Classmate Post

Recently in a blog post, one of my classmates mentioned that they had an interest in a group project on Lebanon and its media. They stated that the main reason for this were that although the country has seemingly free media in terms of government intervention and censorship, especially compared to the rest of the Middle East. After reading over the post, I found that I completely agreed with his argument and claims about the country's media problem.

One of the common trends among the six groups that presented to our class was that almost all countries had high media censorship. The two countries that were outliers were Israel, because of its justified media censorship with national security issues, and Lebanon because of the little to no government censorship the media faces. However, unlike Israel that takes advantage of this and reports as one might expect, Lebanon reports in accordance with religious and ethnic affiliation. This, as my classmate pointed out, makes the news in the country incredibly bias, meaning that it is as unreliable and therefore invalid as the news that is being reported in countries with high censorship. This leads to an extremely unique problem, which is how to make their news more credible and less bias.

The difficulty in this problem is the decision the government would theoretically have to make. On one hand, what is currently going on is the people deciding for themselves what they what to do and what they want their media to be. At face value, this would appear to be very fair and democratic. However, putting this into context, one realizes that the way the people chose to be conduct themselves in the media is bias and therefore unreliable. On the other hand, government intervention in order to make the media less bias and more credible, (an almost mythical concept) is also unfair because the government is controlling the media and not letting the people decide for themselves. Although it appears to be almost certain that the current system will not change, at least in the near future, it still is both a problem and one that is not at all easy to solve.

Another thought that occurred to me was what would happen between religious and ethnic groups if the government did decided to intervene and change the current system. It is almost impossible to report news without some sort of bias, meaning that it is probable one religious or ethnic group would feel they either are or are not being favored by the government. What would this lead to? Would riots break out? Would there be greater conflict between the different ethnic and religious groups across the country? It does not appear that it would get to this point in the coming years, however if the government were to intervene in the country's media to make it more fair and less bias, I feel that these are key questions that would have to be answered.

Presentation Review

The country I learned most about in addition to finding the most interesting was the presentation on Israel. The first reason for this, is because I feel the media, along with possibly many others issues, is commonly overlooked when it comes to reporting on the country. When we hear about Israel in news, which is frequent as they are both our allies and because of the United State’s large jewish population, it is almost exclusively regarding the ongoing conflict with Palestine. Not to say this is not a serious issue or does not deserves coverage, but the aspect of media is rarely, if ever, brought up. This gives the country a separation from the Middle East and North Africa, in which high media censorship and civil rights problem are constantly discussed when the countries reported on in by Western media. Keeping this separation in mind, I feel that many Americans would not question Israeli media or possible government censorship. As I learned from the presentation, this both is and is not the case.

The reason for this double standard is that although Israel does have media censorship, it is not only minimal, especially compared to other countries in the Middle East and North Africa, but also justified. This is because the standard of using censorship is only when the countries national security is at risk. As Palestine has undoubtedly proven to be in a constant battle with Israel, this concern, and subsequently censorship the countries had because of it, is valid. In addition, it could also be argued that the United States has acted in similar ways. For instance, following the 9/11 attacks, the U.S passed the Patriot Act, enabling them to access the activities and records of all U.S citizens under certain speculations (the need for “speculation” that would latter be disproven by Edward Snowden). This act, which I personally believe be to unconstitutional, shows how under distress the American people lost freedoms, just as the people of Israel have, due to being in a constant conflict with Palestine. This is another reason why censorship in Israel is not only justified, but also difficult to criticism from the point of view of an American citizen.

Although some many point out how Palestinian journalists are targeted by the government more than Israeli ones are, this does not deserve as much criticism as it could possibly get. At face value, it seems unfair that the government would do this. However, when put into context, although still not justified, it is not nearly as unfair as it seems. Following 9/11, many Americans were highly critical of the Muslim religion and Arab population as a whole, both in the United States and around the world. This was of course the wrong thing to do, however coming off that attacks that had just occurred, is it what happened nonetheless. Despite not having faced an attack on the scale of 9/11, being attacked as constantly as they have over the amount of time, creates the same mood and perception. Ultimately, I feel that we as Americans would not be justified in criticizing the targeting of Palestinian journalists, as the treatment of Muslims and Arabs in our country following 9/11 was just as bad, if not worse.

