For my last post I’ve decided to revisit an earlier story on Ferguson. During the Thanksgiving break Ferguson or at least part of it went up in flames. This came after a grand jury didn’t indict Darren Willison. In an extra ordinary move the prosecutor decided to release the transcripts from the grand jury. This was meant to build trust with the community, yet it has brought many critics. There are two separate issues going on. 1. A move by People of Color to attack structural racism 2. While the status quo insists that it doesn’t exist. Due to the mounds of evidence and washy witness testimony it becomes harder to understand. Yet, Pundits help us. Fox News shapes one story, while MSNBC shapes another.
Yet, there is another discussion dominating social media. #BlackLivesMatter vs. #AllLivesMatter. Ferguson seems to have drawn a very thin line. On one side we have largely White Americans who insist that #BlackLivesMatter is inherently racist because it ignores the struggles of others. Yet, it would seem the world wide movement of #BlackLivesMatter has rejected the #AllLivesMatter because it ignores race. This is one of the major problems. One side is saying that the higher rate of state sanctioned violence against black folks is about race. Yet, the #AllLivesMatter camp is saying that everyone experiences the same state sanctioned violence. And may white victims never experience justice.
This is something that is massively outside of normative media culture. It has received so much attention largely because of the riots after the shooting and fights with the police. This has continued through the second riot earlier this week. Race is hardly ever talked about, at least as long as it has been. During the Travon Martin incident there were just a few days of protest, yet this outcry is entirely different. While folks might not want to talk about race, the conflict makes good TV.
Every time there is a school shooting we began and fail to finish
a conversation on Hidden Disabilities. With a major focus on mental disabilities,
however the conversations of guns tend to overload the conversation. Yet, this
year there was actually a reason to keep the focus on Hidden Disabilities. When Robin Williams committed suicide on August 11, 2014 it was the perfect time for
a national conversation on mental disability. He was a beloved man who touched
the heart of millions. Even without the political battle of gun control the
topic couldn’t get past the general grievance. The problem more so lies in the
dominate norms of society.
Despite the fact society has chosen to ignore Hidden Disabilities,
especially mental health, it is still a very political issue. One of the
biggest things facing homelessness homeless veterans is mental health and the inability
to receive treatment. In 2013 the WHO published a reported detailing the seriousness
of a reinvestment in mental health. “Over 10% of the global burden of disease,
measured in terms of years of healthy life lost, can be attributed to these disorders”
(pg. 16), but WHO also points out “In terms of the impact on the national
economy, mental disorders are associated with high rates of unemployment and
also under-performance while at work.” (pg. 17)
Despite the seriousness of the issue little time is actually
devoted to the issue. This is because society doesn’t want to confront a growing
problem, Acting U.S. Surgeon
General, RADM Boris D. Lushniak,
M.D., M.P.H., says mental issue like suicide
are preventable.
The election results are in and finally we can start considering
who actually won. While the Republicans may have won the majority in both the
House and Senate many pundits wonder did anyone actually win? Neither party was
really able to advertise on what they did over the last few years. There are
many rumors flying around, yet what effects does that have?
Koch brothers Won
Despite the fact that neither Koch brother appeared on a ballet,
several people say the Koch brothers won big. They managed to keep republicans
neck and neck in funding.
Hillary Won
Again, Hillary wasn’t on the ballet but Yahoo News and
Forbes says she won Election Night 2014.
How? Well, the major reason deals with the electoral map.
The GOP’s relative underperformance in swing states is a
problem going forward because the 2016 landscape is a lot less favorable for
Republicans than the 2014 landscape was. Sixteen of this year’s 20 contested
Senate seats were held by Democrats heading into the election — and six of
those Democrats were from states that Obama lost in 2012. This gave Republicans
a huge advantage. The map was already red. But that map will be upended in 2016, when 23 of the 33
seats at stake will be held by Republicans. Six of them will be in states that
Obama won in 2008 and 2012 (Illinois, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
Florida and Wisconsin). Two will be in states Obama won in 2008 (Indiana, North
Carolina). Two are held by senators who may be retiring (John mccain in
Arizona, Chuck Grassley in Iowa). And two are held by senators who may be
running for president, which means they can’t run for re-election (Marco Rubio
in Florida, Rand Paul in Kentucky).
