COMM 4020 Political Communication blog

This story is about N. Carolina’s state sanctioned forced
sterilization program.  The story states,
which by the 1960’s tens of thousands of people had been forcibly sterilized in
the U.S.  The program was meant as a way
to control welfare spending on poor white men and women, but that N. Carolina
began to concentrate it’s program on women and more black citizens than white,
going on to say that a third of those forced to endure the procedure were under
the age of eighteen, some were as young as nine.  The story also talks about the state’s
ongoing struggle to “right” the “wrong,” specifically the governor;   it’s a struggle
because the state of N. Carolina forcibly sterilized 7,400 people between
1929-1974.  The state seeks to
financially compensate the victims but is having a difficult time finding all
of those that were sterilized.     I think
this story is a good example of the media being reporters of objective
fact.  Apparently this has been an on
going issue for a while, so the story is now a lot less of a scandal. This story
in particular seems more like an update of a story by the media as
watchdog.  It simply reported the current
state of N. Carolina’s effort to resolve a terrible injustice it committed on
its citizens.

In class we discussed political surrogates, which are basically people who are affiliated with a politician in any certain way. Our discussion included examples from the 2008 presidential election and the relationship between Barrack Obama and his controversial former minister Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Rev. Wright was targeted for making anti-American and anti-Semitic statements in his sermons to his congregation, which Obama was a part of for over 20 years. Obama took a lot of heat during the election because of the comments made by the reverend. Sensing controversy, Obama immediately denounced Rev. Wright’s comments, and luckily for him it did not cost him the election. It is important for politicians to be aware of the people they surround themselves with, and whom they wish to support. This story discusses how Democrats, specifically Nancy Pelosi are supporting the Occupy Wall Street movement. In fairness, we must mention that Republicans supported a somewhat similar movement in the Tea Party, but I see this as a much more controversial endorsement. Although the underlying message coming from the Occupy Wall Street movement resonates with almost everyone, it’s the negative reports we hear about, that could hurt a politician’s image if they were to support it. There have been reports of drug use, sexual assaults being covered up, violence, and various other crimes. We all agree that greed and corruption is harmful to the country, but as a public figure, supporting a group who is protesting it in all the wrong ways can create a backlash in the future for that individual. This is why politicians should be aware of who they support, and choose to surround themselves with.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/10/26/nypd-keeps-files-on-muslims-who-change-their-names/

NYPD

If your name sounds Muslim the police will run a check on
you.  This news says that the article
says Muslim people are changing their names to assimilate to America’s melting
pot (which sparks the idea that police should check the people in where they
been the last month and interactions to check that terrorist are not changing
their names).  This is all good and
dandy.  I thought this was the land of
freedom and pursuit of happiness, which refers to land, but the pursuit of
happiness exists.  Yet, in this page, you
see that the NYPD is discriminating against Muslim’s and people who have names
that sound Muslim.   The article says that police are checking
people who have Muslim names to stop terrorism.
This is saying that the NYPD thinks that these people are terrorist and
want to monitor them because of their name.
Thought this was very surprising
to here because the article said that the police are discriminating against
people and the reason is “Muslim’s are changing their names”.  The article implies that the police has to
keep track of these individuals because they name suggest they could be a
potential terrorist.  This is an attempt
to play up on the idea that Muslims are terrorists.  The article says that these people did nothing
wrong but have the religion of Muslim or Islam and changing their name to
assimilate.  I think this relates to
framing ( which is setting the stage that makes you think something that is not
true).  The article is playing inception
by making a big deal out of the name change of the Muslim, people.  Hopefully this will make you think that the Muslims
are changing their name to blend in then bomb us people.  The framing is making people think that Muslim’s
want to bomb us when the really want to just be “normal” American with average American
names.  In fact the article said that the
surname the people had is what they were trying to get away from, the stereotypes
of that surname.  They don’t want the idea
that their terrorist, they want to have normal lives without the idea that they
want to hurt America.  Muslim names say
they are terrorist, thats what they are trying to get away from.

