. Malala believes strongly in the power of education and this sentiment was what ultimately got her shot. The press heavily covered every step of Malala's trip to the US however it seems like one major statement by Malala has fallen through the cracks in mainstream media.
During her visit to the White House, Malala praised Obama for his work in supporting education in Pakistan and Afghanistan but went on to urge him to end the Drone war. "I expressed my concerns that drone attacks are fueling terrorism" said Malala. "Innocent victims are killed in these acts, and they lead to resentment among the Pakistani people. If we refocus efforts on education it will make a big impact."
Once again, anti-US sentiment has been stifled by the press. This statement should be making headlines across the country. If a 16-year old standing up to the President of the United States is not newsworthy than I am not sure what is.
IC Student Turns to Kickstarter for Independent Documentary
We discussed the website KickStarter.com in class on Thursday and I was reminded of a current IC student that has her very own Kickstart page for her two documentary films on the Ancient Ecosystems of Vancouver Island. She has actually exceeded her goal of $2,000 and began filming this past summer.
I thought her page was very interesting in how it not only asked for donations from Kickstarter donors but asked page visitors to share the project on social media and get the word out.
I had first heard about Kickstarter in my senior year of high school from a close friend and I think the idea of community members coming together to fund important projects (that otherwise might not have the opportunity to be created) is fascinating and just another example of the power of the internet.
I thought her page was very interesting in how it not only asked for donations from Kickstarter donors but asked page visitors to share the project on social media and get the word out.
I had first heard about Kickstarter in my senior year of high school from a close friend and I think the idea of community members coming together to fund important projects (that otherwise might not have the opportunity to be created) is fascinating and just another example of the power of the internet.
Friday, October 25, 2013
Russell Brand Speaks Up
Russell Brand was recently co-editor of New Statesman's just published revolution-themed issue. In this interview Brand harps on the current state of the political system and fights Paxman's attempt to trivialize the issue at hand. I think this is a great example of mainstream media attempting to belittle the work of independent voices within independent media.
Monday, October 14, 2013
Why has leftist become synonymous with radical?
As I sit here and write my paper on the legendary I.F. Stone Weekly the idea of bias in newspaper writing continues to be cited as a "problem" with Izzy's work and I can't help but ask myself the questions: How can a man with no political affiliation be accused of bias? How can a man who criticizes politicians and their policies irregardless of their political affiliation be accused of having a leftist slant?
More often than not I feel as though any publication that prints the truth or disproves the mainstream media are accused of being crazy left-wing advocates. Since when has the truth become 1) a bad thing and 2) negatively tied to the left-side of the political spectrum?
The best answer I can come up with is that the government and mainstream media (which today are really one in the same) have worked to create an image of the nut-job left-wing radical and now when there are ugly truths uncovered they merely chalk it up to conspiracies or exaggerations cooked up by these left-wing liberals.
Being from a largely republican town, I had one teacher (for International Relations) that was very clearly left-wing. Most kids chalked up his rants and teachings to crazy talk (mainly because they only knew how to regurgitate what their parents said and their parents were merely regurgitating the mainstream media). But as I continue with my college education I am realizing more and more that Mr. Jean wasn't some crazy long-haired hippy strung out on conspiracy theories but rather someone who actually knew what he was talking about.
What I'm getting at here is that people should be careful when they hear things being written off in the news because the news is often writing off the truth.
More often than not I feel as though any publication that prints the truth or disproves the mainstream media are accused of being crazy left-wing advocates. Since when has the truth become 1) a bad thing and 2) negatively tied to the left-side of the political spectrum?
The best answer I can come up with is that the government and mainstream media (which today are really one in the same) have worked to create an image of the nut-job left-wing radical and now when there are ugly truths uncovered they merely chalk it up to conspiracies or exaggerations cooked up by these left-wing liberals.
Being from a largely republican town, I had one teacher (for International Relations) that was very clearly left-wing. Most kids chalked up his rants and teachings to crazy talk (mainly because they only knew how to regurgitate what their parents said and their parents were merely regurgitating the mainstream media). But as I continue with my college education I am realizing more and more that Mr. Jean wasn't some crazy long-haired hippy strung out on conspiracy theories but rather someone who actually knew what he was talking about.
What I'm getting at here is that people should be careful when they hear things being written off in the news because the news is often writing off the truth.
Signature Strikes
Yesterday I found myself on Brave New Foundation, one of the many indy media outlets we’ve examined over the semester. I began watching the featured video on signature strikes and there were a few quotes that really stuck out to me.
Lawrence B. Wilkerson, former chief of staff, speaks to the system with which we gauge the success or failures of war. As he draws parallels to the flawed system of measuring success by body count in the vietnam war he begins to evaluate the accuracy of drones in this capacity and poses this question: “Tell me how [we’re] winning if every time [we] kill one [we] create ten more?”
The sad reality of drones is that their accuracy is just not good enough. While it may seem to some Americans that this removed tactic of warfare creates minimal casualties on both sides of the fence, this is just not true. Civilian casualties are the norm in signature strikes.
The video comes to a close with a very powerful quote from Philip Alston of the UN: “"We got to get out of the mentality that you can shoot your way out of a terrorist war.”
I think this sums up the entire issue of the mentality of Americans in wartime. I will disclaim what I am about to say by adding that this tactic is much easier said than done but still I hold strong in believing this is the only way to logically end any war.
Americans thing that guns can do the talking for them but violence will only create anger and more rebellion against our forces.
We need to communicate with our opponents in any war. We need to take the time to understand their culture, learn their ways and their societal norms and then make attempts at counterinsurgency (a strategy of war-fighting that actively seeks to contain an insurgency that intends to overthrow the authority of the defending militant forces, COIN calls for soldiers to be on the ground and asks these soldiers become accustomed with civilians of the surrounding area).
I know that there are ulterior motives in our wars in the middle east but I would like to think that if we really wanted to get out of the war counterinsurgency would be the effective means to take. Drones and signature strikes make accidental targets of civilians and create a larger uprising against the US, they are in summation doing more harm than good and we need to eliminate this method of warfare.
Thursday, October 10, 2013
Saturday, October 5, 2013
Political Advertisements: Do Americans care about the truth?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)