Media's Presentation of Palin's Remarks

I found an interesting discrepancy in this morning's news. Much criticism has been aimed at Palin in the last few days, with many McCain supporters (and workers) leveling accusations at the running-mate that blame her for the loss of the presidential bid. If you haven't heard, these range from her apparently not understanding that Africa was a continent, which I have a very hard time believing, to being unprofessional with staff. She has finally begun speaking out against the accusations.

The Associated Press (AP) headline for this story is "Palin Denounces Anonymous Critics as 'Cowardly'" (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26500628/). However, the New York Times (NYT) is entitled "Palin Calls Critics among McCain Aides 'Jerks'" (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27602873/). What is interesting to me here is that both articles quote both lines. Yet, each author chose to emphasize one of the words in the headline.

The AP's choice of highlighting the word "cowardly" does not make Palin look like she is on the defensive. It is a much more neutral portrayal of the former VP candidate than the NYT's. Their choice to highlight her use of the word "jerk" does make Palin look bad. It is unstatesmanly to use this type of word and possibly highlights one of the reasons many felt Palin was unprepared for the job.

So when we look for bias in our research, it is important to notice not just which details are presented, because if we notice here, most of the details are the same in the two articles. Instead, we should also pay attention to which details are highlighted, in bigger type, towards the top of the article, included in captions, etc. That emphasis often will reveal an author's perspective.

Proposition Ads (95)

I think one of the most confusion-causing elements of the election are the ads describing the various propositions on the ballot. While they are supposed to be informative, they often instead just seem to contradict each other. I am sure that those who create these commercials sincerely believe in their opinions (either in favor of or against the specific proposition). But I wonder if they intentionally lie to sway others.
Prop 8's ads are a good example of misinformation. As a former k-12 teacher, I know what the California curriculum actually is. So when I see those in favor of Prop 8 claiming that gay marriage will have to be taught in school, I know that this is incorrect. However, there are other propositions that I do not have first-hand knowledge of. How do I decide in those cases who to believe?
The ads surrounding Prop 2 are one example. Prop 2 is intended to mandate that animals that raised for food be allowed a quality of life. Those in favor of the proposition favor allowing animals to live in safe conditions and be able to walk around. As a vegetarian, I firmly believe in animal rights. Prop 2 sounds like it should be a great thing.
But then I see the ads against Prop 2. They state that we will have to import eggs from Mexico and that cases of salmonella will increase. Food prices will soar and many California farmers will go out of business. I don't want our neighborhood farmers to go bankrupt and I do want our food to be safe.
Those in favor of Prop 2 answer these ads by claiming that salmonella cases actually increase due to the cramped conditions in which we currently keep our animals. The price increases are accurate, but they amount to approximately a penny per egg.
Who is correct here? Who is telling the truth? I know what I want: Quality living conditions for our animals, regardless of whether or not they are raised for food; safe food products; a stabilized economy for our farmers; food at a reasonable price.
Can someone just be honest and tell me how we make this happen?

ENG 95 Quoting Research

Al Gore's Assault on Reason is one text that argues against the American public's reliance on television news and entertainment media. He writes, "Faith in the power of reason...was and remains the central premise of American democracy. This premise is now under assault" (2). Without reason, logic, and public debate, democracy cannot thrive; voters must be informed for democracy to work. One of the major factors in the attack on reason is what Gore calls "the empire of television" (6). This empire has replaced the printed word in that the public now receives most of its information from television instead of newspapers. The power of the image, combined with the power of those who have the money to control the television image, has led to what Walter Lippman calls "the manufacture of consent" (Gore 10). The beliefs and ideals of the American public can now be bought and transmitted through television media. While Gore's text follows this argument to examine a diverse set of factors that influence the American public's role in democracy, what is most important in this context is the idea that television media only presents a manufactured idea of truth. If the American public relies on television news for its information, then it is even more important for that news to be unbiased and complete. Gore would argue that television news in its present form is inherently biased and one-sided. However, does a media analysis actually show this to be true?

