This weekend had two tragic incidents: One that led to the death of thousands, and one that led to the death of five; one was caused by an uncontrollable natural disaster, and one that was a deliberate act of terrorism; one whose headlines flooded various news sources, and one which almost seemed not to exist in the secular world.

                I heard about the terror attack in Itamar, seven minutes from where my aunt and uncle live, via text right after Shabbas. As soon as I got home, I opened CNN.com and scanned the headlines. Not to underestimate the impact of what occurred in Japan, the amount of deaths and casualties were astonishing, but one not one headlined mentioned those attacked in Itamar. My roommate came in, and I quickly asked her if she read anything. She told me that you had to dig to find two articles hidden somewhere on the website. Both incidents this weekend carried their own weight for different reasons, one in the breadth of the amount of people it affect, and the other in the depth of the atrocity it represented.  Both deserved to mention. I am not making an argument in proportion, 50-50, 40-60, 33-66, I’m not sure myself. But for the sake of the five that were brutally murdered, their names deserve a place on the front page.

                I’m posting a picture a friend posted on Facebook upon search for articles about the West Bank. The bias in these headlines are obvious and lack the need for explanation.
 
           In class today, we talked about the distinction between words that are biased and words used just to be more accurate or precise, an example being the use of the words “settlers.” I will argue that words have certain connotations, and all it takes is a little common sense to understand what a word means beyond its specificity. In a black and white world, words would mean only what they are supposed to, but the complexity of our world associates words with specific contexts and situations, and layers of meaning pile up by default.  Accuracy should not be an excuse for their deliberate use.

Finally, I am posting an article with several biases which again, only take common sense to point out:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/03/13/west.bank.settlements/index.html?iref=allsearch

*”disputed terrirtory”

*what Israel is calling a terror attack

*The focus on approving construction of more settlements more than the family’s brutal murder

*”He would not elaborate on what evidence was leading investigators to that conclusion [that it was a terror attack].”

*the use of the word “intruder”

***and much more***

Six news sources to choose from

                I just want to relay something fascinating, and slightly terrifying, from the reading from Chapter 8 of The Press by Overholster and Jamieson. It mentions Ben H. Bagdikian, former dean of the Graduate School of Journalism at the University of California at Berkley.  In the preface of the fifth edition of his study The Media it states, “With each passing year… the number of controlling firms on all these media [newspapers magazines, radio, television, books, and movies] has shrunk: from fifty corporations in 1984to twenty-six in 1987, followed by twenty-three in 1990, and then, as the borders between the different media began to blur, to less than twenty in 1993. In 1996 the number of media corporations with dominant power in society is closer to ten.”

His sixth edition published in 2000 brought the number down to six. Two of which are foreign.

The people that own news corporations will be biased. They are human beings with differing experiences, perspectives, and beliefs. Even if they claimed complete objectivity, something must appear on the front page, a sentence has to be worded somehow, and they are forced to choose. For the majority though, this choosing isn’t forced. Media corporations do shape the news in a specific light.

The most we can do now read as many as possible in hopes of getting several angles in order to come to our own conclusion. This is why this statistic is so terrifying. How can we hope to create our own objective view of what is going on in America, if we are limited by six opinions? Six may seem a lot, but if the pattern continues, the future looks grim.

National Security v. Freedom of the Press

We concluded our class about media and war in a discussion of the Pentagon Papers. The Supreme Court voted on the side of the press, deeming that the first amendment right of the New York Times and Washington Post stands. Professor Adler mentioned that if this case didn’t end the way it did, our world would be a pretty scary place. If the freedom of the press was not maintained during the United States v. New York Times Co. case, there would always be a precedent to subdue whatever the executive branch wanted under the guise of national security. “Congress shall make no law” was taken in the most literal of sense. And if this law was not maintained, it would lead to the unraveling of our entire existence as a democratic nation.

                Yet the line is too thin. The most obvious piece of logic is that if our country was defeated because of a national security violation these laws wouldn’t even exist from the beginning. We need a democratic government to uphold the Bill of Rights, and without the national security to ensure that, it simply won’t work. I am not advocating for the president to have the-end-all-and-be-all in matters of national security. Rather, for qualifications, for stipulations. To say no law means no law is simply impossible, and simply not what our founding fathers intended. To argue this point will end in the demise of our nation. There needs to be some mechanism of security, especially when citizens unleashed the original documents in an illegal matter. The situation becomes wholly different.

Framing with regard to women's rights. And how to reframe?

                After reading the article assigned for class on framing, I got worried about how much was really going on under the surface. How much was I being biased unconsciously? And how much was really out of my control. I decided to pay extra attention throughout the day in case I noticed any particular framing situations.