The National Journal tells a completely different story.
Scott Walker was their biggest winner. He became the most battle-tested and
successful Republican candidate of the Obama era.
He happened to win 3 times
in 4 years. This seems a little difficult considering governors run for a good
bit of time. Well, the reason is that Governor Walker faced a recall election
and won, but due to the timing of the election he had to run again in two
years. Meaning he ran in 2010, 2012, and 2014.
Chris Christie under his watch Republicans not only
retained power in key battleground states (Ohio, Florida, Iowa, Nevada,
Wisconsin), they also staged hostile takeovers in traditionally Democratic
territory (Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts) and hung onto governorships in
dark-blue states (Maine, Michigan, New Mexico).
Andrew Cuomo wins because coming into 2016 he will have two
attributes that may suddenly be in demand among a startled Democratic base:
executive experience and distance from Obama.
There is just one problem with these results. They are attempting to predict an election two years away that neither person has stated they will officially run. However, this is a very common social norm in media. Now the media has the ability to make or break any candidate. When doing so the media acts as King Makers. Garber says, the media can pick the winners and losers. “Candidates who exceed expectations in garnering votes are declared winners; candidates who fall short are losers” (Garber, pg. 311).
While both Garber and Barrett express the view that our
media isn’t very partisan; there are some issues that seem to tell a different story.
Immigration reform is such an issue. It would seem most media outlets can’t discuss
the issue without bring up a party. Over past year tensions have been running
high around Immigration reform.
One need only look towards the bill the Senate passed, which
the house has failed to take up, and the executive order from Obama granting
deferment to “Dreamers”.
While, TIME posted an article stating that many felt the President
hadn’t done enough. However, only democrats seem to like such actions. As many
Republicans pledged to file a lawsuit against the president taking unilateral
actions.
As protest in Hong Knog grows, America is still uninformed. Garber
explains that selection for foreign news stories is very similar to the
selection of domestic stories. Garber points
to the fact that stories still need to appeal to American audiences. “Protest,
as a rule, are covered only when they are violent” (Garber, pg. 254) this
points to the reason why until no so many American haven’t heard about the
protest students are holding in Hong Knog. Most still are unsure of what is
happening, however CNN has covered the protest pretty well. The Chinese government has
eliminated the open nomination process, in order to ensure the poor get control
of the political system.
The violence of the police has changed several things in
Hong Knog. Such has caused more protesters to show up instead of persuading people
not to show up. Two camps have developed
the pro- democracy and pro-government.
Many have expressed concerns about the fact that pro-government side
seems to be able to attack the pro- democracy side with impunity. However, Garber
points why this has become news.
It is very beneficial to the Status Quo of the American government
for the pro-democracy side to advance. Garber states, good frames are provided
for friends, while bad frames are provided for enemies. This Garber says
follows the official designations of who are or aren’t friends, while China is
an ally of the US – at least I believe so – communism is still widely unpopular
in American society. This has largely affected the way in which reporting about
the protest in Hong Knog happens.
Garber has identified there are several factors when it
comes to crisis report in the reporting of the Ebola “crisis” we see several of
those factors. According to Garber the first few moments are about getting the
information out regardless of whether it is correct or not. We’ve definitely
seen this with the media’s reporting of Ebola. Garber says stage three, attempt
to connect the crisis with a larger long-term prospective, happens
simultaneously with the stage one and two. Many reports have blamed government
officials over this the past few weeks. Most of the attention has been directed
at the White House because of its inability to control the outbreak. However, such fails to connect the inability of
the Senate to confirm the health official Obama nominated towards the beginning
of his second term.
During the second phase of the crisis reporting, the media attempts
to correct any incorrect information. Alderson does raise the question is there
really an outbreak? Major news networks have attempted to set the record straight.
Both NBC and Fox network issued a journalistic commentary in which they
confronted the idea of that the flu is easier to catch than Ebola, and more
pole are likely to die from the flu than Ebola.
