Second Guessing

Confession: I'm getting tired of the news.

Between the disaster in Japan and the upheaval in the Middle East, it seems as though there's nothing else in the world to talk about. Don't get me wrong, these are major and historic times in which we live and experience, however I still feel disconnected from most of what's going on. 

...Except for the Itamar massacre. I'm still horrified by the events that took place in the small community of Itamar, located in the Samaria region of Israel, less than three weeks ago. For those who don't recall, Palestinian terrorists entered the Fogel family's home, and murdered both parents and three children. 

Obviously this news spread the instant we became aware of what took place. It literally took over my newsfeed on Facebook; everyone was talking about it. Among the various articles, statuses, and comments about the horrific event, there was one post (that was reposted several times) that stood out for me. Graphic photos of the butchered family were released for the public to see. When I was confronted with this footage, I initially didn't know what to think. An attack of this nature was never presented to me in such raw form. I suddenly had the chance to get 'up close, and personal' with the victims. 

OK, so you're presented with this opportunity. What do you do? Well I didn't know exactly what I'd encounter, but I took a deep breath and clicked on the link. I was drawn to. I had to. But now that I have, I wonder if I made the right decision. I believe strongly in being exposed to the horrors of war and conflict in order to understand and know it better, yet this was different. I felt like this exposure took it one step too far. Don't get me wrong, photos or no photos, there's no way to fully comprehend what actually took place. Yet in my eyes there is still a need to keep certain scenes shielded from our eyes, if for no other reason than to have respect for the dead. 

I'm tempted to post a link to the pictures, but I just can't bring myself to even search for one. They're too horrific and too personal. This time the media took it too far. 

Framing the Framers

"Suspecting Palestinians, Israeli Forces Search for Killers of 5 West Bank Settlers." This was the title the New York Times chose to summarize what took place in the Israeli community of Itamar last night. By looking only at the headline, what immediate conclusions would you come to? 

Here's what I think the NY Times wants us to think:

1. "Suspecting Palestinians" - It's still uncertain as to who is the culprit of this attack. Since Palestinians are often connected to terror-like attacks in the region, let's assume it's them again.

2. "Israeli Forces" - Oh, those violent Israeli soldiers are at it again. We don't even know who's responsible, yet they've sent out the big guys to investigate the scene.

3. "Killers" - Obviously not terrorists. 

4. "5 West Bank Settlers" - Nameless individuals, antagonists for all we know. Maybe they got what they deserved. They are, after all, "settlers." 

At this point, what more do you need to know? The title gives plenty of insight into the columnist's attitude on the issue. 

This is the problem with framing. Rhetoric is used way too liberally in order to sway the opinions of readers. Here we are, being introduced to global issues in an article, completely unaware of the facts on the ground, and before we're even given the details, we're told how to think and feel about them. How are we expected to be well-informed citizens? How are we supposed to know what to advocate for or against to our representatives? This is a prime example of how the media is trying to control the way we think in order to support its own interests and goals!

Celebrity Activists?

We're all familiar with celebrity representatives and spokespersons for different humanitarian organizations. George Clooney and Angolina Jolie are only two names of many that come to mind when I consider this unique group of do-gooders. As of late, a familiar name has come back on the scene, director Michael Moore. He arrived in Wisconsin to stand in support with the protesters out there, challenging them not to give up, and to stay strong. Here's a YouTube video of his speech to the crowd:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgNuSEZ8CDw&feature=player_embedded
I'm always skeptical of celebrities supporting any particular cause, because after all, they may have been excellent in a movie, but what makes them qualified to stand with a local, national, or international issue? But then again, if these people feel just as passionate about the cause, what makes them unqualified?

Gearing up for 2012

I love election season. The creative ways candidates approach their respective campaigns always manage to excite and entertain me at the same time. I'm often never sure what candidates focus on more in their campaigns, their policies or negative campaigning against their opponents. One would think that a candidate or party would present its strongest argument by promoting its own platform instead of dragging the opposing party through the mud. Here's a commercial from the 2004 election distributed by the Club for Growth PAC, an obviously conservative group, against Democratic candidate Howard Dean: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4-vEwD_7Hk
The commercial encounters an older couple and asks them what they think about Howard Dean's policy regarding taxes. After responding with one or two arguments relevant to the question posed, the couple switches off describing all the cynical, stereotypical characteristics of liberals. Apparently, by throwing out these traits, the viewer is supposed to become even more turned off to the liberal candidate, in this case, Howard Dean.
In general, I'm not a huge fan of negative campaigning, but I can respect that mode of campaigning as long as the accusations and exposure remain policy oriented. However, when the attacks become personal, based on silly stereotypes, I immediately view the accusing candidate or party as weak, and dismiss them as unqualified. Over the past two plus years we've seen partisanship in Congress taken to an extreme. I just hope that the 2012 presidential candidates are able to pull themselves together and campaign on their own strengths, rather than their opponents' weaknesses.