Responsibility

Bias in the media has always been something that interests and disturbs me at the same time. This is why I decided to write a feature article for my final project on the effects of such bias on voters in our recent election. I have been actively researching for a while now and my findings have led me to be more concerned with society's media consumption tendencies than the media itself.

There is no doubt that media bias is prevalent today, but is it not our responsibility as citizens to inform ourselves on both sides of an issue? One thing that has been a recurring theme in the studies I've been reading is that the media bias affects people as much as they allow it to. People who refuse to listen to/read opposing views are more likely to be affected by media bias (like-minded media that polarizes their ideology). Since so many people only follow like-minded media sources, this encourages more polarized media to please the consumers, and on goes the vicious cycle.

Studies like the one done by Eveland and Shah show how an individual's ideology and informedness affect their perception of media bias, as well as how much it tends to affect their opinions. While I do believe that the media has a responsibility to be as unbiased as possible, I also believe in society's responsibility to be well-informed and to hold the media accountable.

Does anyone else have thoughts on this? Where do you think most of the responsibility lies?

In Remembrance

With all the excitement, news coverage, and commentary on the recent election, I feel that Veteran's Day snuck up on many people. This has been a very special holiday for Americans because of all the freedoms our brave servicemen and women protect. Today I think it is important for all Americans to take a step back from all the recent distractions and honor the men and women that have made democracy safe for so long; without them, we would not have the liberty to have voted for our choice of candidates on Tuesday.

No matter where we go from here, we must always remember where we came from and those who have given their lives in defense of this nation. Although we must pay attention to the events within the country, we must not become so consumed with them that we forget to honor those who have made them possible (note: this is not an accusation of anyone reading this post, just a friendly reminder to all, including myself). Our differences in political opinion (and free debate on these ideas) come from the sacrifice of many Americans.

I would like to personally thank anyone reading this who has served or is currently serving; you have my respect and gratitude.

Celebrity Endorsements

Earlier today, I was looking at all the celebrity endorsements for each presidential candidate. My deep, philosophical conclusion about them are as follows: there are a lot.

But in all seriousness, it got me thinking about what type of influence these celebrities actually have on voters. Can a simple endorsement sway voters' opinions? One would think that it shouldn't affect someone who is set in his or her opinions already. However, given the idolization of celebrities in society, it is not unrealistic to think that their endorsements could encourage uninformed voters to vote more or less blindly. 

Because celebrities have such a large following in the public sphere, I think it is their responsibility to be informed before talking politics (not to say that they do not do this already), and, even more so, encourage their fans to be informed as well. While I don't think it is their intention to encourage voting blindly, I do think that they can cause it indirectly if they do not advocate informed voting. 

All the responsibility cannot be put on celebrities, though. It is our responsibility as citizens to be informed before voting. However, celebs can use their influence to encourage responsible voting and set a good example of it. 

Discourse Online

Social media being such a prominent part of the public sphere today, it was only a matter of time before it played a part in voting. While you cannot cast a vote through social media (although that might not be far off), there are new ways to discuss voting or encourage friends to vote. This article explains recent trends in political discourse through social media. You can find political groups and threads on Facebook, support videos on YouTube, and #whyimnotvotingforobama and #whyimnotvotingforromney hashtags on Twitter. 

It seems like young people are really enjoying political discourse via the internet. However, as the article explains, if you look closer, the discourse is not all that beneficial. It is almost exclusively confined to like-minded people discussing ideas, or yelling matches between people with different ideologies. Political ideas that trended on both sides revolved around debate buzzwords like "Big Bird", or "binders full of women", things mainly used to joke about. 

So is this new form of political discourse beneficial to the public sphere, especially concerning young people? Should we be happy that at least people are taking an interest? Or is the limited expression involved with social media essentially ineffective?

HURRICANE SANDY and..... Inequality?

Turn on the TV, go on the internet, open a newspaper, and one of the first things you will see right now is pictures and/or information on Hurricane Sandy; this is no surprise considering the size of the storm, its potential destructive power, and the nation's memories of Katrina. As I was searching for more information on the storm, I came across this article, and was immediately interested because I recently finished reading Timothy Noah's The Great Divergence. 

The article takes two things that seem completely separate (natural disasters and economic inequality) and explains how they are related. According to the author, inequality increases the amount of damage natural disasters like Sandy can do because so many people lack the resources to support themselves in a time of crisis. Normally, this is not a connection many people (myself included) would make; however, when you think about it, it makes sense.

If you just consider the families could be potentially "devastated" by a natural disaster, many of them would probably be low-income. This does not mean that the storm would skip over the houses of high-income families; it simply means that they would have the money and resources to live elsewhere, make repairs, etc, whereas low-income families could not. Although both types of family would be equally emotionally devastated, the low-income families would lose more comparatively.

On the other hand, one could read this article as kind of a stretch in order to raise awareness of the potential damages economic inequality causes. The title "How Economic Inequality Makes Hurricanes More Deadly" certainly caught my eye and made me want to read on. Perhaps it just seems like a stretch because it is not natural for me to connect natural disasters and inequality in my mind. Either way, the article presents a very interesting argument, especially after reading Noah's book.

The Pre-K Divergence

Reading The Great Divergence by Timothy Noah has certainly put American economic inequality in perspective for me. Something that I once thought little about is now more real to me. One part of Noah's solution to "the great divergence" that I find particularly interesting is the implementation of preschool for all children. Children who attend preschool have a higher chance of earning a bachelor's degree; this has been proven, and it makes Noah's argument fairly appealing. As I looked further into this idea, I found this article, one which shows how current preschool attendance is somewhat of a vicious cycle for low income families. 

The article shows a couple graphs, which depict the difference in preschool attendance between children from low and high income families. It is very clear that children from high income families are much more likely to attend preschool. As was previously stated, children who attend preschool are more likely to earn a bachelor's degree, and it is the children from high income families that receive the advantage of this early education. These children, who grow up to earn degrees, have a better chance of landing a good job and, in turn, making more money; they will then be able to send their children to preschool, thereby continuing the cycle. 

Considering this cycle of education and the way it privileges higher income families gives Noah's argument for universal preschool more merit.

When Entertainment and Politics Collide

I ran across this article this weekend; it talks about the political views of actors Matt Damon and Ben Affleck in light of Affleck's new movie, Argo, which depicts the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis. While Damon dismissed the idea, Affleck says he would be open to someday running for office.

Both men have long been politically active, expressing their views and endorsing particular candidates. Reagan and Schwarzenegger were both actors before being politicians, so it can be done. This is not to say that actors are not qualified to work in politics, but it got me thinking, how do their prior roles in movies affect their relationship to the public as politicians? Are actors who play particular roles more suited for politics? Perhaps the preparation that goes into more political movie roles would be beneficial, as well as the way that the actor is portrayed on screen. It would be interesting to see what you think.