Bloggs, Bloggs, Bloggs and more Media Bloggs! 

    The first recommendation I would like to do is to visit Julie Mahlerovas blog about " Impact of digital technology on children's moral and social decision-making". Find it here. The link is providing you a especially for me interesting topic which is regulation and control over children and their exposures and activities especially on the internet (social media). Julie's blog is especially interesting because I found interest and I agree on many statements Julie's making in her blog. The topics Julie's discussing are not only interesting because in my opinion they underline the reality of what is happening to younger generations nowadays but also because we all have experience about this (as we were all children) and should be interested in sich topic as I suggest everyone of us will one day have a family and be concerned about topics just like social media. 

    Another blog which I found very interesting is Lilly's (Tran Hop Luong) blog about video games. Lilly has not only discussed negative sides of gaming but also that it positively influence our brain and eye activity which I find also very interesting. I however would like to recommend her blog because I was shocked after I saw a video that Lilly posted about the Warcraft addiction of Anthony Rosner and how it influenced his life before he finally quit. Almost everyone of us played a video game on SEGA, Playstation or had a Gameboy Nintendo but todays possibilities and how well people can attract and than imprison other people in video games is an issue that seems very dangerous and can lead to negative parallel relationships or even destroy people's lives. It is a topic which everyone who for example will one day become a parent should be aware of and interested in. I never realised how dangerous a "play" can be until I read through Lilly's blog and than watched related documentaries as it so much caught my attention. Have look at Lilly's blog right here. 

    Which blog I found especially catchy and interesting was Francisco Navarros blog about todays media technologies and how they advanced and why. As we discussed in our last class in our Media and Society class, it is very important to also study the way the actual message is out taken by the media, through which technologies and how those work along with the actual message (ICT).  Francisco has created an interesting blog displaying current problems and how they influence and approach us and create our today's world. We are all aware of the content of a message and what it says but after reading Franciscos blog I realised that I never really thought too much about where, how and through what the message is put out. Have a look at his blog right here if you are interested in the technology behind today's world of media 

    The third blog page I would recommend here is Tolu's blog about reality TV. Here a blog about a critical thought about "Teen Moms", a reality TV show and how young women might get pregnant only to be in such shows left my kin right down to the floor. I didn't know such shows as I don't watch TV much but this was shocking, so I read on and found Tolu's blog great in how she approaches this sensitive topic from different aspects and evokes critical questions that leave one to really think about what Tolu writes about. It is shocking that producers of such shows sometimes also input fake emotions and bits and peaces to the actual "real" happenings to make the show more juicy, isn't that wrong? Doesn't such shows create or try to reflect a reality, only amusing but not really "real" but perceived as real because it IS a "reality TV show"? Automatically people watching such shows perceive a reality that is created and not real and this might lead to dangerous happenings just the one as Tolu writes about in her post about "Teen Moms" and how girls get pregnant because that's what they see is the way, doesn't matter how secured their and their baby's future is. Read Tolu's blog here. 

    The last blog I would like to talk about is the especially today heavily discussed topic about mediated violence ad mediated sex and the accessibility of it to almost anyone, especially youngsters. Niklas amongst others talks about bad ratings of violent or sexual movies and that it is media who today educates children about sex and not the parents anymore. Isn't this also reflecting that young generations, heavily exposed to sexual and sexual violent content do not treasure sex anymore and have a different approach to relationship and family today? Are young people drifting away from what was before a value and a sensitive topic that today is just another topic? It is definitely positive that we can look up any answer we seek but it is not good to model a generation, so they see that premarital sex is normal, that when your husband is angry at you and you cheat on him is normal or that wearing tight jeans and tops to attract boys at the age of 12 is what you are supposed to do today. This is harming not only how children grow up but also how they afterwards interact with their partner, their family and their children. I especially like Niklas topic because one can see that he really got interested and researched quality material and that reflects how I felt after I started writing about my blog, where I fist tried to do a assignment which become a real interested and I found it dragging to find more and share more of my critical thoughts. Have a look at Niklas blog right here to get a better insight look and read and watch critical topics. 

