Journalism and American Democracy

As we bid adieu to the iPads I reflect on what the device did to contribute to my overall learning experience. But besides that what I thought most about was the convenience of having a tablet device as a college student. That is why I would like to urge that colleges and universities push for a more portable-based technological student body.

As we have seen throughout the class, the “age of Twitteracy” is something we are living in the now. With news stories constantly being published, the sense of constant news coverage has reached levels unlike before the radio or television. With the internet in our cell phones and at our fingertips there is a constant checking and rechecking of the latest and hottest stories whether they be of politics or of someone making their relationship “Facebook official.” But what sets the tablet device apart are the capabilities that a cell phone just does not have. For example, the organization it allows. Apart from having a calendar in your phone there is no real way to organize yourself in terms of time. Sure there’s an app for something of that nature like maps, but that’s really it. Compared to the iPad there’s anything from making notes on pdf files (a “green” initiative), putting all homework assignments due dates and the ability to them on the tablet itself, download/buy books for class which also saves time and paper, and many other capabilities.

I don’t know. Maybe I’m making an excuse for the university to buy me an iPad because I don’t have the money. However, the iPad and other tablet devices bring about a new set of rules to the connected world. The capabilities are beyond what I expected, but just what I needed in terms of having what I needed as a student. I just hope that I could afford it sometime soon.

Kathleen Parker in her piece titled “Michelle Obama’s valentine to men” writes of the First Lady’s speech during the first night of the Democratic National Convention. A striking point brought up by Parker is that toward the end of Obama’s speech there was emphasis placed on fathers, both on her own and President Obama, essentially marginalizing those that do not fit into the traditional family frame. This point is striking because, as Parker mentioned, there has been rhetoric of promoting the exceptional when it comes to people who grew up in single-parent homes (i.e. Obama and the Castro twins). They did not fit the “traditional” families that the GOP has so pushed with the phrase “traditional family values.” But even so, the Obamas were now a traditional family.

Why is this important to recognize? I point this out to highlight the fact that the Democratic Party has more recently pushed for and endorsed marriage rights for same-sex couples. Most notably was President Obama’s personal endorsement back in May. Although it has gained much publicity, there is still a need to continue the conversation on the issue. This is because people unknowingly offend a group they have so proudly defended simply by word choice. Or even ignoring the issue has the same effect.

Parker, in her article, argues for the necessity of a mother and father in a family stating “More often, young males (and females) without fathers wind up in trouble.” While that is the case in a great deal of cases, it ignores those same-sex couples seeking equality. What happens to them? How would they respond to the Zach Wahls’s out there?

I guess we’ll have to wait and see. Until then, the “traditional” family it is. But what is truly “traditional”?

As the race for the presidency winds down we have and will continue to see more endorsements for a presidential candidate. Just last week Colin Powell endorsed Obama. But what significance do these endorsements hold, especially more now that the election is only one week away? While these endorsements are legitimate and have an impact I think it is more so to affirm the decisions voters have already made. These public figures serve as role models to the general public. By making a decision and having it affirmed by someone you look up to is a comforting feeling. If a person you admire endorses someone else you can always move to the next without hesitation. Apart from the – what I would say – lack of  influence on the decision the language endorsements use is interesting especially toward this election.

In the LA Times, references to the Bush administration go nowhere near unnoticeable. With phrases such as “misguided adventure” and referring to opponents as assailants, the rhetoric is by no means subtle to the watchful eye. While an endorsement is obviously partisan, the language is accusatory and set out to attack. But passive-aggressively. Apart from  being accusatory toward the beginning of the piece, it also concludes with an accusatory line besides the usual “we urge you to reelect Obama.” They state, “The alternative offered by Romney would neglect the country’s infrastructure and human resources for the sake of yet another tax cut and a larger defense budget than even the Pentagon is seeking.” By bringing in the Pentagon, images of the 9/11 attacks still haunt the public. By using such images, the LA Times equates Romney to these attacks on America. This was prevalent throughout the entire article. Therefore, it is easy to state that the LA Times focused more on crating a negative image out of Romney, than a positive one of Obama.

The Des Moines Register on the other hand focused on how they believed Romney would be able to address, what they labeled, the most important issue of this election: the economy. It focuses on the business successes of Romney and how they would reflect his successes in the economy. They site his experience. the structure also differs from the times, as it seems to be more of a conversation with Romney getting the last word. By structuring as such there is better portrayal of the newspaper as a subject that was not taken lightly (as it should be portayed). But to conclude, the Register did what I found to be very interesting and a method to disqualify themselves as a partisan newspaper. They listed all the previous endorsements – which include both GOP and Democrat) and whether those endorsed won.

What we receive from both sources are different approaches. One is more lingering on the past and mentions of the future, while the other is more on the now and the future. Whatever the case, the newspapers took their stance and lived with their failed or successful endorsement.

While I have been an avid Obama supporter, I was disappointed in his performance as my twitter feed so constantly reaffirmed. While remaining more factual than Romney, his body language revealed his discomfort with the debate. My friends and I joked by pointing out his slow blinks most times Romney spoke – something we often do with people we are not too fond of.