While many forms of the media feel they are outside of the norms they still exhibit habits dictated by the norms of media. Garber identifies several reasons why this is true. All media - at least new media –lacking expansive resources uses traditional media as part of their story inevitably tying themselves into an already constructed system. It’s almost impossible to take one thing and rephrase it entirely to something new; even more so in a congressional hearing David Simon discredits Citizen Journalist.
To really observe the collective we can look to the Raven Simone incident. While talking with Oprah, Ms. Simone comments about not being African-American.
Within hours just about every alternative news media played Raven’s comments against someone who overwhelmingly identified as African-American. Bustle Media. Creating an invisible middle where journalists can hide in their reporting. Barnett comments on the fact that social media allows people to be closer to the news source, although such creates problems when it comes to investigating. Accepting whatever that source has said is inevitably no different from the way in which governmental stories are written.
What the media reported Raven said and what Raven actually said was completely different.
Had the media investigated what Raven said, they would have realized she was talking about African-American as an ethnicity not as a race. In several interviews conducted after the story broke, Raven confirmed that she was in fact not talking about her race.
Breaking social norms may be the only way to combat social norms. Many by now have heard of the Alaskan news anchor who suddenly quit her job, live on air using the F bomb. If you haven’t, take a look below.
The reporter later shares the reason why she quit. She’s wondering how long we’ll let social norms control what we think about weed. We have let the below idea control the way in which we see and stigmatize weed. However, many experts have expressed this will be a victory for state rights.
The reporter says quitting the way she did forced members to pay attention to the issue. As the bill to legalize was losing ground.
We will in the next few months really learn about the consequences of these actions.
I'm sure over the last few weeks we've all seen the ALS Ice Bucket challenge, mostly because the story has become the latest infotainment news. I'm covering this story because it caused great deal of diverting from the status quo. Social norms became under attack as both the politically right and left attacked the practice. Generally we like hearing about health pieces and we love infotainment. It along with other forms of soft news “[makes up] half of the print and broadcast news.” (Garber p. 116) Yet, the claws came a blazing. Right Wisconsin fired a shot right to the heart of the fundraiser.
What bothers me most about the Ice Bucket Challenge is the "look at me" aspect of the entire phenomena. In an age when every single banal and nauseating detail of everyone's lives is now the subject of a Tweet or Facebook post - it should not surprise me that philanthropy has found a way to capitalize on this age of internet narcissism.
But I'm left wondering if there is nothing left sacred? Can we no longer expect charity to be private matter? In the Book of Matthew Chapter 6, Jesus warns:
"Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven...But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."
It would seem the practice of the Ice Bucket challenge had confronted another social norm. However, dissent on the left came from another angle. One of likely the most interesting articles I’ve ever read dissenting to the Ice Bucket challenged talked more about its timing.
I don’t have a problem with funding for ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis), popularly known as Lou Gehrigs’s disease. It is terrible and more research should be done to eradicate it and increase the quality of life for those who have it. However, it ain’t going nowhere. It’s not about to bring the United States down to its proverbial knees. Even more, rates are higher in Caucasian populations striking mostly middle-aged men. So statistically speaking, it is a rare old white man’s disease.
All the while, we have some urgent states of domestic and global affairs. People are talking about Ferguson, and the multiple victims of police brutality: Michael Brown, Ferguson, Eric Garner, John Crawford III, Ezell Ford, and Donte Parker. People are talking about Israel and Palestine, as Israel continues to pummel Gaza. People are talking about mental illness and suicide, at the news of my childhood favorite, Robin Williams. Earlier this summer, people were talking about the epic child refugee crisis at the U.S – Mexico border. Despite the fact that the news is heavy on the heart, we are having some critical conversations.
The author was expressing discontent with how easily infotainment can overtake hard news.The blogger is confronting another prevalent social norm, avoidance of race issue. It doesn’t seem these voices went unheard. Many news stories shifted the conversation to the effeteness of disease treatment. This sparked an even bigger conversation about the high cost of administrative budget.
The recent news on the issue of race relations requires
examination. We can examine the issues of Ferguson, Missouri. It would seem the
idea of crisis has the ability to break the normative structure of society.