Have fun reading them and I will get back to those interested in communication, media and politics when I am in the US during our summer break at Uni! :) 

Social Media will never be as strong as TV! Who said that?

    There are many claimers that the importance of TV will never be overtaken by Social Media but new media, like Facebook or Twitter are increasingly more important than one might think. If you have read the Washington Post article that I have mentioned in my essay previously you could see a panel at the bottom displaying how many tweets Obama compared to Romney has. 

    It is true that TV (I would rather say audiovisual material) will always be very important but especially for generations born into this new era of an interactive audience will demand interactive media more than passive media (TV). This tendency can be seen by observing how much space for comments and chats (interaction) is provided to users under any article, blog or video nowadays. 

    In my opinion voters will become one day the journalist and professional journalist jobs will decrease over the years. Just as Ultras fans of soccer clubs have the tendency to influence their clubs decisions more than ever before, so will the voters the media. A sad story of classical journalism but unfortunately that's what's happening after new media stepped into the heart of our information addiction era. 

New Era of Mediated Politics

Political Candidates and Media

The most powerful celebrity of society: The US President

   For a politician today, in our cyberspace era, with no limits of information flow and speed, it is necessary to be continuously portrayed in the media positively. Therefore, to stand in a plausible light is what a politician is concerned about nowadays. To be taken serious and appear responsible, settled, not to cool but also not too distanced from society, the voters in this case is the key to election. In order to do so  a politicians has to do whatever it takes to fit in this media frame as best as possible.

Pseudo-Events alias Free Advertising

   President Nixon knew what he had to do and went to China in 1972, so too did President Obama when he recently went to Afghanistan, one year after Osama bin Ladens death. Both those visits took place in a tense environment and were dangerous trips, this is however not really underlined by media (The Washington Post stressed both my points: firstly, that Obama might have done this visit to gain more political favor and secondly, it discusses the Romney-Offending ad where also testimonial appearance of Bill Clinton play an psychological appeal on voters. Have a look at the article here). But such opportunities can't be taken for granted and just like Nixon, Obama has now advertising for free, popular tendency rising, so why wouldn't take make something out of it?

Psychological and Social Pressure Media

    But there is also another site of this story: constant pressure. Never before was the eye of media so powerful as today. This 24/7 watch also leads to constantly increasing and steady pressure towards politicians and their family. Not everyone (although this person might be very well suitable fort he position as US President) can deal with such circumstance and environment and step down prematurely just like former US Congress House Speaker Gingrich in 1998: „Gingrich announced he would step down not only as Speaker but also from the House -- despite soundly winning an 11th term.“ (Quinn). Gingrich also resigned as a candidate from this years presidential elections (The Huffington Post). Being a politician nowadays means being in a favor light for media and a constantly watched and under pressure subject because media is the medium for voters.


Media and it's Territory

    Since the Internet became the new battleground for journalists, media and other opinion leaders embody the term mass better than ever before. The constant rivalry but also interaction and cooperation between new media (blogs, individual PR agencies, social websites) didn’t change the fact that the big picture lies in medias hands. They decide what to display and how to portray, if ridicules, falsely or controversially, dramatically, negatively or positively. This leads to constant pressure also on journalists. 

Drama and Entertainment

    Pushed to publish the most drastic and fantastic story and maybe to favor one or another party more than the other is what the entertainment society nowadays demands. It is the story and entertaining context, not the issue or other relevant topics because they are too complex and boring to be covered in the audiovisual world of the Internet. It is not voters who create their own opinion but it is media shaping it. Never before could media set agendas and cultivate the voters as easy as today. Media can easily shape voters opinions as they not only give users information but entertainment and so they get users attraction easier. Therefore, headlines and stories are amusing, dramatic but not really relevant to a presidential performance. They are there to create gratification rather than educate properly. 

