Debate: The role of the Press in Critical Times

The Buying the War documentary presents a strong case on the failure of the news media during the lead-up to the war in Iraq. But there's still room for debate on the role of the press  in critical times. Maybe these practices are not always as black-and-white as portrayed by this documentary?

Given insufficient information about what was going on in Iraq, the U.S. media acted upon collective values such as patriotism, social coherence, national security/interest, confidence building, and grief management as opposed to playing the watchdog role by questioning the administration or examining the officials' claims independently.

To help the class better understand the complexity of this media-government relationship, you could choose either side -- a) being in line with public opinion, government policy or b) being critical of the authorities or mainstream thinking when the "truth" is hard to get -- and make your argument.

Of particular interest is: What should journalists do if a similar scenario occurs again -- for example, North Korea just launched a nuclear test; China also is often portrayed as a major cause of America's economic problems (e.g., the so-called devaluation of its currency RMB).

North Korean Video Shows Obama in Flames

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/20/north-korean-video-shows-an-obama-in-flames/

9/11 and the War on Terror: Alternative Views and Public Opinion

Documentary: Fahrenheit 9/11 by Michael Moore (2004)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_9/11

Among the patriotic sentiment following 9/11, alternative views did exist --

Bob Jensen on 9/11 (published in Houston Chronicle on 9/12/2001) and UT president's response to it:
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0912-08.htm 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Jensen#Controversy
http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2001-09-28/83161/

Susan Sontag's essay (published in The New Yorker on 9/17/2001):
http://www.msgr.ca/msgr-3/talk_of_the_town_susan_sontag.htm

The World's response to 9/11: We Are All Americans
http://mentalfloss.com/article/28724/we-are-all-americans-worlds-response-911
http://www.pewglobal.org/database/?indicator=8&survey=1&response=Favor&mode=chart

President Bush Addresses the Nation (March 19, 2003)
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-17.html

International and domestic public opinion about the War in Iraq:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_on_the_Iraq_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_opinion_in_the_United_States_on_the_invasion_of_Iraq

Historical perspective:

Anti-war movement in the 1960s, which inspired social movements in places like Taiwan

-- John Lennon
"Imagine": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwUGSYDKUxU

-- Bob Dylan
"Blowin' in the Wind" 1963: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWwgrjjIMXA
2011 in Taipei: http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=10150211742725540

-- Joan Baez
"Jerusalem": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTQmilVRJf0

Framing Effects of News Coverage: America's Popularity Contest

Framing:


Advertising sells, and no one knows this better than America. By showing people benefits of something, they are more likely to oblige with its message. At the heart of advertising is the tiny kernel of truth that will make people feel happy to support your product or service. Advertising is powerful and influence, which are not bad things, until it is used in place of an actual product or service.

This is the biggest issue with American politics today: the American people allow advertising and pr to buy elections, even war, and politicians for use these means to win. It works. And both are at fault. There are two sports cars next to each other, a blue one and a red one. Sports cars look great in red, you just LOVE red! So you pick that one. But what about the sports car itself? Is it going to run? Is having a sports car going to be the best option for your family's means of transportation? How much does it cost? What's the gas milage? Does it even have an engine underneath the hood? What if you knew you were only picking it because you love red, you believe in it, you grew up being taught that red is the best, and you HATE blue (blue is blasphemy! and you are a devoted Christian)? But the blue is the only one out of the two that actually works you are told. Would you still pick the red?

This is what politics has turned into while under the glamourous spotlights of advertising and pr. The text notes that journalism today (referring to elections) consist of, "the poll standings, delegate count, and size of crowd at public rallies far more frequently than coverage of the idealogical stances of the candidates and policy platforms they advocate." Advertising and pr are setting the stage for framing and journalists are recording it. Politicians have begun to use these tools to facilitate a popularity contest while ideology on the issues and actual proposals are overlooked.

