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.