New Trend to Learn Entertained About Politics: Late Night Shows

    Late night shows have become more popular and an increasing number of especially young adults educate their selfs about politician with such entertaining political shows. But viewers might favor a politician only because the comedian favors her or him, which again is a process of shaping voters choices based on false and misleading connections through non-relevant agenda setting and cultivation. Are media really transparent or did they create an environment in which the candidate has to fit in? Media, impacting on voters more than ever before,  can portray a politician  however it wants and therefore influence the public, voters strongly. This means that it creates a world in that a candidate who is not portrayed in media (often and positively) is not credible nor important to get attention. This trend was perfectly set in 2008 and this years election when Clinton, Obama and Romney, all candidates or already elected politicians were or are up front at the political horse-race because they have the necessary budget, therefore the essential media illustration and the outgoing awareness, attention and fellowship of potential voters. 

Conclusion

    The interaction between politicians and media has not only a dangerous impact on voters, it might lead them to false assumptions, maybe choices only based on what media are telling but it also leads to the question of how media will continue to shape voters decisions and if one day the media will be so powerful that it will overshadow our own opinion or that the mass will be guided by media. Increasing pressures on both sides, politicians and media not necessarily lead to new dimension but rather to dangerously overrated and falsely created spheres in which the performance and ability of the US President is based on not relevant issues or stories which basically only display something funny or dramatic and juicy but not meaningful for the performance. 

Works Cited
Quinn, Justin. News Conservatives Politics. 06 05 2012 <http://usconservatives.about.com/od/champions/p/NewtGingrichBIO.htm>.
The Huffington Post. The Huffington Post. 02 05 2012. 06 05 2012 <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/02/newt-gingrich-out-2012_n_1254924.html>.

It is all Obamas fault! Forward? Ha, backwards rather 

The Investment Insight

    The American Crossroads created an ad displaying (and offending) President Obama with showing the public a commercial where Crossroads portrays how awful everything has been since Obama got elected. „Homeownership is he lowest in 15 years” or „It’s getting more expensive for gas“ are the statements (that are true indeed) blaming Obama for the situation the current situation of the US (have a look on YouTube here). No one cares about underlining the fact that unemployment decreased since this year January or the fact that gas prices go up might finally lead people to consider other ways of transportation than demanding so much that companies are pushed as far as BP and therefore unnecessarily do mistakes and poison our environment (BP Gulf of Mexico disaster of 2010). Media shape publics opinion about a person although this is a false connection, but it is dramatic and embodies psychological appeal and that is why it works! The fact that actually it takes time for a nation as big as US to recover for what happened in 2008 (when Obama was not President) is left aside. Obama is right about his new slogan “forward” because that is what is most important for now to get out of the situation and not the fact that portraying him as someone who is to blame for something he is actually not to blame for. 

Current situation in US in caricatures

Busted!

    What makes a story better than underlining it with an own meaning to make it THE headline? Assumed assumptions creating a huge argument and connected it with false facts or happening is exactly what Obama needs to be displayed like in media a few month before Election Day. Sorry Obama but the „truth“ is you are talking about an alliance with Russia! What a disaster! Well at least the media makes i tone...

Political Humor: A great caricature which ridicules President Putin because Medvedev acts on behalf of president Putin. Funny but should everything be put in a entertaining light, especially such a so long sensitive topic?

    „After my election I have more flexibility“ were Obama’s words also cited at BBC news, when his microphone was supposed to be off already, at a nuclear summit in South Korea where he told this to Dmitry Medvedev who is ought to forward this message to newly elected President Putin. For media this was just what it was waiting for. Using the past history of Russia and US and the Cold War, media made a huge headline out of this conversation, which was not to be heard by the public but without any clear results. So what that Obama told this Medvedev? What does this mean? Well, that does not matter. Media serves it to the public and everyone talks about and speculating. Throwing this in the ether only creates unimportant rumors or concerns or even creates a false assumption and bad light around Obama, but it’s a story! Making such unimportant information important is dangerous and only created to favor media and to falsely cultivate the society.

    Here another caricature from Cartoon Movement which I posted because I am currently living in Prague. Although drawn in 2010 already it underlines the situation I wrote about above and is a connection directly to where I currently live. Have a look at some political cartoons here

Find out more about the GOP Elephant and Democrat Donkey and their  inventor here

Nothing to report about? Let's dig something out!