Religon

This week we as a class took a religious quiz. Although collectively we were able to ace it, we were also informed that to do this is an extreme rarity, and that the majority of Americans are actually not very knowledgeable on both their religion and religion as a whole. The most interesting part of this segment was that the people who score the highest on religious test are actually atheists.

The biggest problem I have with religion in today world, specifically in todays politics is the hypocrisy and those it is used by. For instance, Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House and highly popular within the G.O.P during the 90s has stated he is opposed to gay marriage because it ruins the sanctity of marriage. However, this statement is coming from a person that not only been married three times but has also be accused of adultery during two of them. Examples of instances such as these given by people that still wish to be taken seriously goes on and on. Americans will point constantly to the separation of church and state mentioned in the Constitution, however religion still seems to be able to find a way to get into our laws. Currently the issue at hand is how southern states are trying to get around the LBGTQ Supreme Court ruling that grants homosexuals the right to marry. This again create hypocrisy, as they are rejecting an issue, which is mentioned in a total of four verses out of around 30 thousand throughout the bible, that leads to the inequality of others. For a religion that promotes and insists on following a supposed “loving god” on top of have faith in him enough to believe where you are and what is happening to you is all part of his plan for you, it absolutely has double standards. 

The sad truth of the matter is, I believe, is that if the U.S had no knowledge of the bible or any religion and another country were to rule completely and solely in accordance with the bible, we would view that country very negatively. A country that must stick to the same principles without change or question and discourages those that attempt to would not be a strong, much less a free, country. Yet an uncomfortable portion of Americans still instate on it having merit in the laws that govern our nation. It is not at all a problem to be religious, however it is a problem to force those views on others, in addition to rejecting discussion and compromise on the basis of how you read the bible. What makes this even worse is that as we were informed, the majority of Americans don’t even understand religion to the extent that they think they do. This means that the reasons they are arguing in favor for it are at best bias and at worst outright false. This misinformation about religion among the majority of Americans is why a separation between church and state is imperative and why religious arguments against or for laws are almost always invalid due to there hypocrisy.  

Syria Reflection

The thing that stood out to me above all else when learning about Syria is how hard it is to break the cycle. What I mean by "the cycle" is oppressive governments in third world or Middle Eastern countries, and how they stay this way for decades on end. 

Although things are undoubtedly terrible in Syria currently, the countries modern history has not been optimistic either. Prior to Bashar al-Assad and the problems he has been responsible for, his father governed the country for multiple decades. Not only did he never relinquish power, showing not only his but the countries true color as a government, but also under his rule the country faced an oppression regime. Although it was not nearly as bad as how the countries currently stands, the continues state under the dictator saw restrictions on many rights. 

Following Bashar’s brothers death and his subsequent accession to the throne, there was a brief period of optimism for the country and the restricted rights of its citizens. However, this hope would be short lived, as al-Assad would soon return to his fathers oppressive ways. I don’t believe it was ever a question of “could he/the government just try harder” in term of establishing a long term change but more a question of how long was this facade going to last. It would be much to bold too assume the son of someone that had produced the type of results Bashar’s father had to be much different. His performance should also not come as a surprised due to the fact that as soon as his brother died, he was tapped and therefore expected to one day take the throne, qualifications and all other standards that actually mattered aside. The worst of it all perhaps, is that despite not only constant pressure from world leaders to step down after his country broke out in civil war on top of proof numinous orders he gave broke international laws, there does not seem to be an end in sight. 

Syria is one of many countries that has faced continuous problems such as these in the past few decades. With leadership being passed down, contested in ridged elections, or some other undemocratic form, it becomes extremely difficult for countries to break the cycle. As we have seen in recent years, the only way this cycle is usually broken is through some dramatic action. Although this might possibly be successful, it will undoubtedly result in many lives lost, thousands of people jailed, almost all rights stripped away, and ultimately put citizens of the given nation through months, if not years, of hell. Even when this does not happen, such as outside intervention, citizens are still forced to endure hardships between their government and the foreign country for extended periods of time. Comparatively, even though this would often be the better choice of the two, it still is no easy task to endure. This is the true tragedy Syria, and many countries around the world like it, are faced with. 