*Note the MLA format in citations. After each quote, a "coming to terms" statement is given in my own words. The second half of the paragraph allows for the rest of the essay to either forward or counter Gore's thesis.

ENG 101 Rhetorical Precis

Atomic Cafe. Dir. Pierce Rafferty. New Video Group, 1982. Pierce Rafferty's Atomic Cafe (1982) argues against the use of the atomic bomb by the United States. The film consists of documentary footage that details the history of the atomic bomb from its use in Hiroshima and Nagasaki through the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union. Rafferty's purpose is to show the weak reasons for using the weapons, its destructive consequences, and the lack of knowledge on the part of the American people in order to emphasize the harsh realities surrounding the use of atomic weapons and persuade viewers against the use of these types of weapons in the future. Due to its documentary format, the film targets an audience that is already highly interested in the use of atomic weaponry; however, as the film was mass released, the director hopes to reach a more general public.

Presidential Candidates' Websites

Instead of having you read my blog this week, I'd rather you check out the offical websites of the two major presidential candidates.

Barack Obama: http://www.barackobama.com/index.php

John McCain: http://www.johnmccain.com/splash32615.htmhttp://www.johnmccain.com/splash32615.htm

Also on our ballot: Alan Keyes, Ralph Nader, Bob Barr, and Cynthia McCinney.

The Editorial Cartoon

http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoon/display.cfm/61096

http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoon/display.cfm/60353/

I cannot resist the editorial cartoon any longer. As a lover of parody and political comedy, I am drawn to the editorial cartoon's unique combination of the two. To ensure that I do not offend one political party over the other (or, at least offend in equal measure), I have chosen recent editorial cartoons that critique both parties.

The first is a parody of a well-known and well-published photograph. The hug between McCain and Bush portrays their close friendship and what others see as their closely related politics. An easy way to discredit McCain in this year's campaign has been to remind the public of his alignment with Bush's policies, and this photograph symbolizes that relationship. Reader's must know this photograph for the cartoon to make sense. However, the reader must also be familiar with the "Bush/Rove Campaign Tactics." Rove is known for negative campaigning--aiming to destroy the opponent instead of elevating his actual candidate. McCain has always said that he is against this type of campaigning, and for most of the year has stayed away from it. Yet, in the last weeks, he, Palin, and his campaign ads have attempted to tie Obama with "terrorism," thus, using scare tactics to degrade his opponent's status. The editorial cartoon therefore demonstrates that McCain is now "embracing" the very negative tactics that he has condemned the Bush administration for using in the past. Apparently, the Bush/McCain relationship is stronger than we thought.

In the second cartoon, the artist satirizes Nancy Pelosi's use of the phrase "reaching across the aisle." There has been a lot of pressure on Congress in the last few weeks to work on initiatives that will stave off an economic collapse. To accomplish this task, Republicans and Democrats must work together--must figuratively "reach across the aisle" to their political foes. When the first proposed bill did not pass, Pelosi (Speaker of the House) spoke at a conference in which she praised her colleagues' (Democrats) abilities to work in a bi-partisan manner and reach across the aisle. However, it was difficult to listen to this speech and not hear her criticize the Republican House members. Some questioned how much "reaching across the aisle" she was really doing. Wasn't she just trying to make her own party look good? This cartoon sympathizes with that idea. She is "reaching across the aisle," but only to "thwak" her adversaries, the Republicans represented by the elephant.

This I Believe Rough Draft

I Believe in the Comfort of a Good Book

With the knowledge that this may make me sound like a geek, some of my best friends have been books. First, there was Little Women. It was the first book that was actually mine. Before Jo, Amy, and Beth (I never liked Meg), I always had to return my friends to the library after two weeks. But from the first crease in the velvet-coated cover, these three stayed with me. I wanted to be as sweet as Beth, as pretty as Amy, and as independent and accomplished as Jo.