Romney came in determined to make an impression. He did as he planned. While I considered a great deal of his demeanors lacking professionalism, I think they remain commendable being that it helped him win the debate. He was firm in his stances and arguments, and addressed the issues (semi) directly – no candidate really answers the questions directly, that’s just how it is. And by winning this debate, Romney has shown that he is still giving Obama run for his money. Both candidates are on the treadmill of elections, Romney is just on a higher speed determined to get ahead; Obama hasn’t been active since the pictures he took playing basketball. Better get back in shape, Obama, if you want to remain in this race.

But as I think about it: is this Obama’s plan? Does he plan to look weak in the first debate, so Biden doesn’t look so bad – because, let’s face it, he is not as eloquent in public speaking – and, consequently, he blows everyone out of the water in the last debate?

I guess we’ll have to see.

Big Bird 2012!!!

Just yesterday the country witnessed the 13th Presidential debate since the Kennedy-Nixon Debate in 1960. To the undecided voter, this is a chance to view if first hand how the nominees differ in positions. But to the decided voter this is merely a chance to bash on the opposed candidate. Is that really the case?

It seems that when the debates have come around, it is the decided voters who show more enthusiasm for the debates. It is like their “Jerry Springer”. But what about the undecided voters? If the debates are in place to help the undecided voters, why is there much less enthusiasm on their part? Because it is the decided voters that are more likely to actually view the debates, it seems useless to have them if their main purpose is to inform the undecided voter.

But is that really the case? The debates have become so engrained in the bureaucratic system, that their motive – while initially benevolent – has become a mere tool for candidates to show that if you speak with more assertion and poise, you can win the debate. Take yesterday’s debate. While Obama remained more factual, it was Romney’s assertive mannerism that helped him win the debate. Because of this I see no motive for the presidential debates. Not until the undecided voter shows more enthusiasm and actually pays attention to the debates, will the debates be remotely relevant.

But for the inebriation-seeking person, they can wholeheartedly say they watched the tetra-annual event along with the rest of politically-active population….while playing the “Debate Drinking Game.”

What has the iPad done for me?

When the device first emerged, only jokes came to mind. I’m sure we’ve all heard them. But little did I realize the convenience it would bring to my life as a university student.
Even before I received it I bragged about being in one of the few classes at ND that gets an iPad. “Guess what? I get an iPad for one of my classes!” My friends were jealous. But my excitement was merely because of the brand, not necessarily the device. Then the day came where I received my first pad – or tablet device, you decide what to call it. I was like a kid again opening my new Power Ranger toy – being that I was poor growing up I always got the knock-off, so you can imagine my excitement when I got this name-brand item.

After receiving it, I immediately searched for any app that even remotely interested me. From angry birds to PDF Notes, each app I could apply to school work, if not leisure. Since receiving it I have essentially transferred my being as a student into this device. My environmentalist side appreciates the paperless annotations; my nurturing side appreciates the Skype sessions with friends and family; my [Notre Dame] student side appreciates that I don’t have to look like the hunchback – pun intended – every time I walk with my backpack on because of my laptop. My back appreciates the latter as well.

Above the convenience, it has allowed me to be an overall better student. I am more organized and efficient with my time and work. It will be a shame when I have to return the iPad at the end of he semester. I might just have to save up to buy my own.

Weddings are a majority of the time an excuse for extravagance and going way over a set budget. But in the case of celebrities, going over budget is not an issue. We see these displays of diamonds, fine wine, caviar (which is nasty), and exclusivity unlike those of the common folk. Although “upstaged” in extravagance, strong attention – no, obsession – is given to those wed locked celebrities and their celebration. I look at one celebrity wedding in particular, Ryan Reynolds and Blake Lively’s, and compare two sources (one English, the other Spanish) and how the monumental event is described.
One source is the LA Times, in which the article is titled “Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds’ Chic Southern Wedding.” Right off the bat one can tell an emphasis would be put on the fashion/extravagance of the wedding. This is confirmed with words such as “stylish” in regards to the event and “A-list talent” in regards to the entertainment. The article continues to describe the ambiance of the wedding and what kinds of extravagances were incorporated. Names of designers and jewelers are basic in such articles.
My next choice was Univision.com, a prominent Spanish-language source. The word choice used leads to a more intimate understanding of the couple. Descriptions of the couple as having a “relación sentimental” (sentimental relationship) and referring to the fact that the entertainment was a good friend of the actress; all are indications of the personable aspect the source is trying to portray. Not so much concentrating on the extravagance. It even references where the couple first met. This essentially focused on their persons.
By comparing the two I am in no way saying English sources are focused on materialistic aspects while Spanish on personal, but this gives some insight as to how the sources, both covering the same event, present differing aspects in accordance to the wants of their readership. This then goes back to the idea of that journalism maintains a strong tie to its profit-focused being while maintaining credibility.

Personally I could care less which celebrities get married with the exception of my celebrity crush, Salma Hayek.

LA Times Article: http://lat.ms/S4YfKo
Univision Article: http://bit.ly/QDVAHi