Although, the only issues that are not overlooked (and are the focus of most debate) are controversial ones, like abortion and gay marriage. Instead of spending time talking about how they are going to solve America's issues, which would help everyone, candidates finger point at each other, and target audiences with sensitive issues that that they know patrons feel very strongly on about one side of the argument or the other. Advertising and pr illuminates these stances while turning everything else to its shadow.

That way, it becomes an us vs. them, when it should be America versus its current problems and their plan to attempt to fix those problems (which relates to the argument on page 16). Voters should be picking the best answers to those questions, but hot topics gain the most exposure because most people already know what they think about such topics and can, and will, respond to them. Until the limelight is refocused on intelligence and implementing plans to solve our country's problems and away from being in love with a sports car because it's red, progress will continue to stall. The red lovers will never agree with the blue, because they're blue, and vise versus. Nothing will ever be solved until they find a way to work together in a way that will benefit the both of them, even if that means being willing to give a little up on their own end.

The media's response to 9/11

Ignoring the lessons of 9/11
I believe Jensen's point on America's blindness due to power is pretty accurate. Whether or not the media supported or reinstated the war, I think there is a lesson to be learned from the invasion of Iraq and the "War on Terror", yet America's pride barely even allows citizens the ability to accurately assess the current failures of our country.

Also, it's important to note the possibility that it was not only the media and government alone who aided in the War on Terror, but America's entire system as a whole. Suppose there is a student who is not familiar with foreign and international policies, nor the detailed nature of the middle east and the taliban. By watching the news alone or listening to a speech shortly following 9/11, this student would immediately suppose that the attacks were done by terrorists from Iraq & Afghanistan and be on board with the plan to go to war. I believe the national failure of judgement preceding the invasion of Iraq was a result of not only the administration and the media, but also the education system and the nature of America's perception of life and power in regards to the rest of the world (we're right, they're wrong...no matter what.)


Documentary: Buying the War
I liked this documentary for revealing the rash actions of the media following 9/11. It not only told us but showed well-known journalists admitting to these mistakes. It accurately explores the connections between what the government was declaring and what the media was releasing. It also questions and challenges journalists to reevaluate their roles in the world. Are journalists now lost reinforcing the ideas of the government and reflecting them as the publics general opinion without even realizing they are doing so? Have journalist lost their sense of bias and revealing the truth?

Framing the War on Terror

The media's use of the label "War on Terror" highlights their inability to understand the depths of knowledge needed for the public to understand the true meaning of this term. It also shows their inability to truly connect with the public mind.

Also, the reification of the administration's claims as true without hard, concrete evidence shows the ability of the media to make mere ideas tangible and real in the public's mind.

I believe Reese and Lewis' assessment of journalist's role was pretty accurate, not only in terms of 9/11 coverage, but majority of media coverage as a whole.

Journalists acting in a time of crisis

Buying the War:

I think this is a great documentary of how journalists need to better reporters and skepticals. It illustrates that journalism failed and failed the public when it came to relaying the facts. Coverage of the officials and the war was a collaboration of government propaganda and groupthink. There wasn’t much double-checking of the sources and facts or holding officials accountable. It was pretty pathetic that one journalist asked Bush about his faith during a press conference about Iraq. Now, let’s not ask the hard questions…I mean it’s war, what’s to lose…America never loses. The documentary also demonstrates how journalists turned against the public by saying that if you were not for the war than you were unpatriotic and unsympathetic to the victims of 9/11. Bill O’Reilly even said that if you were not for the war then you were a “bad American.” There’s also shame that the bureaucracy within journalism conglomerates would not open the gates to dissenting views. And even when skepticism started to leak through, it seemed the opinion was to continue to back the government so that we can protect their reputation as well as ours’. What’s even sadder is that broadcast journalism, which can reach a larger mass of people, has turned into pundits talking on talk shows rather than reporters.