By the time I was carrying a copy of Catcher in the Rye in my backpack, I had met a lot of friends through the pages of well-worn books. When I discovered in 10th grade that two well-known murderers also carried the Salinger book with them at all times, I realized my identification with Holden Caulfield might not be such a great thing. So I looked to other authors for friends that could lead me down less violent paths.

There was Plath's autobiographical sketch in The Bell Jar. Okay, she was crazy and suicidal, but she was also insanely funny and eventually overcomes her depression. She was a beacon of hope to me; she survives even though Plath succumbs to her mental illness. Taming of the Shrew's Katarina was the naughty friend your parents wouldn't let you hang out with, but I got to hang out with her anytime I wanted. Margaret Atwood's version of the girl everyone wants to be is Cordelia from Cat's Eye. Come to think of it, she's a little off-kilter too.

Which friends had a good influence on me? Hamlet taught me to use my words with care (and slip in a pun or two in veiled insults). The mothers and daughters of Amy Tan's Joy Luck Club reminded me that the distance between my mother and myself was not as far as it often seemed. Charlotte taught me the importance of words, while Wilbur spurred on the unwavering belief of hope. Ender inspired me to self-reflect and make amends. Scout spoke her mind about injustices in the world, as only a child can see them. The six friends from A Secret History were the most intellectual, heart-warming murderers I ever encountered. Hussein's Kite Runner allowed me to see the world through another's eyes, and that, yes, you can go back again to make things right.

I met friends in the yellowed-pages of trashy paperbacks and in the gilded cloth of "high literature." And, yet, the book that is my best friend was long neglected.

I first encountered A Circle of Friends many years ago. My grandmother was the quintessential bibliophile and brought me my love of books. Probably the only book I ever "stole" from her is the story of overweight Benny and abandoned Eve. It is set in Ireland, the roots of my family, and is about as harmless a narrative as was ever told. There is not a single swear word, no violence, and sex scenes that could be shown on the Disney Channel. But for many years, it was my comforting friend. Home sick with a cold? Wrap up in a warm blanket and skip to the part in the middle where Benny meets Jack Foley. Tired from cramming for exams? Start at the beginning and you'll be asleep in no time (as if my grandmother was reading the story to me herself). Had a fight with your boyfriend? Frantically skim the section in which Eve almost stabs Nan.

Missing your grandmother? Just holding the book will bring her back.

The lovely, soft woman who raised me contracted abdominal lymphoma a year ago in June. Her decline was rapid, and by July she was permanently hospitalized. Chemo and radiation only sped up the shutting-down of her body. On August 22nd, we decided as a family that she would come home to die in peace. We planned Christmas, knowing it would be her last. I rearranged the furniture in my grandparents' living room so that she would be "where the action was," not relegated to the bedroom as if she was sick. She would come home on the 24th after she had built up some strength.

On the 23rd, Granny was very tired. Her eyes closed unwillingly, and her words were muffled and strained.

When I arrived at the hospital on the 24th, it was evident that she was not coming home that day. I had brought Circle of Friends with me on the morning. Not having read it in years, I knew it would be a joy to read it to my grandmother just as she had read it with me all those years ago. She was tired, but she could listen to one of her favorite stories and hear my voice.

"Benny was large and square, but she wouldn't look like that in the pink velvet dress. She would be just like the fairy dancers they had seen on the stage." These were the last words my grandmother heard that night. They are marked in my old tattered copy, the one that I had inadvertently taken from my grandmother all those years ago.

Feeling lonely? Turn to page 4 and start with the starred passage. I am immediately surrounded by all of my old friends. Holden. Jo. Katarina. Benny.

Granny.

