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.

Qaddafi: Dictator or Fashion Icon?

It's really shocking to me that during a period of incredible turmoil in Libya, the media would have the audacity to put aside the real issues, and instead reflect on Muammar Qaddafi's fashion sense throughout the years. The Atlantic reported in a recent article, "How the Media's Covered Qaddafi's Clothing Through the Years," that ABC already put together a slide show of his fashion mishaps throughout the years. Time Magazine named Qaddafi one of worst dressed leaders.
Here's an example of a Qaddafi fashion show with commentary from NBC's Nancy Foreman (video from The Atlantic article): http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5orKHwtEZsI
We discussed in our last class the media's obsession with political scandal, and gave numerous examples for types of scandals, from bribes, to affairs, to fashion. I can understand why the public would be interested in knowing whether its leader was engaging in illegal activity, since that act is simply an example of his or her general behavior. But to focus on their dress, as though it defines who they are, I say: seriously? 

Self-Critical?

I've always had reservations about blogging. In general, I'm a huge fan of social media, and the effect it can have on society. However, bloggers always come across as angry skeptics whose ideas would never fly in mainstream news sources. Therefore, they create a blog, an outlet for all of their opinions and concerns, and demand an audience from those who read the newspapers that would never publish these views. 

I think Maureen Dowd, a columnist in the New York Times, really captures a huge concern with blogging in her column, "Stars and Sewers." She explains that "We watch in awe as revolutions somersault through the Middle East. We see instantaneous digital communication as a weapon against oppression and, in the hands of tyrants who tap into its power, as a weapon for oppression. While the cloud spurs some people to reach for the stars, delighting in freedom of expression, it seduces others to sprawl in the gutter, abusing freedom of expression." 

Her column discusses the horrible nightmare NBC reporter Lara Logan recently experienced. While reporting in Egypt, Logan was separated from her team and was sexually assaulted by Egyptian protestors. Of course, the majority of the media came out praising Logan for her noble efforts as a reporter, and condemning the assailants for their disgusting behavior. However, there were several bloggers who reacted differently. They were extremely critical of Logan, and attacked her in her most vulnerable state. Dowd quoted several bloggers, for example: “She got what she deserved,” [a Yahoo viewer] said. “This is what happens when dumb sexy female reporters want to make it about them.” Hillbilly Nation chimed in: “Should have been Katie.”"

So my question is, is the public abusing the freedom of expression and taking it too far? 

Instant Gratification Becomes Even More Instant

I know this is old news, but I'm still amazed by our generation and how communication has become even more instantaneous than ever before! I must admit that my last post was a bit cynical, but a recent article I happend upon has really given me a new perspective. In The Atlantic, an article entitled "How Word of Mubarak's Resignation Spread on Social Media," indicated that the news spread most on Facebook, leaving other favorites such as Twitter and e-mail in the dust.
A company called ShareThis, which tracks hour-by-hour email, Twitter, and Facebook exchanges, shows that early on Friday, Feb 11, before Mubarak officially announced his resignation, people used these three modes of communication pretty evenly. However, after the announcement came, the usage of Facebook spiked, and remained the most utilized method, while Tweets also increased somewhat, but both severely outnumbered e-mail.
It's interesting that the once most talked about method of communication was the least utilized method here. It makes me realize that not only have we become more technologically advance, but we have taken our need for instant gratification to a whole new level. E-mail used to be the technology that epitomized this mentality, but now there are even newer, more advanced tools that make us even more connected at lightning speed.
When people think about instant gratification, negative connotations come to mind. I share this attitude, but I guess I never fully appreciated the benefits and impact of such tools until the Egyptian protests. To think that as a result of these methods of communication, an entire movement was formed and managed to overthrow its leadership, is incredible. This just goes to show the awesome opportunity an individual or a group has to effect change through the various social media tools that are available to us today. Obviously, this isn't the first case where social media has been utilized to effect change. The current administration relied on this heavily during the campaign and continues to utilize it today, and many social justice groups create groups on Facebook and Twitter in order to spread their missions.
These are obviously only a few examples of the power of social media, but I'm constantly fascinated by positive way these tools have been utilized.