Trust Issues

What worries me most when learning about the recent state of media in Egypt and Tunisia is the prior and now current lack of trust. Although this could be viewed as ignorant, with large amounts of people losing their lives and many more being jailed during this time period, I believe the lack of trust in the government and media is more detrimental to both societies in the long term than both the latter are in the short term.  

The first reason for this is that it is borderline impossible to mend trust between a government and its people. For instance, it could be suggested that taking all the people that were in power out, or replacing all those currently holding office will solve this problem. In theory with starting over, trust would be established as those that were deemed untrustworthy are no longer in a position to be. However in reality this would almost never be the case. The face of an oppressive regime almost always falls on one man (Stalin, Hitler, Castro, Saddam, Etc). Due to this, the fall of a single person is often representative of the entire regime. Therefore, even if a dictator is overthrown, an incredibly challenging feat in itself, the entire government would not likely follow. 

Furthermore, another suggestion that could be made in order to mend trust would be that the government grants freedom to the press. In theory, with people being free to write what they wish, people would be able to trust the government as their actions would be accounted for. However, in reality this also does not work as well. The first problem is news stations putting out sensationalism laced stories in order to gain viewers. With the ability to say anything, media is able to release extremely bias and even sometimes false stories. With this kind of media available to the public, trust is not able to become established. Another reason this does not work is because it is not possible for a country to come to a complete consensus on all issues, leading to conflict. Take the United States for instance with its freedom of the press amendment. During the 2008 election season, our current President was accused of being a muslim born in Kenya. Despite this claim having no evidence, it grew a large following that believed the claim was true. Such a large number of people believing a claim such as this shows a clear lack of trust when that man was then elected into office. This is why freedom of the press does not work in mending the trust between the government and its people. 

Putting an elected official in power by a fair nationwide vote could also seem to have the potential of mending this failed relationship. By holding an election, the people could decide for themselves who they wish to be ruled by. However, as history has shown us many times before, the state of a country following the falling of a oppressive leader often struggles and in some cases does not improve. This is because following a dictator's downfall, the country is almost always in a very delicate state. This state not only makes it easier for a well sounding leader to take advantage of the desperate citizens, but also is under a tremendous amount of pressure to success immediately. When success can not be meet in a short amount of time, citizens are prone to negatively response which can lead them right back to where they started with the prior leader. This is why nationwide elections would, in most cases, also not mend a failed relationship between a government and it’s people.  

Dancing in Jaffa

The documentary, Dancing in Jaffa, reminded me of two different concepts. The first concept comes in the form of a quote given by the icon Nelson Mandela, which can frequency be found as a posting on different forms of social media. It goes as follows “No one is born hating another person because of the color of his skin, or his background, or his religion. People must learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love, for love comes more naturally to the human heart than its opposite”. The documentary reminded me of this quote because it showed how it was possible that two kinds of children that we raised to hate each other and blame the other for many of their problems could be taught to not only coexist but also positively mix in the inmate setting of dance. Dance, although not love, is certainly an intimate act as you are not only forced to be in close proximity and constantly touching another person but also must move in alignment with perfect timing. This increased the intimacy as the only way to accomplish this is to communicate with one's partner in order to be on the same page. To say any of the children fell in love during the process would be too bold, however I think they each were able to find and learn a form of love. That form being that they were able to not only release the previously held hate and prejudices they had for one another, but also be able to create something imitate with one another that each previously thought to be impossible. Through the form of dance the children were able to learn how to love instead of following the previously established decades of hate.

The second concept is one many people are identifying as a trend in social media or other forms of modern technology. When discussing one's thoughts on a person or issue people tend to be much more harsh when granted the ability to hide behind a screen and a keyboard. This concept was clearly shown in the start between the two different kinds of children. Growing up in the areas they had, it was clear that each held hate and prejudices for the other due to their families, what they had been told growing up, and what was most likely reported in the areas they lived in. However, when faced with that person directly, although somewhat reluctant at the start, these views did not hold. Eventually, the children that did not want to because of where the other person was from, did end up dancing with the other child. This shows that in reality, when having to face something or someone you have previously held a dislike for, the situation and more importantly what is possible, becomes entirely different.  