                For those of you who do not know, framing is a concept in cognitive psychology in which issues are framed in a certain context to make you feel a certain way about them. People like politicians are aware of framing, and advocate for the ones their campaign represents. Once frames are in place, they will shape newer ideas in a direction that correlates with the frame itself. Surface frames may be a particular idea or cause, but deep frames are a set of values and morals. Surface frames activate the deep frames already in place and stimulate the surface frames in return.

                During our social justice society meeting, we are working on an event which will consist of a paneled discussion about how men can help empower women. The debate taking place tonight was to title this event. Someone suggested that we say it simply: “Yes We Can: How Men Can Empower Women.” I think this might stimulate an existing frame with negative connotations associated with women's right. Having to empower women brings up the beliefs and thoughts about how women were once not empowered, and how at one point they were indeed inferior. Furthermore, it brings to mind a frame associated with radical feminism. We must find a way to retitle this event by integrating a new frame, and not reworking the old. I am all open to suggestions

NPR execs caught slandering off camera, sources of revenue threatened

A senior executive at NPR was caught on undercover video, bashing the Tea Part movement as being “scary” and “racist”, and “fundamentally involved with people’s personal lives” and declaring that NPR would be better off without federal funding. Two men pretending to be from a fake Muslim brotherhood met with executives, one being Senior Vice President Ron Schiller, and the other being Director of Institutional Giving Betsy Liley, and offered five million dollars for funding. Ron Schiller put down Christians, Zionists, Tea Partyers and uneducated Americans.

                Needless to say, Schiller said he’ll be leaving NPR last week. Although the video was a set up by James O’keefe, it’s still scary to see just how biased the people we trust to relay information to us are.  We’ve seen subtle slip-ups on the air, bringing a masked agenda into full view. So much is still below the surface, and it’s actually frightening to see the biases journalists and newscasters truly feel while believing they’re off camera. No one is untainted by personal views and opinions, but shouldn’t those filtering our news be less so than average?

                Furthermore, we cannot possibly ignore the influence of funding and support for news. Try as we might, viewership, advertisements, and the money that will or will not flow into the media based on that which was just mentioned has a direct influence. And even if the character of our newscasters and journalists were as pure and unwavering in their views, would it even matter? At the end of the day, it comes down to money.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/08/npr-exec-shown-slamming-the-tea-party/

Yiddush blog shines light on positive press

In our class, we consistently look at the different roles the media plays. Historically, the media was used to advocate for specific causes and political parties. Its role was to spread particular ideas despite whatever bias and subjectivity came along with this method. As time went on, the media took on a very different function, one that defended the governed more than the governing. They became the watchdog, whose sole responsibility was keeping the government intact, investigating if certain pieces of evidence seemed contradictory or inconsistent. Nowadays, most read or watch the media for an objective perspective of what is going on in the world. They want straightforward facts in which they can color their own opinion, in which they can trust their sources to be just and true in order to come to their own conclusions.

                However this is most often not the case. There always seems to an agenda, a perspective that’s advocated for, and a specific goal for their audience. The media has received a negative connotation, and not unjustly so. In high-strung political times like these, it’s sometimes hard to see what good the media does in fact do.  I was sent this article about a yiddush (yay – Jewish connection) blog covering a CBS story which ultimately led to a Kidney transplant for a little girl in Israel. I admit it is slightly corny, and a little “awww”-esque, but in a time where the media takes a lot of negative slack, I think it may do a thing or two of good to notice the small good stories that sometimes shine through. 

http://www.vosizneias.com/77896/2011/03/08/london-exclusive-kidney-donation-in-israel-result-of-vin-news-story

Anonymous features interesting tactics of revenge against Manning's tormentors

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2011/03/07/2011-03-07_anonymous_hackers_vow_to_avenge_accused_wikileaks_source_army_pfc_bradley_mannin.html

                

 A group of hackers known as Anonymous are planning on harassing two military officials in response to the recent reported abuse of Bradley Manning. This threat didn’t seem serious at first. They’re high off a victory mission against the Church of Scientology, and their future plans of revenge include “ordering pizza, sending them thousands of boxes, reporting them to police for drug abuse, sex offenders list, tricking their ISPs into canceling the Internet, messing with their social Security numbers, false flag, fax harassment, phone harassment, email bombing, (…and the kicker…) subscription to magazines, diapers, and tampons.” Despite the interesting choice of harassment, I’d still take the group seriously. The article points out Anonymous had actually forced the resignation of Aaron Barr, CEO of HB Gary Federal by posting 78,000 confidential corporate emails and hacking into their twitter. The group apparently means business. Good thing, I’m Jewish and not a scientologist. 

On another note, I say we give them a dose of their own medicine, and unveil their anonymity on Wikileaks. Talk about coming full circle.