Obama's talking issues : Gay Marriage

We spoke in class about how both the media and political candidates for presidency seem to discuss everything, but the issues. Yet Obama has taken a stand in favor of gay marriage (politically not personally) and called the alternative "unconstitutional" and as today's article in the Times shows, this provoked the media to start asking questions on the issues, or at least this issue for starters.

While Obama had previously dragged his feet on this specific issue, his rationale for taking a stand now is he has "calculated that the benefits of responding to his base outweigh the risks of upsetting conservatives who wouldn’t be voting for him anyway."

Republicans were expected to rise up in opposition, but aside from Huckaby's reaction that the president's decision was “utterly inexplicable,” most Republican reactions were fairly mild if they reacted at all. Is it truly because, as the Times says, gay marriage is no longer a conservative issue? Is the media just not asking the right tough questions to draw out clear answers? Or are we back to the assumption that even now after Obama has taken a stand on an issue that no one really wants to discuss the issues?

Clooney for President?

He might fit the ideal visual for president - tall, handsome, probably has a pretty good handshake, and yes he plays a presidential candidate in his upcoming movie The Ides of March, but is he even capable of delving into real politics let alone leading this nation?

Yet in an interview with Newsweek following his trip to South Sudan, he was asked if he'd run. He's helping people achieve independence after years of civil war. Let's call him a good humanitarian with great funds to back it up, but a prime political candidate?

His response to if he'd enter conventional politics was, “I f--ked too many chicks and did too many drugs, and that’s the truth.” Many would say considering the (no longer) private lives of many politicians, this would hardly be a disqualifying factor.

But Clooney did follow that with a statement that is very relevant to our recent classes: "A smart campaigner, he believes, “would start from the beginning by saying, ‘I did it all. I drank the bong water. Now let’s talk about issues.’" Maybe he is politically qualified after all. At least he recognizes that the main focus on the current political contenders is on their past misdeeds, scandals and current wardrobes.

Objective vs. slanted

While reading chapter 12 in our Press book, the essay on "Mobilizing Citizen Participation" I began to think about this ideal of objectivity that media is supposed to aspire to. The chapter mentioned that overall reactions to reading newspapers are positive, but there can often be negative reactions to TV news. TV reporters seems to insert their own slanted views on the issues more so than newspapers.

But if the goal is to attract readers' attention and keep them informed of the current issues, then maybe a form of media that makes people a little angry is more appropriate. The reactions to newspapers that are striving for objectivity may not be negative, but I'd imagine there are far less reactions at all. When media strives to be objective and thus keep everyone happy, doesn't it allow for more passivity than if media leans to one side? Overly opinionated news programs may anger viewers who don't agree with those opinions, but they will have to be informed of the issues before they disagree with the news broadcaster.

Point being, before I continue to ramble, should objectivity truly be the ultimate goal if by not offending either side, it allows the viewers/readers to ignore the issues altogether?

Media with an Agenda During a Trying Time

We spoke in class about media having an agenda (not necessarily negative) and this allows them to decide what is newsworthy and which news is more front page-worthy. Laurel Leff in her book, Buried by the Times, writes about a time when a certain catastrophic event failed to make headlines in the New York Times - The Holocaust.

The NYT, despite being owned by German Jews, did print Holocaust news stories, but failed to emphasize their importance. Small articles often ended up on the 4th page. Out of 2,400 front-page news articles during the war, only 26 of them were Holocaust articles. Yes, American involvement in the war must have been the prime source of news at the time, but the NYT was trusted not only as a source of news, but to tell its readers which news was most important, which events most required American attention.

Can anyone think of a more current event that was shadowed by the media and not given as much front-page space as it warranted?