Al-Jazeera

What I found most interesting about the Control Room segment was the theory regarding the toppling of Saddam Hussein statue. The theory went into how it was possible and probable for a number of compelling reasons that the United States staged the reacting before, during, and after the events occurred. Obviously conspiracy theories of the United States government can be found all throughout history, and at this point I would not at all be surprised if they did in fact stage the toppling of the statue. But it was not the theory that interested me so much as they were not only proposing a story against the United States but also going into it with reasons and evidence. We previously learned how the network at one time or another has been very unpopular in the Middle East, even having journalists and reporters being kicked out of almost all the regional countries at one time or another. With this in mind one would think that they must be pro-west if they are anti Middle East. This is because almost all news networks in the United States are pinned against one another. If you are pro-Republican than you are anti-liberal and vice versa. This however, as shown by the theory, is not the case.

Having a network that is not pro-west or pro-Middle East while also not being against either puts Al-Jazeera in it’s own elite class. Not only is it the first of its kind, but more importantly it is able to gain widespread viewshare. Obviously it would not be difficult to find a blog with a hundred monthly views doing and discussing the same thing. However to actually have a whole network devoted to the concert, in addition to having that network be successful, changes everything in terms of reported news. This is what interested me most about the Control Room segment and why Al-Jazeera is interesting as a whole.

Another interesting aspect of the network is how they are also the first of its kind in the Middle East. As American networks have discussed for years, censorship in the media is common in some form or another in all Middle Eastern countries. Although citizens have tried to break this, using social media platforms to speak out and voice their opinions, this form of reporting has produced little overall or long-term success. Al-Jazeera however, has been able to be the voice many suppressed citizens have longed for, discussing topics without the threat of a government takeover. While it may not make up for the issue as a whole, it is certainly a long awaited help to an otherwise silenced nation.

In addition, Al-Jazeera is not only a help to those in the Middle East but also those outside of it. As stated before, many U.S news networks report on how news in the Middle East has very little legitimacy due to government censorship. Therefore, it is easy for American news networks to frame stories again the region. Al-Jazeera however, make this more difficult. Although not as popular as most major U.S networks, it still has the credibility to tell the other side of the story in order to give some actual perspective to the issue. This is what makes the network both important and in a class of its own.

Video Blog

The first video shows the demand of soap operas in the arab world. What this demand tells us is that how a strong percentage of the arab world wants to and is seeking out televisions shows that have similar context the those in the United States. Although there is some protest and criticism, the shows are ultimately still played and watched by citizens. While we may think that values and interests are not only united but also highly strict in the arab word, however in reality this is not the case. Another interesting point is what the shows are based on. The video describes most of the soap operas to be about normal life in the arab world. As the clips show, this is nothing like the clips we are shown in the media, with some almost being able to pass for being in the United States if not for the language. Having shows we would consider normal about their culture and lifestyle shows how our interests are much more connected to the arab world than we might think.  

The format of the second video appears to be similar to U.S shows such as The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. In the video, you have a host, dress normally in a suit, showing and commenting on clips in the media. Although you can’t make out what he is saying as it isn't in english, the show follows the same format and as in America. Speak on the issue, show a clip from a speech or event on the issue, and then follow it up with more commentary or mockery. The only notable difference is how the show is more singular with no audiencing seeming to be involved. Besides this, the arab version of news mockery is basically the same as the ones in America.  

What these two videos show is how the television culture in the arab world is actually very similar to the United State’s. No only do they have shows in the same format but also show an interest in everyday soap operas about what life is like. In the U.S, we are constantly seeing clips and hearing about what people are like and how different they are from us, making us out to be so different from one another. As these two videos show we have much more in common than we think and it is truly a shame we are unable to focus on these similarities and are pushed away from only looking at the differences.  