Ignoring the lessons of 9/11:

As part of his opening statements, Jensen is essentially saying that the U.S. has significant soft power, but we don’t mind to show that we have the hard power to back it up. I also like how he used the word critical thinking in two different ways: one of being consciousness of the war and one of showing dislike toward dissenters. Jensen also reflects on what we have been talking about and that is the U.S unwilling to relinquish its power and global control based on its founding principals. My favorite two lines of his article are of the following: It's tempting to argue that we should refrain from political debate on the 9/11 anniversary to honor those who died and to respect those who lost loved ones. I would be willing to do that if the cheerleaders for the U.S. empire would refrain from using the day to justify the wars of aggression that followed 9/11.” Loss is tragic not just American tragic. We define terrorist as physical attacks and Middle Eastern. However, I think many countries would label the U.S. as a terrorist in terms of finance, trade and enablers of corrupt leaders. Instead of being quick to blame, we should look inwardly at ourselves and use critical thinking as to why Al Qaeda attacked us.

Framing the war:

Journalists are very important when it comes to shaping public opinion where that’s cover elections or crimes. The amount of coverage and use of frames is significant. Unfortunately, after 9/11, the media created an “us” vs. “them.” There wasn’t much room for debate nor room to add context in regards to America’s past with the Middle East and the current situations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even the word “terror” is a loaded word that naturally instills fear. The word, in my opinion, also suggests never-ending, and, honesty, the war has lasted entirely too long.

As a side note, journalists were crafty in how they framed the war after it was in progress. (Remember the backlash against the Dixie Chicks?) I remember during 2004, I was one of the few in my eighth grade class to show disproval of Bush and the war. People around me said the war was good because we were helping people who were being tortured and under a dictatorship. There was less talk about weapons of mass destruction and connections with 9/11 than it was with the welfare of the Iraqi people and power battle among the Shiites and Sunnis. Granted we were in eighth grade with not much knowledge about foreign affairs, but my classmates had to get that idea from somewhere… 

War on Terror Readings

Ignoring the lessons of 9/11:
"Critical thinking became a mark not of conscientious thinking but of dangerous disloyalty."
I completely agree with Jensen's argument in this article- that as a global powerhouse, the United States feels entitled to an aging notion of American imperialism. U.S. policymakers used the attacks as an excuse to start a war with "terror" (a concept- not a country). They pounced on Americans while they were weak and spiritually broken, just as men go after women when they are at their most vulnerable. At a time when Americans came together and united as a country (and should have been allowed to do so in peace), their own leaders marketed their American spirit and unity to rationalize an illegal war. In my eyes there were two big failures here: 1) U.S. policymakers failed to recognize that the time of American Imperialism is fading (big surprise there) and 2) that American journalists failed to do their jobs, which includes being critical of whatever political decisions are made regardless of emotional turmoil the country is experiencing. Essentially, journalists are not here to be our national cheerleaders and life coaches. They are here to report unbiased (in this case, American or anti-American) news. I have to ask, if 9/11 never happened, would America have found another excuse to go to war? Or would the war never have happened?

Buying the War:
I was most fascinated by the scene featuring the White House press, where specific journalists were called on and asked a prescribed question. Not only did the questions asked during the press conference ignore the discussion of he ramifications of the war and what they would honestly mean for America, they chose to take a human interest angle and talk about President Bush's faith. Good for him for having faith in America but the press conference was so completely staged and didn't answer any logistical or pragmatic questions. This kind of vague, amorphous propaganda made it easy for the U.S. government to so quickly and insensitively market the American people's moment of unity.

Framing the War on Terror:
"...the War on Terror was more than a policy label; it was a powerful organizing principle and, to the extent that journalists shared that way of structuring the world as indicated in the reports and analysis, create favorable news discourse climate for military action in Iraq." Journalists latching on to phrases of any kind is always a problem, because it frames people's ideas, promoting narrow-minded thinking and unquestioned politics. A phrase used by reporters over and over again can easily change the life of millions of people- that is why it is so crucial that they choose their words carefully. By referring to the war as "the war on terror" repeatedly, reporters structured the way the world thought about why America chose to illegally invade Iraq. The entire thing just seemed like a staged production with plenty of photo-ops along the way. Turns out, it was. On the other hand, it is difficult for journalists not to be sensitive during a national crisis. 9/11 is still a hugely emotional experience for me and I'm sure millions of other Americans. Re-watching those planes crash into the World Trade Center is a horrible sight. However, I still feel that there is a time and place to be political. And as a reporter, that place is at home.