In this article featured on Yahoo News recently focused on Republican presidential hopeful Rick Perry and his feelings toward his performance during the recent debates among other presidential hopefuls. The article goes on to discuss that Perry has stated that he believes his partcipation in the debates this early on in the process has been mostly a mistake. Rather than discussing how he could have done better in the debates he states, “So, you know, if there was a mistake made, it was probably ever doing one of the [debates], when all they’re interested in is stirring up between the candidates instead of really talking about the issues that are important to the American people.” This article also discusses Perry’s future plans of skipping debates and participating in more one-on-one discussions and meeting the voters. I see this as an example of kingmaking within the media because its similar to how sports are covered in our society. This type of behavior is very normal after NFL games when the media ask coaches and players about the mistakes they made during a game when the outcome wasn’t favorable. Also, only talking about two of the participants in the debates (Rick Perry and Mitt Romney) shows how the media forces the public to only recognize a couple candidates instead of all the participants.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/perry-says-mistake-him-participate-2012-debates-125805254.html

As you all know by now we have another African American candidate running for Presidency in 2012. However, this time around he is not a Democrat yet he is running under the republican Party. This may come to a surprise for some as traditionally the representation of African Americans is that they tend to vote more liberal, therefore when Herman Cain announced that he would be running for President many scholars in the black community were outraged. In class we have been dealing with the issue of race in politics as we compared topics such as hockey v. basketball with President Obama and Sarah Palin. We also, discussed President Obama’s everlasting need to prove his “blackness” to not only the black community but also to whites. This issue of race is also surfacing with Cain and prominant figures in the black community such as Cornel West, Harry Belafonte, and many others. While they all have their reasons behind not supporting him, many believe that he is feeding into white supremacy or in other words being the white man’s slave. Stating that hes a false bad apple in the black community and other very negative comments towards him. In my opinion comments such as these are extremely problematic, it is already clear that black are underrepresented in politics so instead of beating him down for his beliefs why not support him and be happy for his bravery. This is not only a significant step towards changing the face of Presidency and government, but it too goes to show that we do not have to be afraid to believe something because the majority of our race is against it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDKSnZnkrP8

This story is about the speech President Obama gave on October 19 in North Chesterfield Virginia promoting his Jobs Act.  His began his speech by letting the audience know that he is aware that they feel as though their voices aren’t being heard.  He speaks of the troubled American economy and the idea that to begin to fix it “everybody pays their fare share.”  Touching on the fact that his plan, The Jobs Act, won’t cost 98% of American tax payers anything; it would be paid for by a tax increase on the top 2% earners in the country, including himself, which he says he will gladly do. His speech is riddled with references to Congress’ lack of action, and more specifically, the Republicans in congress. He lets his audience know that 63% of Americans support his plan and that the Jobs Act is composed of things Republicans have supported in the past, yet when it came to the actual vote, every Republican in the Senate voted against it.  The President also spoke of his willingness to hear the Republican’s alternative to his Jobs Act that they weren’t willing to vote on.  He informs his audience that the plan presented by Republicans included eliminating clean air and water regulations, deregulating Wall Street, and ending the healthcare reform that covered 30 million Americans that would otherwise be without health insurance.  He makes very clear distinctions between his plan and theirs saying of the Republican plan, “It’s a plan, but it’s not a jobs plan.”  Reinforcing the idea that he is willing to debate the ideas in their plan, but that the American people
need something that will produce jobs now, intimating that the Republican plan has nothing to do with creating jobs.  I think this is a great example of priming. The President wants the American people to conclude that the thing they are most concerned about, JOBS, is something the Republicans in congress aren’t concerned about, but he absolutely is.

In this article the author Jim Hoft talks about Obama’s statements at a fundraiser. Obama talks about how he inherited many problems with the country including the high dept. He also stated that many of the economic problems occurring right now are due to Europe. He talked about how problems in Spain, Italy and Greece are affecting the United States also. He also talked about how his economic plan is still a great plan for this country.  At this fundraiser families paid fifteen thousand dollars to get a picture with the president. Obama also stated that in the past 17 months that under his watch we have seen job growth, rising corporate prices and the credit market stabilizing.