World Values Survey

The five countries I picked in the World Values Survey were the United States, Zimbabwe, Germany, Iraq, and Russia. Besides picking the United States for comparative purposes, I felt that the other four gave the broadest sense of variety. Recently for instance, Germany has emerged as one of the world's leading powers, arguably the economic forefront of Europe. In seemingly the same time span, the state of Iraq, with the involvement of the United States, has gone from bad to worse. It is currently speculated that the country has multiple ties to terrorist networks. Zimbabwe, remaining under the radar for most of my life or at least out of the headlines, is actually headed by one of the world's last dictators. Robert Mugabe has remained the country's Head of State since 1987 despite the country's claims of being a Republic. Lastly, Russia was chosen as it recently has been described as the United State’s most powerful enemy.

The differences between the countries could further be seen when looking at confidence in the press numbers. While all four were within 10% of the United States for “none at all” as well as “a great deal”, all but one were over 10% in “quite a lot” and “not very much”. To put this in further perspective “none at all” and “a great deal” combined made up 20.3% of the total while “quite a lot” and “not very much” made up 78%. This shows that far more people in other countries seem be more optimistic about the press than the United States is. What this most likely could mean is that there is an increased bias in the news, telling citizens what they want to hear. By doing this, citizens are more likely to agree and favor what they are hearing, giving the press a more positive view. As we have learned, many people in the United States follow news sources that they agree with. However as the United States has grown increasingly divided over past few decades, citizens have grown more hostile towards news sources showing favoritism towards one of the two major political parties. This is one possible theory for America's more pessimistic view according to the data compared to other countries.

The differences found in the confidence in the press proved to be on par with the confidence in television. Again, the top two categories would all be within 10% of one another while making up just under 20% of the total just as the middle two would all exceed 10% with 79% of the total. I believe the reason for this is the same as stated before, in that other countries report less contrasting views while America has networks on both sides. However, even with the numbers being several points from one another, a lack of faith in television is worse for a country than lack of faith in the press. Television data or information can be absorbed much faster than in the press and its published works. Due to this fact, citizens may turn more frequently towards television for news stories and takes on issues. This gives it a larger audience that are more susceptible to whatever is being reported. Having this form of news be viewed as untrustworthy has the potential to be damaging for views and unity of a country.

Another survey question I looked at was “Satisfaction with your life”. This survey was based on a 1-10 with 1 being completely dissatisfied and 10 being completely satisfied. The results were as one might think with the United States and Germany having their highest percentages towards the end and the other three nations having majorities in the middle. More specifically the three highest United States percentages were 7, 8, and 9, while Russia Iraq and Zimbabwe were all 5, 6, and 7. What this shows is that although America has its problems and its embarrassments, compared to the rest of the world we are much better off. U.S citizens may complain about the problems our country faces, however as the numbers show, we have a better satisfaction with our lives than do people of other nations do.

Podcast Post

The podcast I listened to was an interview of President Obama conducted just over a month and a half ago. The half hour interview focused on ISIS, including the public criticism the president has received in addition to the overall strategy for defeating the terrorist organization. Towards the end, the interview broaded out with Obama giving his opinion on issues such as race relations and climate change.

The primary purpose of NPR’s interview was to discuss both the past and present of ISIS. It began with an interesting comparison between Obama and former President and WWII General Dwight D. Eisenhower. The comparison was based on how Eisenhower told the public the country's strategy against the Soviet Union was working and to have faith, when in reality this was not the case. Much like today, the former president faced heavy criticism for the situation. Before going into specifics, Obama pointed out two key points. The first was that he does not have the credibility that Eisenhower's past record gave him, in addition to the terrorist organization not being the Soviet Union. He followed this up by describing the progress that has been made, including saving cities previously under the group's control, shrinking both the size and reach of the group, and diminishing the group's resources. He also prided the United States ability to refrain from sending ground troops which would have the potential to make matters worst.

Another discussion the president went into was the vagueness of 2016 presidential candidates and other critics. For instance, he asks “When you say you want to attack more, what does that mean?”. He went into how it’s not a question of attacking more but attacking smarter. The United States does not ignore areas it knows host ISIS members, just as it does not attack places at the risk of civilian lives. However in the media, and subsequently in the minds of many Americans, the lack of a huge event or involvement to solve in the issue as we have almost become accustomed to suggests that we are not doing everything we can. This, as the president examples, has never been true. Although we cannot ignore ISIS, seeing what they've done in places such as Paris or San Bernardino, they will be beat in time if we stay the course. This course includes training military members of Iraq so that they themselves are able to combat the group as well in addition to being persistent with air strikes which have shown results over the last year.  