Eng 95: A Rhetorical Analysis of "Indians Question Police Response to Recent Bombings"

My summary
Somini Sengupta's "Indians Question Police Response to Recent Bombings," reported in Oct 3's New York Times, discusses the recent violence in India and the police's reactions to that violence. In the last four months, approximately 150 people have been killed in terrorist attacks around the country, but most predominantly around New Delhi. For the most part this violence has been viewed as the work of Muslim separatists (the Hindi/Muslim conflict has been a source of conflict in India for years, which is actually why Pakistan separated itself from India. Thus, Pakistan is "predominantly" Muslim and India is "predominantly" Hindi).

My personal reaction
What I find striking in this account is the Indian public's questioning of the police accounts. The police's version of events focus on the fact that they have thwarted planned terrorist attacks by arresting (and often killing) suspected Muslim terrorists. The public is questioning these accounts by pointing out that some of those arrested/killed included preachers, students, scrap dealers, etc. In essence, fairly "regular" citizens. Yet, the police say these people were trained in the southern jungles of India by groups inspired by Osama bin Laden (and, of course, anytime one mentions bin Laden, the fear factor goes up). They also question how certain suspects escape, when the raids allow for an over-abundance of officers and guardsmen? Or why/how did the detective in one of the raids die when he should have been wearing protective armor?
This questioning is the type of questioning that I believe U.S. citizens should be doing more frequently. As a nation, we tend to believe what our officials report to us, and how the media reports it. We don't ask the questions, because often we don't realize there could even be other sides to the story.

A look at the author's rhetorical choices
Even in the reporting of this story, there are clues for the average citizen to look more closely. The author refers to India as "fractious and sprawling." Already the reader is supposed to believe that India is divided. The author questions the courts of India by questioning their "effectiveness" and calling them "overburdened." If the courts are that ineffective, then the reader will possibly sympathize with the police's actions. They must take action, because the courts probably won't (or at least this is what the author wants us to believe). He continues to call the nation "divided," but focuses that division on the Muslim community. They have a "deep well of anger among" them and "complain bitterly." This bitterness and anger could influence the reader into believing that this could cause the Muslim community to react irrationally (as we often do when we are angry)--thus supporting the idea that they are terrorists.
However, the author also uses rhetoric to question the police accounts. He writes that the police seized "what they called incriminating evidence," but they offered no details. By emphasizing that the police are calling it incriminating, the author is indicating that the average public might not call it incriminating. He highlights the fact that the police won't divulge details to allow the reader to question if the evidence actually even exists.
I also wondered if the reader was getting the whole picture. In one paragraph, Sengupta writes that the streets are covered flies which hover over the tainted drinking water. I know that the conditions in India can be deplorable, but is this the entire picture? Where are the descriptions of their universities and business sectors? He only focuses on the extremely impoverished areas.

This I Believe Brainstorm

I BELIEVE

that education is the key to our future.
that education doesn't only occur in the classroom.
in the comfort of a good book.
that music can save your sanity.
in dads, not fathers.
the least important thing about me is how I look.
that I will always be insecure about my looks.
in being early.
that fear is the worst ailment a person can have.
that a purr is the most beautiful sound.
in the power of words.
in vegetarianism.
in equal pay for equal work.
that the only boundaries between countries are created by humanity--that border doesn't really exist.
in the power of holding hands.
that cell phones isolate instead of bring people together.
that unwrapping a present is one of the greatest joys in life.
in sleep.
the children are our future.
I can fly.
Okay, the last two are a joke.

ENG 101 Reading Response

The This I Believe essay "Are You with Us? Are You with Us?" (written by an author only known as Roya) emphasizes the belief that any American, and possibly any world citizen, can belong to many worlds and be both part of "us" and "them." The title of this essay comes from many of those in the Bush administration after the attacks of 9/11. The attack on terrorism was presented as "you are either with us or you're against us." You're either "us" or "them." Roya is in a difficult position, being an Iranian American. He claims that due to many Americans' ignorance of world cultures, he can only be viewed as Iranian, or part of "them." In fact, he stresses the point that until a major catastrophe occurs, or America engages an area of the world in military conflict, most Americans have little to no knowledge of that part of the world. He provides Kabul, Baghdad, and Darfur as examples of this (which many of us now know of only through the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the major humanitarian conflict in the Sudan).