Blind in to War on Terror

Through the two pieces on buying and framing the War on Terror, I guess it is clear that American politicians, so a significant extent, authored an agenda separate from that of the American people then employed sly tactics to trick their constituency into supporting a new violent conquest. Buying the War explains clearly how our most elite ring of leaders, the presidential cabinet under GW (Bush, Cheney, Rice, and Rumsfeld), coordinated a very thorough effort to push a lie on America. But in framing the war, it also becomes clear that there was no totalitarian censorship, that this overthrow of democratic autonomy in the United States was not conducted via the means of forcibly silencing any dissenting voices. Rather, the American press (and most of the American population), tidily fell in line with the executive and the military's narrative of what was going on and of what had to be done. The American people, generally good and peaceful, compassionate and intelligent, threw their support behind a monstrous reign of conquest of missiles, bombs, bullets, and tanks, that still continues today. And, it seems, they did it willingly with full access to the truth. The press, those charged with the responsibility of presenting us with a thorough image of the current reality, fell into the nationalist narrative that Bob Jensen describes. It was another chapter in our manifest destiny. For half a century before, the war machine of the United States dropped so many tens of thousands of bombs and chemical agents, concocted to kill, across the world. Our people carried weapons into remote reaches of the third world and fired them on the people of that land. We orchestrated coups, invasions, and ideological cleansing of turbulent foreign populations. But, when two of those thousands and thousands of bomb made it back home and hit us, we were shocked. We never knew the feeling of bombs in our own cities. We had always, always been on the other side of this deadly transaction. Warfare was not legitimate, not acceptable, not a natural, necessary part of the world when it was directed against us. And, our response was so blood-thirsty, so viscous that we, and our press, lost clear sight. Our leaders led an army of blind civilians, and the manipulation employed was crude. Seeing video footage of George W. Bush's speeches and Iraqi dissidents show diagrams of terrorist training camps drawn in magic marker shocked me. It all seemed so dumb. Is that really what we feel for? What about democracy? Isn't anyone bothered by that?

9/11 Package

Framing the War:

I understand the criticism of journalists in the years after 9/11, when it framed the war as "the war on terror." I see how that can look like it's a mouthpiece for the White House — which coined the term — but I ask: What were the journalists supposed to do regarding this framing? Were the major papers supposed to meet up and decide to call this invasion of Iraq something else? Were they supposed to not call it anything specific in general articles? I think once this term caught steam, there was nothing to do to stop it, and that's evidenced by Katie Couric calling it "the war on terror" in 2006.

By collectively calling something it "the war on terror," it's immediately staking sides to the war, the journalists and the rest of America on one side, and the terrorists and the rest of Iraq on the other. Journalists are supposed to remain objective, sure, but unless we wanted to call it World War 3 — which would surely sensationalize things — I can't see how we expect the collective media to do anything different in this situation.

Ignoring the lessons of 9/11:

Bob Jensen is a good professor an the go-to libel expert here at UT, and by now we all know his contrarian tastes. This article is complicated, and multi-layered, and though Jensen is pointed and direct, it'd be wrong to assume he feels no sympathy for the victims of 9/11, which he mistakenly calls "a crime."

Of course these articles exist. I'd imagine, if the U.S. did nothing after 9/11, there'd be articles lambasting the president for sitting pat and essentially kneeling to the taliban.