                In this article Obama blames Europe and Bush for our countries current economic problems. In Chapter six we learned about how politicians use scapegoating to not put the blame on themselves. Scapegoating occurs when a politician puts the blame of a problem on an individual or a group. Obama blaming the economic problems the United States is facing on Europe and Bush is a prime example of Scapegoating. This is an example of scapegoating because he is blaming our economic problems on other people so it makes it seem like it is not his fault at all.

This story discusses how Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain will cut back the amount of public appearances during the campaign in an attempt to reduce the growing number of gaffes he has had in recent weeks.  The former Godfathers Pizza CEO has had recent public flip flops on issues such as abortion, illegal immigration and terrorist interrogation tactics.  Cain’s Republican presidential counterpart Rick Perry has also stated that he will not be appearing in upcoming debates, hoping it will positively impact his slumping poll numbers.  Texas Governor Perry has not fared well in his recent debate performances, he even admitted that “Debates are not my strong suit.”  It is interesting that these two candidates have a similar strategy of reducing public situations to avoid more gaffes, because they are sitting in entirely different spots in the polls.  Cain continues to be a strong front runner, while Perry has dropped of late.  The two candidates may be looking back to past candidates for advice on what not to do in a campaign.  We discussed in class, and read in our book about famous gaffes from Al Gore and Howard Dean.  Gore is famous for stating that he was the inventor of the internet, and Dean is famous for “the scream” after the Iowa caucus.  It will be interesting to see if these strategies help or hurt the candidates who are in two entirely different situations.

The article that I am going to talk about is in association with Herman Cain and his new presidential campaign commercial. This new commercial that Herman Cain has recently released has been getting a lot of coverage in the news because of the controversy ideas it brings in light. During the commercial Mark Block is speaking on behalf of Herman Cain. Mark Block is participating in Herman Cain’s presidential campaign team with the position as chief of staff.  In the commercial Mark Block speaks greatly about Herman Cain by saying he can “put the United back in the United States.” The controversy that came out of this commercial was the prolonging discussion about Block smoking a cigarette at the end. People were actually skeptical even believing that the commercial was supported by Herman Cain because he had fought colon cancer.  In this commercial Cain is essentially using Block as a surrogate in his presidential campaign. A surrogate in politics is a person who speaks on behalf of the person running for election. As Block speaks highly of Herman Cain he is building up his credibility and is doing good for Cain’s campaign. However,  the action of smoking at the end my confuse people on what the actual commercial is attempting to promote.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/25/cain-ad-smokin-hot/

In this particular post, I will focus on President Barack Obama’s decision to end the Iraq war. According to cbsnews.com President Obama has fulfilled his promise of ending 9 years or as the news anchor suggest 3,139 days at war. I will connect the websites coverage with Menchers seven key news values, which include timeliness, proximity, conflict, impact, prominence, currency, and uniqueness. First proximity, as you all know we are gearing up for the 2012 Presidential election. With alot of scrutiny surrounded by our current president and talk about how he has yet to fulfill his promises to those that voted for him. This sudden decision to end the war couldnt have come at a better time. Earlier this year Americans witness President Obama as he delivered a speech revealing that justice had been brought to Osama Bin Laden. Next timeliness, which can be expressed as the troops coming home just in time for Christmas. Many of these troops have not seen their families in years, so I am sure by hearing the news about the war ending in time for the holidays they were happy. Then conflict, which is simply the thought that this decision to end the war may not be approved by everyone, some may not agree with the Presidents decision here as they feel the mission is not yet complete. By ending the war prematurely there could be a host of new issues involved. These are just a few examples of how Mencher’s key news values have played out in Obama’s recent speech. There are several ways in which the others can be used in this, and I encourage comments to follow as such.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7385545n