    Another current pro-Obama ad (just like the one where Romney is portrayed as a Oil-giant) (you can have a look at right here) shows former president Bill Clinton supporting Obama’s choice of sending the boys (meaning US soldiers) to kill Osama bin Laden. We probably all remember that exactly one year ago, the murderer of bin Laden was a celebration in the media around the globe (one shouldn't celebrate or justify murderer!) and by having an ad that actually emphasis that is unethical and unfair because of the testimonials, patriotic and psychological appeals that are used only to support such an past event. Nobody can know if Romney would have done the same or not AND it now does NOT matter anyway. The media (ad) just makes it important. The future presidential term is important not the past.

Dumbo, Pinocchio, Flip-Flopper and No Drama Obama…

   Mass media can personalize and poke one person way better than an issue or theme by itself. Connecting catchy headlines with a person is what makes the story. Especially nicknames are favorable in media. George W Bush was framed as Dumbo because of his dim and inexperience appearance. Al Gore was portrayed as Pinocchio because of the lies and mysteries around him. Today we have Romney as the Flip-Flopper because he is unclear about his statements and tends to rash from one topic to another. And Obama as No Drama Obama in 2008 is now High Drama Obama because of the situation of president and the current situation of the United States.

    Media act like psychologists, create those oh-so interesting frames and politician’s actions are always displayed through this frame. Their actions become headlines through this frame, that’s what get’s attention and not the issue. It’s not only an great bone for media in general but it is increasingly important for late night shows which in recent years attract more people, hence more people learn about politic happenings through those shows. Is that really educational value and how do you think about those shows concerning Uses and Gratification or even Cultivation Theory? Such events lead one not only to consider if it is right that more and more people see politics as entertainment, like almost everything and anything else in the media but also to worry about how greatly media can influence a politician appearance. Very often in a bad sense because that’s what makes headlines; major pronouncements, gaffe, political speeches and events. 

Obama vs. Romney

Who do we favor? Who cares! Let’s juice 'em out both!

    Dee Evans from the Huffington Post points out exactly how president Obama is currently portrayed in the mass media: „Whenever a bad news topic arises [...] Obama's face is plastered all over the news [...] But, when there is good news on the horizon...nothing.“ and that is exactly how media frame Obama. So the media set the agenda that any bad happenings in the USA connect (falsely and misleadingly) with Obama.

    The pro-Obama ad (see Daly Beast here for the ad) connects Mitt Romney and his raised budget with big-oil money, assuming that he is pulling one rope with Exxon, Chevron or BP. This statement is however week says Angelo Gore on iWatch News and I absolutely agree with him because this is a wage statement and is offending Obama’s opponent and framing Romney as an Oil-corporations-supporter. What is even more radical in this ad is the fact that Bill Clinton (testimonials) supports the whole agenda of the ad.

    This never ending put-him-in-the-worse-possible-light-race seems increasingly very important for the opposing site, doesn’t matter if news agencies, parties or even the candidates themselves play with negative ads, negative psychological or fear appeal, they negatively frame candidates and their intentions. Those mass media sets together can have a rather controversial effect on viewers. Along with TV  (still the most important tool in the elections) being the political cultivator of the viewer, voters are more likely to elect a candidate based on the image perception and not policy issues. Thus how media portrays a candidate might be more important than candidates job activities.

Through the eye of mass media

    A great blog I suggest to follow or at least to have a look at is The Daily Beast. Professional journalists like the British Andrew Sullivan (if there is anyone who is interested in Andrew Sullivan and his struggle to become an American citizen, click here for a great CNN interview with him) blog mostly about politics but also about other topics of public interest. The blog is very liberal, but definitely interesting if one wants to follow US American politics and see how blogs turn into a new source of complex news. The Daily Beast provides not only links to other media sources but has also great videos addressing current political issues raised by media like the Mommy Wars. Visit The Daily Beast here.