Buying the War:

What I think this all boils down to is journalists getting lazy and going off on others' work, instead of better reporting, and the mainstream media being afraid to go against the grain. This is tough stuff, and it's something you can't be wrong about. Why were so many so wrong? It seems they were desperate to get some content pushed out — to take advantage of the demand for new news. This reflects poor journalism, from the top down.

Documentary and Reading x2 Combo

Ignoring the Lessons of 9/11
When I learned about this article from Jensen himself a year ago, I thought the subject and tone of it all was a bit insensitive. It didn't seem like the kind of thing to bring up at a tenth anniversary of such a traumatic event. But it's funny how our opinions change the more we're influenced by conflicting theories and mindsets over time.

Now, considering this was written ten years after the incident, I think it got a lot of negative attention that it shouldn't have been getting by that point. I understand that we often mark the tenth anniversary of anything as something we should commemorate and honor, but I don't think Jensen's article particularly went against that so much so that it warranted a public rebuffing from the president of the university and so many more around Texas. Ten years is plenty long enough to look back on something, analyze and realize what we've done right and what we've done wrong.

I think this sentence adequately frames what most journalists were afraid to realize ten years later: "But given the events of the past decade, there is no way to take the politics out of the anniversary." Jensen just wasn't and, though we initially didn't want to admit it, he was right not to be.

Framing the War on Terror

It's no surprise dissenting voices were hardly heard throughout the years directly after 9/11 There were hardly any of them at all. Perhaps the more unpopular ideas would have gotten more attention if they had been given more priority in placement on newspapers or schedules on TV broadcasts. But I think a lot of those newspapers and broadcast stations were really just frightened to put those kinds of ideas on the front page because they didn't want to lose viewers or their readership.

Should this out-weight the importance of offering the public differentiating views and being fair? It is a hard choice, yet what a cowardly thing it would be to say yes. And that is precisely why it is so hard.

Buying the War

Thinking about 9/11 is always really hard for me. I grit my teeth and set my jaw in a pathetic attempt to remain "objective" when, as a speaker in the documentary pointed out, journalists are not robots. However, there's only so much we can say or do in our own defense against remaining unattached to a powerful situation. There's always a catch. A breaking point. A limit.

Do I think journalists failed in their attempt to document the war and subsequent chain of events after 9/11? Yes, I do. As proof, I am ashamed to say that I can't even begin to explain the war to anybody without doubting every syllable that slips through my lips. I know nothing, or at least nothing I can say with any bit of certainty that is true. The media contorted what was going on overseas into an image that depicted us as world-wide saviors and when they finally realized how wrong they were about their information, it was too late to set the public straight. Thus, we can see why it is so important for a journalist to report the truth on the first try and not rely on each other to do the work for us. But, I digress.

Principally, I believe our pride blinded us. Of course we are not robots. We feel, we breathe. We bleed. But our emotions, our dedication to our country, should never override our obligation to report the truth as it is in fact, not as we wish to see it.

How should the financial press inform the public?

What constitutes "good" business journalism?

Business reporting requires specialized knowledge about the economy and the industry. It is
more demanding than ‘‘writing about a football game, a school board meeting, a robbery,
new music fad, or a political campaign’’ because journalists must ‘‘understand the
intricacies of the field and write about them in clear, concise, intelligible prose’’ (Welles,
1991, p. xvii).

Challenges of business journalism:

Same economic data may support two disparate interpretations
Relatively few newspapers support highly critical stories or investigative projects against powerful forces (Welles, 1991, pp. xv, xvii).

Journalists are not even good at covering their own industry --

A MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH? Examining how newspapers covered the newspaper ‘‘crisis’’

This study examines how the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, and the New York Times framed the newspaper ‘‘crisis.’’

Newspaper journalists often fail to contextualize their reports with a comprehensive understanding of the economics of the newspaper industry,

They rely too heavily on the views of newspaper publishers and too little on empirical data.

The coverage tended to focus more on personnel numbers (50.7 percent) than key financial indicators such as advertising revenue (34.7 percent), company debts (25 percent), pricing strategies (11.1
percent), or cost structure (10.4 percent).

