The News Media – Lack Of Sensitivity For Viewers & Families

It is apparent that most who have access to a television, radio, or the internet know of the tragedy that has befallen just about 300 people in the deadly airliner crash, which was precipitated by what appears to be a Russian separatist attack by a launched missile.  So far, since last Thursday, outlets such as CNN, Fox News and MSNBC have covered this story non stop.  Each news source has focused on the constant upheaval that Americans and even Ukrainian officials have relayed towards Russia, for a lack of accountability.  However, one thing is apparent and that is the media continues to have its role in all of this.

Since this is a political blog, I believe that this is appropriate to post here since this can and often does involve politics.  However, I wanted to focus on the media and how it seems that our society has become numb to the need for sensitivity.  The fact is that outlets now run on a 24 hour news cycle.  In years past, news networks ran at certain time slots (i.e. 6 am to 9 am and 9 pm to 11 pm).  The point is that journalism was processed and produced in a stark contrast to where we are currently in our society.  Daily, the average viewer or reader is inundated with news stories which most of the time are an excess of violence, bad behavior, or something negative.

One such example was the unfortunate and violent beating that involved a 15 year old Israeli American.  His photo was shown on national and international television in addition to the internet, showcasing his wounds and facial disfigurement.  The point is that media outlets used his photo and relayed it to the public, in a way that not only seemed to be unfortunate for the child, but even for the family.  In my own mind, I believed it to be detestable that networks would not only show such graphic imagery, but that there wasn’t any respect for the family of the teen or the teen himself.

In a way, these words written are words based on of my own frustrations because I recognize that it is not a requirement that life be treated in trivial and in insensitive ways.  Of course, it is common sense and quite obvious that money is the primary agenda of most if not all news networks.  Since that is the case, news stories such as the ongoing crisis in Israel, and the investigation into the 2nd Malaysian airliner disaster, will dominate headlines for months on end. These executives that decide what stories are covered, do not care about the feelings of those involved.  Their goal is to report a story that catches the viewers eye, even if it is tragically inspired.

It is probably a natural inclination for humans to be attracted to calamity as in, attempting to discover what happened and why.  So, as a result the media sees this, and takes advantage of a common trait that we as humans have.  The more views (or in the age of social media – tweets/likes) that a news story gets, the higher the ratings.  The higher the ratings, the more likely it is that news executives can increase their company revenue over shorter periods of time. In the mind of the capitalist, this is just business.  However, in the mind of those that believe in decency and respect, this is merely shrewdness and greed.  So what is one to do about it?

Well, one of the methods would be turn off the television, turn off the smartphone, and purge yourself of the toxicity within the media.  Journalism in years past was honest, positive to a degree, and authentic.  Today’s journalism does not encompass these traits at least not in the overall sense.  I have learned that instead of filling my mind with all of the garbage that the media reports, it is better to set my focus on positive things and life.  Does that mean we should be ignorant of what is occurring in our world?  Definitely not.  It does mean that all who live in this life, should find a healthy balance and understand that the media isn’t out to protect or serve the viewer for a positive impact.

The media will be unrelenting in its quest to earn ratings which of course equals an increased amount of cash flow.  However, each viewer or participant owes it to themselves to discover the truth.  Media outlets are very similar to stereotypes, in that stereotypes contain bits of truth, but the overwhelming sentiment towards a group of people, or a behavior is unfounded.  The same goes for what is reported daily.  There are truths, but much of what we see is based on speculation and in some cases fabrication.  It is up to each individual to know what the truth is, and to abstain from a constant feeding that comes at the hands of each news organization.

It is my hope that the families of those that lost loved ones in the downing of the Malaysian airliner, can find peace and rest as the investigation continues.  However, it is also my hope that someone in some capacity will see the unfortunate and negative impact that many news organizations have, by merely reporting in an insensitive and vicious way.

Electoral Campaigns – Then & Now

Every election cycle seems to bring about a sense of importance and political aspiration for each candidate that is running.  Whether it is state politics or national politics, each election provides its audience with headlines or newsworthy stories, that dominate our viewing sphere.  From statistics of the latest polls, to sound bytes played through the airwaves, there are a myriad of  events that surround each political campaign.

In addition to this, it is important to recognize that  how political campaigns were run in the past compared to now, truly has shaped the current and future projection of election campaigning.  Starting with the founding Fathers.  These were individuals that did not assume their cabinet positions or Presidency based on campaigning as it is today.  In the beginning portion of our nation’s Democracy, campaigning had not yet taken root as a culture in our political framework.