    The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times do a very good job in covering the current US elections and - although they might be amongst the news-journals that create those “agenda-setting” stories - they vividly illustrate and compare recent polls and happenings. I would recommend those websites to get a closer inside look into the world of mass media happenings around the 2012 US elections and how those mass media agencies  set the agenda that money is what’s important, so they frame the candidates by those results. Visit The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times.

    The third website I recommend is also a blog, written by colleagues, also graduating with a communications degree but in the United States. They did a great job in explaining how new media changed politics and they take the 2008 US elections as a basis for underlining their arguments. They talk about the increasingly important role of the internet, blogs and how the elections step into a new sphere and become more interactive throughout new media than ever before. Visit their New Media and Politics blog here.

    The CNN Freedom Project is what caught my attention last year and I followed this campaign not only because of my Media Law and Ethics course but also because I found CNN and all the supporters of The Freedom Project did a great job and contributed to a change. I therefore visited and explored their 2012 US Elections coverage and found their coverage also quite interesting and rich in information. Have a look at CNN’s 2012 US Elections coverage here.

Media & Politics....educational, have a look!

    Professor John Zaller’s from the University of California Los Angeles developed A Theory of Media Politics in 1999. It is a complex analysis of media and politics in America. The author presents very interesting arguments. Zaller’s work does not only examine the new coexistence of journalists, citizens and politicians before the turn of the millennium and how new media have changed interaction between politicians and voters, it also explains in detail how a variety of factors conduct and shape this coexistence: among them the changing society, the free market and the new era of journalism and PR. According to his theory,  

“A widely accepted view is that the rise of media politics has been associated with the rise of candidate-centered politics, which has in turn meant greater political instability and less political accountability.”.

    This argument underlines my opinion. I highly recommend reading Zaller’s theory for a broader understanding of changes in media and politics in the US over the last 60 years. Visit the UCLA site for the pdf file of Professor Zaller’s work right here.

Politics & Education Politics

    The second educational file is from Peter Dahlgren who is Professor of Media and Communications at the Lund University in Sweden. His discussion on The Internet, Public Spheres, and Political Communication: Dispersion and Deliberation published in 2005 is a great contribution to how politics and the new public sphere along with new media created a new dimension evolving since the last decade, where those elements interact and therefore create a new public sphere and new approach to politics.

“The Internet is at the forefront of the evolving public sphere, and if the dispersion of public spheres generally is contributing to the already destabilized political communication system, […] the Internet […] also allowing engaged citizens to play a role in the development of new democratic politics.”

    It is great reading and great educational material for those interested in Mediated Politics in depth as it covers not only detailed analysis of the new public sphere but also discusses how electronic communication becomes more and more important for politics and new generations. A link to Professor Dahlgren’s work in pdf file can be accessed here. 

need to know on PBS

Romney sponsored by: Exxon Mobil, GM, Ford, Wal-Mart, Chevron….

    I am referring quickly back to my earlier comments of my „It’s all about money...“ post. I would like to support my opinion with showing you how a new law which allows corporate companies to provide unlimited donations to a politician(s campaign) underlines the issue with the candidates and the budget.

    It rises concern about the fact that a candidate can be supported by a corporation which can actually only support him because the candidate empathizes the corporations ideas, goals or ideologies. This means that the only reasons why corporations might pull so much money into candidates are:

    They can use the candidate for their benefits by providing the candidate with money and therefore putting him in the „you owe me“ situation

    The amount can be so significant and helpful for the candidate that she or he will in the future depend on corporations which might abuse this need.

    In the future it will be easier for candidates to rise significant funds by favoring a corporate body the only thing they have to do is favor them in the public eye.

    Is this ethical? Because only big corporations can donate really big sums of money, so they outplay small donors, which in the future might not donate anymore, as they don’t see any outcomes for them…

It's all about money...

