Fox News Reporter Battles It Out!!

I watched this on youtube check it out

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GC7qZ6iywMY&feature=PlayList&p=F4D4B1E140070F5E&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=26

If you don't have the time to check it out ill explain briefly what happened. There is an anti-gay church in Kansas somewhere that was protesting at a military burial. The reporter interviews a woman from the church. The interview gets heated right away and it is clear that the woman is out of her mind. Basically the rest of the movie is the reporter and the church member yelling bible verses over one another. It ends with the reporter calling the woman the devil.

So my initial reaction to this was laughter cause I love a good shouting match. I have to say I am getting sick of the split screen fights. Why was this woman even on any type of news Channel. She is obviously completely crazy and I cant figure out how it helps anyone to here her garbage. This is soft news at its finest and it needs to stop......feedback please

Media Civil War

The recurring theme in my blog has been the two party system and how flawed I feel it is. What I would like to do here is give a comparison and see what everyone thinks about it. Last semester I took a course on the politics of developing areas and we studied many war torn countries and the root of their conflicts. Not surprisingly most all of these struggles are ethnic related. To best explore these ethnic conflicts we divided countries into three groups according to ethnic diversity. The three groups are multi-ethnic, bi-ethnic and single ethnic. One might assume that the countries with the most internal conflicts would be the multi-ethnic countries but this is not the case. Most of the time citizens of a multi-ethnic country learn how to put their differences aside and develop a strong sense of nationalism. A perfect example of a multi-ethnic country is the U.S. The countries where we see the most civil-conflict are the ones that are bi-ethnic. In countries where there are only two major ethnic groups there is almost always civil conflict. An example of this is the Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda. I would like to compare this to politics. To me it seems that the tension between republicans and democrats is constantly growing and is fueled largely by the media. My previous blog about fox attacking Obama is a perfect example of this. It seems as though our media is the source for a potential political civil war. The key to civil peace in a country is nationalism, which brings countries together to accomplish great things. How can our media come together and learn how to get passed this two party system. I am tired of turning on CNN and listen to them bash republicans and turning on FOX to them ripping democrats. Is there any hope for this to end or are we doomed to an endless media and political civil war….let me know if you have any thoughts on this.

Obama Wants To Control The Web....come on FOX

I pulled up the Fox news website last night and under "Breaking News" read, "OBAMA WANTS TO CONTROL THE WEB." There are several points that I would like to touch on here so I guess I will start by asking, is this really breaking news? This is a textbook example of the dramatization bias that we have talked about in class over and over. The fact that this made the breaking news page on Fox really exposes how bias the network is. We all realize that Fox is the most conservative network but I see this as way over the top and I am not even a democrat. This "breaking news" story reminds me of something that may be a topic of discussion on Hannity but for it to be on the front of the Fox home page blows me away. If you have read any of my previous blogs you know that I am not a big fan of the two party system and this headline is a prime example of why that is. It was clear to me before I even read this article that its purpose was not to inform me of the current administrations ideas for monitoring the web but to infuse the "right" and turn them further against their president.

The article it self is even more troubling to me than the title. The main issue in the article is that a White House staffer named Susan Crawford wants to turn the internet into a utility like water and electricity. The article argues that this would give the government full control to monitor the internet and place regulations on it. The article then talks about a group called Free Press which is an avid supporter of internet regulation. The leader of the group is an alleged Marxist who claims that internet regulation is the beginning of a socialist revolution.

What is truly amazing to me is how much this article angers me when I am against government control of internet. I really wish that this article did not seem so bias so I would feel better about reading it. It just seems that the whole purpose of the article isn't to inform but is to scare. It really bothers me that our most watched news channel is willing to put something this obviously bias on their front page. The title is "Obama Wants to Control The Web" and Obama is only actually mentioned in the article two times. For all we know all that could have happened was a White House staff member made the wrong comment and Obama has nothing to do with this. I am really disappointed in Fox news.