The most important takeaway I got from the podcast was when Obama went into receiving and acting on the information giving by the top army and government specialists. I think it's safe to say that the majority of Americans have seen the horrific actions done at the group's hand and wanted a more hostile vindictive reaction from the government and our president. However, just like Obama mentioned, he is not Eisenhower and does not have any military experience. The smartest thing he can do is listen to his aids that not only do but are the best in their fields. It almost comes down to the question “Is better to listen to the misinformed public when deciding how to act or accordance with those that have the most experience and up to date information but face criticism?”. As I learned from this podcast, the president has chosen the latter and done what is best and not what is easy.  

Expanding on this, it makes me question the input of the president's involvement in issues such as these, and more importantly how and when to blame him. For instance, during Obama's first term many Americans were angry at the pace the economy was recovering at after the 2008 financial crisis. Like so many other times in America’s history, this was of course the president's fault. However, listening about ISIS and the course of action he’s taken leaves me wondering how much if at all we can fault the president. Obama is of course an intelligent individual and a gifted politician, he would not hold the office he does if he were not. Nonetheless, he does not have economic recovery experience or economic knowledge even remotely close to others in the field. To make up for this, as he should, he consults experts on the matter and from their input and advice comes up with a strategy to best solve the problem. So how can we really criticize someone's actions when they are ceeding to the advice of the Americas most credible officials? We of course want and try to elect a president that is a knowledgeable politician but there is not candidate that can possibly understand what is best to do in all situations at all times on their own. Regardless, the American people and the media constantly bash and point out the failures of our Commander in Chief on such issues. As our Head of State, Obama must be held accountable for the decisions he makes, whether they be good or bad. On the other hand, we as the people must take into accountable how difficult it is to not to listen, or at least take into account, an acclaimed specialist in a field they have devoted their life to.

http://podbay.fm/show/1057255460/e/1450691100?autostart=1

Media

One of the most important lessons the political science major has taught me is that there is a degree of bias in all media reports. It is because of this that to truly understand an issue with the knowledge available we need to look further than a headline, interview, or any single shared opinion. What I used to believe, as it seemed the most logical, was to look at the numbers themselves and from there deduce my conclusion. Men lie, women, numbers don’t. Furthermore, this thinking seemed to be encouraged by our professors, as they would view these types of evidence favorably in papers, projects, and class discussions. However, I have since learned that this type of evidence is as well bias as numbers only show one aspect of a larger focus. For instance, you could point to Ronald Reagan being a good president by looking at the fact that he averaged a GDP growth of over 3% annually. However, you could just as easily point out that he tripled the national debt and more than double the deficit, making him a bad one. Although both numbers of correct, they cancel each other out in term of taking away an opinion. This is why the numbers aren't always unbiased and can’t always be pointed to when making a judgment.  

What I try and do now is judge a story or report on its degree of bias to deem it credible or not. For instance, my primary news source is the facebook trending bar. I’m most likely on site once a day and although not always for very long, this consistently outweighs any other possible news outlet or resource. As many people would argue that social media is not valid, as it much of it is controlled in addition to being presented in a liberal and p.c light, it use this bar as a starting point. A point where I can see an interesting topic and now where to look. From there, for topics that seem interesting, I normally go to google news, searching the main points in the story. I like this and believe it's a good stepping stone because you can instantly have ten times the access, coverage, and diversity in views on the issue. Going through each, i’m able to get a better idea or the story and the context it was in. This to me is the best and most efficient way to quickly learn the majority of the available information.  

Building off this, I think the most important aspect in any news is hearing out the other side. It is too common in today's day and day to forget about this, as the findings or claims in a report are in line with one's own and therefore are correct.  This is another significant reason I enjoy using google news for stories. Showing the vast amounts of reports for an issue will almost always have conflicting views. By reading both, your not only able to understand the issues better as a whole but get away from the general consensus that most people have and most news sources are pushing.