CNN Money

    „Obama bundlers raise at least $106M“, „Romney Posts Best Money Month Yet“ „Obama Sees Steep Dropoff in Cash From Major Donors“ are the current headings of USA’s biggest news companies: the USA Today, The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times. Everything is about the never ending „horse-race“ between candidates, polls and budget details. They are analyzed, published and explained in detail. Who of the candidates raised the most money, by whom are they funded, how are they raising money, how are they spending it? Those are the questions media sets as an agenda today. It seems like becoming president depends on who appears in US media most often, who has the most powerful impression on voters and who has the best overall appearance in media.

    It is therefore not surprising that Mitt Romney became Obama’s opponent in the 2012 US presidential elections. He is the republican candidate with the biggest budget and according to US media this is all what matters. The budget-race between Obama and Romney can be compared to 2008’s budget-race between the democratic candidates Obama and Hillary Clinton. Political issues that really matter and how each candidate would approach and progress when elected as president are left aside because they are too complex to be catchy and juicy. Take a look at The Wall Street Journal’s Politics & Policy sections: everything one will find is about polls, candidates budget and money.

    Therefore, by setting the agenda that a candidate’s budget is all what matters to becoming president, media outplays important issues like the current US economic situation after the crisis, medi-care problems or unemployment.  This might mislead voters to favor a candidate that is only media’s favorite but may not be suited for the job as US president.

    Candidates without a strong network of supporters and good possibilities of raising a significant amount of money might not even have a chance to be heard by voters, as they cannot display themselves as frequently as candidates having a budget like Romney. Those low-budget candidates are automatically degraded by  media and therefore by the society; the so important voters. 

Obama hiring Colombian hookers!

The Hayride

     The presidential elections in the United States are in full blast and media bites on anything that could somehow be interesting for the public. Most of the time it's a marginal issue pushed to a massive topic that doesn't even directly relate to the president’s political performance. A great example is the current "Colombian Prostitutes hired by the White House" scandal that overshadows important issues like the increasing social gap between poor and rich, the recovery of the economy in the United States or the proposition letters of the candidates, which all need to be addressed in the US at this time. But... Finally! We have an Obama scandal…

    Headings used in media such as "Obama's agents having Colombian prostitutes" or "Obama's sexy scandals" attract people's attention and this story is definitely juicier than the recovery of the US after the financial crisis. However such topics "made" an issue by the media create nothing but nonsense connections. Unfortunately, what all people think is "oh my, Obama had prostitutes! He is bad! Shame on him!".

    It is not directly Obama's fault that it happened. He will take necessary steps to solve the problem and punish those responsible for this unmoral and unethical behavior. Media should rather point out that there shouldn’t be cuts in governmental spending because of that happening. Instead they directly connect and harm Obama rather than bubbling it up just to have a topic for “Obama”. However covering this headline is quiet boring and too complex. “Obama hiring hookers” is dramatic and juicy, better as media coverage.

Another important fact to consider is that creating such "issues" is just what Obama’s opponents are waiting for and the Republicans will not leave such. So not only media abuses this opportunity but they throw the ball at Obama’s opponents as well, which in return, of course, uses media to fire at Obama too.

    This example thus only underlines the fact that media raise juicy and politically irrelevant but more dramatic and disturbing issues and create false assumptions among people, voters. It is all about the context of drama, heavily coverable issues (e.g. candidates meeting famous people, click here to see how Obama uses testimonials and current issues to increase his popularity). Media make unrelated issues related. 

I have listed links providing an insight look to how differently media adresses this issue for you:

ABC News

ISN News

The Guardian
The New York Times

  

 The interaction and effects of Mediated Politics

   
    This blog is made as a project for my current Media&Society class. I however always wanted to try blogging, so I am quiet happy I can do so now and share my opinion and information with you.

   My blog will adresses how different media influence and shape the society in the United States and the presidential elections. I will however not concentrate on political issues or specific political topics but rather direct the information in this blog to people that are interested and curious about the USA, society, basic knowledge, media and communication. I will adress different issues and topics related to the current mediated politics and the elections in the USA. Discussing how media change the elections and the voters in the US. 
    So I hope I can take you into the new world of the elections in the states and how it almost seem like todays presidential elections in the US is almost like an reality live show rather than a serious election of a president for a nation as big as the United States of America.