Despite the ongoing blatant racism occurring within our society, the media went
dark on such issues since the death of Travon Martian. However, the issue of Ferguson,
Missouri went further than any event before. Even when we talk about the issue
of previous riots we don’t get the blockade and arrest of media personalities.
Coverage of the crisis played out almost exactly like an
example of text book crisis reporting. A few hours after the initial shooting
The New York Times had already framed the anger and disaster on the streets. Griefand Protests Follow Shooting of a Teenager. Such is very consistent with the description
provided by Graber, “Reporters, officials, and onlookers rush to the scene.
Radio and Television stations interrupt regularly scheduled programs with uncoordinated
bulletins announcing the extraordinary event.” (Mass Media and American
Politics, 2014, p. 127)
A little under two days after the event Huffington, Black
Voices pushed a story to correct information earlier given by the media. StarkRacial Disparities In Ferguson, Missouri, The Town Where Michael Brown Was Shot.
This logically followed the second stage of crisis reporting in which, “the
media tries to connect past errors and place things into prospective.” (Graber,
p.129) However, such would soon shake and break the chain of crisis reporting.
Many refused to connect the issue happening in Ferguson, Missouri with “larger,
long-range prospective” (Graber, p.130)
Returning from vacation, Bill O’Reilly returned from
vacation upset about the way in which the media was reporting issues.
O’Rilly
failed to talk about issues that had already been discovered to this point, but
failed to link the issue to the shooting Walmart death in Ohio (John Crawford),
the murder of Jordan Davis over loud music, and the shooting death of Travon
Martin. All of these murders involved black men being murdered. As Mr. O’Reilly
points out the liberal media attempts to connect the dots, but he has problems
about that.
Like all crisis
coverage this coverage has consequences. As O’Reilly mentions several people
migrated to Ferguson, Missouri after the shooting was reported on television.
Furthermore, the said people staring rioting and looting. There is one event in
this that could have never been predicted.
The arresting for reporters and the establishment of news
zones soon shifted the conversation. Soon the story focused on the arrest of reports, leaving the reason of their arrest behind.
This week I actually turn to our local paper The KSU Sentinel. I highlight them not only because I will likely attempt to write an opinion of my own – for the sentinel- , but also because the story has received international – people from Canada and United Kingdom have commented on the articles – attention. I will analyze this week The Problem with the Men’s Right Movement , published September 16th and article which appeared in the opinion section.
The article started of quoting from a conference in Michigan. Ms. Howell comments on the bad advertising and marketing of KSU Mens as a non-feminist group. More over social norms in our society create an interesting rule. In the media we see a tendency to protect social norms by attacking ideas and vies we oppose. Phrasing them as the extreme compared to normative view. This very idea in fact confronts the liberal bias we’ve been told exist, as state in the purpose of this blog the media conforms to social norms because it needs the public and the fears the government. Ms. Howell preforms the classic method of avoidance. She states the problems surrounding KSU Mens, but provides no real solutions for solving the problems.
While we understand the problems surrounded with this normative societal approach to different things.
However, this approach also has consequences. This only seeks to provoke a started reaction placing KSU Mens and Ms. Howell as polarized opposites. This is one time where “He Said, She Said” journalism would have been helpful. Such would have provided Ms. Howell a position for her critics, which aren’t in anyway off point. However, she failed to paint the picture that patriarchy actually harms men, not because it restricts, but because it promotes a view of dominance that doesn’t actually exist. While speaking out against the shock value of KSU Mens advertising, this article has done nothing more than add to the shock value.
It seems almost important no imperative for me to explain exactly what I plan to do. I’ve stated my goal, but what exactly does, “observing when the media has upheld or broken normative social rules and the consequences that exist” Really mean? Garber informs us that “societies use, legal normative, structural, and economic mean to control news media within their countries… the press generally heeds [these rules] because it craves public approval and fears government or private sector retaliation” (p. 22). What are the normative rules of our society? Even more important what are the consequences for upholding or breaking these rules? Do these rules and consequences protect or harm the gatekeeping duty of the media? I will seek to provide the answers to these riveting questions over the course of this semester.