Rather, individuals such as George Washington for example, were chosen based their leadership capabilities, and assumed position because of a unanimous consent by the people and constituents.  It wasn’t necessary for George Washington to campaign for the Presidency, because his credentials qualified him for it, and he was the only President that was elected by a unanimous decision each term.  Campaigning at least in America, did not begin until years later.

For example, as time continued onward, campaigning during the early 1800’s and into the 1900’s exemplified more of the personal touch with would be voters.  Essentially, during the early periods (shortly after our first few Presidents) campaigning took the form of interacting with the voting public, face to face.  Stump speeches which were made famous by Teddy Roosevelt, and Abraham Lincoln, revolutionized the beginning and framing of political campaigning.  Stump speeches were an important part to the process during the 19th century heading into the 20th century, because it involved an active and avid engagement of the political candidate with the people that he represented.

In addition to stump speeches, another form of political campaigning in early American history was that of traveling by railroad.  Shortly after the industrial revolution, there were many candidates especially incumbents that traveled by railroad to impress upon the American voter, their message of hope and sense of leadership.  Presidents such as Teddy Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, and even Bill Clinton, traveled by train in order to use transportation to reach their audience.  Train travel was and has been a popular means for campaigning.

 
Another part of campaigning was of course the newspaper.  Journalism both in the past and the present, has been a mainstay in terms of its influence on a voter’s decision.  During the earlier time period in American history, the newspaper was utilized in order to create political ads as a way to demean an opponent.  The use of political cartoons was an effective tool, that candidates used to vilify and detract voters from their opponent’s message. This in turn created a medium of communication which led many voters to be swayed in one way or another.

History also shows us that the introduction to radio as a means of communication was also paramount to the dissemination of electoral information and influence.  The use of radio was important in terms of creating an atmosphere in which all Americans, regardless of their location, could listen to a candidate’s message without even seeing the candidate up close.  It became one of the early mechanisms for spreading rhetoric nation wide, which meant that more homes could be caught in the target of political campaigning.

As we moved from radio there was of course the introduction of television.  Television at least in its inception was a unique medium used to display a candidate’s message.  The use of television had the ability to incorporate commercials which were essentially ads that were purchased on behalf of a campaign and its sponsors.  Campaign ads via television is still a popular means of campaign warfare even today.  Candidates over time, have turned to television commercials, because of how common it is for households to have a television set or two.  Television commercials quickly became a means for influencing the voting public, by investing large sums of campaign funds into each ad.  At this point and time, the more ads a campaign releases, the more likely the campaign with the most advertisements will win the election.

Finally, we move to the internet which is now a popular medium for political news and consumption. Social media networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook, has completely changed the way that campaigns are run.  It is very common to see political candidates releasing their thoughts or statements from their Twitter accounts.  Many campaigns take advantage of social media, because it reaches a wide array of users. Since there is a high volume of smartphone use and ownership, candidates seize the opportunity to campaign via the internet.  The internet is the current and future way of how campaigning will be conducted.  It makes sense, since most have access to some sort of internet connection, along with the media’s influence.

It is quite interesting to compare past and present forms of campaigning.  While each form was privy to its time, we must also take a look at which form of campaigning was most effective.  Is it the type of campaigning that allows voters to be face to face with the candidate?  Or has the internet become a more effective way to gain votes?  The truth is, each generation had its means, and future generations will continue to tweak the incorporation of campaign styles.  However, the most effective way to campaign regardless of the medium, is to touch the heart of the people, and ensure that you the candidate is sincere in both the delivery of your message, and your intent of what it is that you wish to accomplish as an elected official.

Net Neutrality – Is The Concept Alive?

Lately, the issue of internet autonomy or unlimited access has surfaced to a national and even international debate.  ‘Net neutrality’ as a concept basically involves the use of the internet on one’s own terms.  It is a principle that the FCC began to pursue in early 2005, under the premise that internet service providers should allow fairness and equality as it relates to users accessing websites.  Under the concept of net neutrality, the FCC during its original position on the matter, held that internet service providers could not and should not seek to disbar or block users from having access to certain sites it deemed inappropriate.

Basically, the FCC contended at the time, that users should maintain their own level of privacy, choice, and ability to access all media forms, regardless of the internet service provider’s position.  It is a claim that the FCC stood firm on, until most recently.  During the years of 2010 and 2012, the FCC became embroiled in two lawsuits.

The first lawsuit occurred in January of 2010 to April 2010.  Comcast sued the FCC over rights of the company to choose which portions of the internet that they could restrict to it’s user base.  Comcast stood on the grounds of having it’s own rights, and that the FCC could not intervene in it’s own business decisions.  Basically, if Comcast wanted to block certain websites or content from the viewing or participating  user, then it as a company had every legal and ethical right to do so.  However, at the time the FCC made it clear that it was unethical, and that the user would ultimately lose based on loss of access, and even increases in price due to Comcast intentionally slowing internet speed.  In the end of that lawsuit, Comcast won the legal battle, as the DC Circuit Court Of Appeals ruled that the FCC did not have the statutory authority (also known as ancillary authority) or support under the Communications Act of 1934, to intervene in the  business of Comcast.