I have had personal experience with many of the points that Roya makes. I remember watching the events of 9/11, and sadly becoming one of those people that became consumed by the disaster. And, yet, when Bush made his proclamation of "us and them," I died a little bit inside. I knew where this idea was going. If you don't agree with the actions of the U.S. government, then you support terrorism. And while I abhor what occurred on 9/11, I don't believe our war in Afghanistan has been handled properly and I don't believe it supported a war on Iraq at all. So the "us and them" issue affects all American citizens, not just those who may be viewed as "them" based on their ethnicity.

I also taught 7th grade for many years, and the teaching of Islam is part of the social studies curriculum. Before the 2001-2002 school year, virtually none of my students had any knowledge about Islam or the Muslim areas of the world at all. From September 11, 2001 on, all my students "knew" about Islam was that it "was related to terrorism." I'm not sure which situation was worse: total ignorance or prejudice based on ignorance.

Iran seems to be becoming "the new threat" to our democracy, at least as it is presented by our government and the media. But I agree with Roya: Does it make me "unpatriotic to try to understand and allow room for knowledge and tolerance so that I can effectively take part in spreading freedom and democracy?"

ENG 95 Media Response

There has been a lot of coverage in many of the media outlets concerning the proposed bailout of Wall Street. For an analysis, I looked at an article on DemoncracyNow.org (which admittedly is known as having a "liberal" perspective). To access the article click here: http://www.democracynow.org/2008/9/24/bush_admin_faces_congressional_skeptics_on

This article follows the transcript of the 9/24/08 Democracy Now broadcast. Amy Goodman acts as the anchor and in this segment she introduces the varying opinions on the bailout as expressed by the senators who will be voting on the measure. One of the criticisms of the proposal is that it is undetailed and lacks oversight. Henry Paulson addresses this concern by stating that the measure was not intended to be all-encompassing, but a first draft to get the conversation in motion. Ben Bernanke also supports the bailout by stating that without it, the economy will dive into a recession. Sen. Chris Dodd criticizes the plan by stating that the $700 billion bailout will only aid those who actually created the Wall Street mess, not the average taxpayers who severely need aid now. Sen. Richard Shelby even questions why it is the government's responsibility to bailout the Wall Street "fat cats." Sen. Jim Bunning agrees by calling the bailout an act of socialism, as opposed to the free market that guides our democracy. Lastly, Sen. Sherrod Brown is concerned that those that are inflicting economic pain on the American public will continue to do so if they are bailed out of the current crisis.

This segment does attempt to bring balanced reporting on this issue. Goodman broadcasts speech excerpts from those who both oppose and support the bailout. Additionally, both sides are given approximately equal amounts of "air time." It is also commendable that the article allows for the key players to "speak for themselves." Goodman does not summarize their statements, which could allow for her own bias to creep in. Instead, she shows their actual words, unedited.
However, there are some issues with this news article also. First, Goodman does not provide enough background here into the $700 billion bailout proposal itself. The audience does not receive details on the actual proposal, so it can only use the key players' words to form an opinion. What are the details of the plan? Why is the bailout out such a high dollar amount? How is the crisis it aims to solve related to the recent governmental bailouts of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Secondly, Goodman closes the article/segment by stating that Ohio Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown is "reminding Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke of the price Main Street is paying for both Wall Street’s excesses and now the bailout." Her use of the word "reminding" implies that Brown is calling their attention to a fact, not just a viewpoint. "Excesses" also has a negative connotation in that it implies that the money spent (and lost) was due to greed and in their control. In these key ways, the article shows its perspective--that the bailout is a bad idea.