The second lawsuit occurred in September of 2013 to January 2014.  Verizon sued the FCC over grounds that it did not have the Constitutional rights or the rights given by Congress to intervene or interrupt business operations regarding the internet.  This case was also won in favor of Verizon, because the DC Circuit Court Of Appeals Court ruled that since the FCC had classified broadband providers under Title I of the Communications ACT of 1934, then the FCC did not have grounds to regulate Verizon like common carriers.  So, in this case, the FCC lost it’s battle for net neutrality.

This leads us to today, and the current state of the net neutrality issue.  As of recently, FCC chairman Tom Wheeler has taken a completely different stance of what the original proposition was in the beginning of this affair.  Wheeler has proposed a law that will allow what is known as the institution of “fast lanes” concerning Internet Service Providers.  This means that ISP’s will be allowed to dictate the speed of their service, and pass the increased price hike to their business constituents.

For example, if Comcast desires to use the proposed fast lane technology, then companies such as Facebook and Netflix, would in essence be forced to pay Comcast a much higher rate of their revenue, in order to increase or maintain appropriate speeds without risking too slow of a speed for users.  This in turn has caused Facebook, Netflix, Google, and Yahoo to publicly show disdain over this proposed law.  If internet companies are forced or given the option to pay more, then it isn’t good for business purposes.

The position that the FCC took before in their beginning stages of net neutrality is a staggering difference compared to the current position.  So, why has Wheeler and the FCC projected a 180 degree turn in their proposition?  The likely reason has to do with the failed attempts of the FCC to gain leverage and ultimately intervention into Internet Service Providers and their transactions.

It is because of their two botched lawsuits that they stood in the loser’s circle.  As a result, it is a possibility that the FCC as a whole realized that they could not win this net neutrality battle.  So, Wheeler now proposes a stark contrast of what was offered before.  Based on that, it sounds like the FCC has admitted defeat, at least for the moment.

So, does this mean that the concept of net neutrality is still alive?  The answer lies with the American people at least in the moment.  While the FCC’s original intent seemed noble on the part of the consumer, their detraction from their previous position only leaves one to believe that net neutrality will at some point be a dead idea and unlikely to be fulfilled.  This is still within reach what the FCC can enforce, simply because they are the Federal organization in charge of communications and law regarding it.  However, to actually prove the case that net neutrality is necessary for consumer protection, the FCC must find some legal reasoning as to why it should be implemented, and why ISP’s are out of line.

Of course Congress could submit a proposal, and even the President could do the same, but even if so, it is likely that Internet Service Providers would win the end.  This goes back to the issue of business vs. government.  Only in this case, businesses are clamoring for their right to remain sovereign. With the FCC switching it’s position, it appears that business has won this argument.

If that is the case, then the consumer can expect to see their freedoms and rights reduced drastically, as long as businesses holds all of the cards.  Of course, businesses have a right to conduct their practices as such, but it then gets into what is ethical.  Based on what the original FCC sentiment was, it was and is unethical.  However, the best thing the consumer can do is to remember that the consumer holds the ultimate power so to speak.  If businesses lose revenue over dissatisfaction, then perhaps these ISP’s will get the message, and keep the internet open for all.

Cyber Terrorism – Is This The Greatest Threat To Global Security?

Most in America, and even abroad are aware of the impact and the catastrophic damage that terrorism inflicted on 9/11. It was a day that will be etched in the memories of all who were alive and could remember vividly as to what happened. It was an unthinkable occurrence which surprised many Americans, because it was on a scale we had never seen or could have imagined. However terrorism on that scale as it were, has changed.

It has become a tactic that is not only utilized by terror networks (i.e. Al-Qaeda) but there are what is known as terror cells. These are individual persons that may or may not be affiliated with any terrorist group. We are at a point in which, terrorism isn’t isolated to a specific gender or even nationality. Terrorism has become a faceless war, that America (and other countries) have waged against would be criminals. It has turned into a quest to eradicate an ideology or at the very least mitigate such acts from occurring.

However, despite the change as it relates to affiliation or not with terrorist groups, one major shift we as a society has seen is that of technology. Technology is an ever changing and increasing means to conduct daily living. Since most of the world is interconnected via the internet, or satellite composition, we are able to download and retrieve information at high speeds. Such information has become readily available even if a person does not own a laptop.

The business of smartphones has reached the billion dollar mark, which has created a vast demand for such technology. In addition to smartphone technology, the continued progression of cashless means of payment has steadily increased. Millions of consumers worldwide are opting for debit and credit card payments. This in turn means that digital certification is a present and future way of processing business claims and transactions.

We live in a world that seems to be dominated by technology and having access to it. However, with this technology there is a vulnerability that lurks beneath the surface. Most already know that once the information age began, our information was not only accessible but there was a risk that would come with use of such technology.

There have been countless reports of data breaches (both nationally known and even individual cases) that have become common knowledge. With the increase of technology, there has been a heightened level of “cyber-terrorist” activity.

This has become the new war that America has waged against terrorists. Individuals that want to attack America have resorted to attacking our nation’s technological infrastructure. We are seeing a new wave of attacks that are meant to destroy our nation from the inside out. So much so, that according to a 2012 article by informationweek.com, (see the full article) cyber terrorism has become the #1 threat to America’s security. It has even grown to the point in which the Obama Administration has launched a new effort to counter act cyber terrorism with legislation and measures.

The point to be made is, cyber terrorism is a dangerous means for attacking America and even global interests. Hackers are being trained to target and actively weaken America’s databases. In our system, thousands if not millions of pieces of information exist, which could prove to be dangerous in the hands of the enemy.

This isn’t just a plan to capture millions of innocent American’s personal data. We are seeing an assault from terrorists that want to capture sensitive information that belongs to the Federal government, along with tearing down our infrastructure. If America’s technological structure is weakened, then we have a vulnerable society.

Terrorism has evolved many times over. Groups and even individuals are no longer relying on the archaic ways of utilizing car bombs or bomb making materials to achieve their evil schemes. Now, many are terrorizing via the internet, and presenting a mass risk to all users. So, what are world leaders/government’s to do?

Simply put, we must increase detection of security breaches, stay up to date with the latest security protocols, and be less reliant on technology in an overall sense. Completely erasing our global fascination with technology is out of the question. However, I maintain that the best defense against cyber terrorism is to use technology when necessary, and to also use non technological means to live. If our world is insistent on using technology (which it is) then it is best served to be up to date regarding network and cyber security. With all of this said, it is safe to say that this type of terrorism is indeed the greatest and newest threat to global security. Cyber terrorism is the new face of terrorism, but it behooves all of us to be vigilant and wise about what we do, and what we use for our daily routines.

The Media – Does It Influence How You Vote?

When we look at the incorporation of media it has become a major catalyst in our daily influence. From the internet to television, and in some regards (perhaps not as much) newspapers and magazines, each of these entities have slowly but surely created a system in which our information is disseminated.

The media continues to run at a 24/7 news cycle. Twitter and Facebook have become examples of social networking sites that deliver bits and pieces of the latest news stories. Even as television continues to be a vehicle for news, we can see that it runs at a daily and nightly pace, which feeds into the propaganda instituted by various networks.

However, despite the obvious truth of the media and its infiltration into society, it seems that it has become the very influence in how many patrons vote. When the election season surfaces (whether it be Presidential or state) the media is the first mode of transportation for all things political.

The internet is of course a growing method for achieving instant results for not only news, but even various views as it relates to political affiliations. When we look at what the internet has become, it has become a breeding ground for words to be written, groups to be formed, and news to be portrayed. As a result, one can easily immerse themselves in social media in order to seek groups that align with their political views.

Even as it relates to television, political views are televised in mostly a biased manner, which feeds its audience rhetoric based on which way the view leans. Journalism as it were, is no longer objective, but now it is inherently biased which means, there is some sort of agenda to be accomplished by spreading it through the this form of media.

We have so much at our disposal in terms of information and influence, however, does it cause voters to think closely about who they vote for? Some studies have shown that ads during election cycles do not influence whom they will cast a vote for. Many see ads as more of an annoyance. However, I am willing to state, that during off election cycles, such ads do not influence voters, but rather news networks and various groups become that influence.

Basically, as news networks work around the clock, their message can and often does sway how voters decide, because of news stories that are cultivated to the listening public. We might not admit it readily, but the truth is, many voters determine their candidate based on something that they heard or read. I personally believe, there are a small percentage that actually research and discover their candidates without influence from the media or the internet.

The most important thing to remember however, is that we live in a day and age when there is an abundance of noise and static, that comes with an agenda. That agenda isn’t to report the truth, but to distort it. I wouldn’t be truthful if I said that 100% of what the media reports is that of lies, but I will say that what is propagated is that of a mixture of truth and falsehood. The issue is, being able to discern and discover the truth for yourself, without leaning to the media for your assistance.