Coverage focused on short-term drama over long-term trends, lacked sufficient context, shifted blame away from newspapers themselves, invoked ‘‘death’’ imagery, and altogether struggled to capture a holistic portrayal of newspapers’ troubles.

But money matters:
http://www.statesman.com/news/news/opinion/cash-opt-for-transparency/nWFHN/

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/26/business/global/family-of-wen-jiabao-holds-a-hidden-fortune-in-china.html?pagewanted=all

What Watchdog?

• When it comes to financial journalism, whether I'm reading it or attempting to write about it, I feel like Patrick and Spongebob with the Orb of Confusion. The information goes in one ear and out the other. I just can't wrap my head around numbers like that, and I know I'm not the only student journalist who feels this way. Many students choose journalism because they enjoy writing, or they've at least always been the creative type. Math/numbers do not mesh well with writing, so it's very hard for us to put them together. I believe that is a big reason that there aren't too many financial journalists and why we don't see very much about Wall Street in the news.
• Maybe I'm just a piggybacker, but after reading this article, I'm thinking, "Yeah! Why doesn't Wall Street get more negative coverage?" Like I already said, I'm not very knowledgeable about numbers, especially how money works in this country, but Wall Street is to blame for at least some of our economic problems, right?
• "At its best, it is the main thing that is capable of explaining complex problems to a mass audience. That’s its most critical role--and its most difficult task." - I constantly need to be reminded of this. All too often do I just take what sources give me, no questions asked, and write my stories on stupid topics that don't even warrant any public attention. As a journalist, I must constantly question the motives of our government. I think many other student journalists need this rammed into their heads as well.
• "It’s very poorly understood and documented." - Good summary of financial journalism. But in order for people to understand it better, more journalists must be trained on how to correctly interpret numbers so that we can properly make things easier for the public to understand, because ultimately, that is our job.

Is Anyone Responsible?

I think that unfortunately, with a nightly news show reporters have a very short amount of time. I don't think people should really expect the nightly news to work towards more "thematic" coverage, because there are other sources available to that purpose such as magazines or online articles.

However, I think that news reporters have a tremendous effect on how people interpret the news, therefore affecting the sociocultural ideas we surround ourselves with. For example, I was talking with a friend today and she mentioned that during television news, reporters never refer to President Obama as "President" Obama. Rather, they just refer to him as "Obama." She explored the idea that because t.v. reporters repeatedly referred to President Obama this way, he was not as respectable or important as past presidents in the eyes of the public.

In the video clip below, Jon Stewart discusses Ron Paul being ignored by television reporters. It demonstrates how much power news reporters have. Their word choice can turn into something bigger, in this example its the "top tier", which Ron Paul is consistently left out of. It's a funny clip, watch if you're interested!

Framing Effects of News Coverage

• "It cannot be concluded that framing effects are limited to the naive and the ignorant." - So very true! Some things are obviously framed a little more subjectively than others, but in reality, everything, not just politics or news, in our society is framed in some way, and it affects people from every rung of the ladder. An obvious example is that the events of September 11th were framed for our society as a terrorist attack, but if we were reporting the news for al-qaeda, it would be a victory against an opposing nation. There are just too many perspectives in this world and everybody thinks too differently for anybody to be completely and truly objective.
• episodic vs. thematic news coverage - It would be nice for news to be more thematic and therefore, more informational/educational, but it isn't possible. At least not if we're talking about nightly news coverage, when there's no time to cover more in-depth topics. Broadcast reporters need something to fill up the news block, and events are easier and quicker to cover than thematic news.
• "The ultimate political impact of framing is proestablishment." - I never thought about it like that, but I guess it is true. But if a station were to report on all the issues and blame everything on the government, it probably wouldn't be respected as a very credible news source (just considered as one of those right-wing extremists).

Is anyone responsible?

I think the way news is presented on a nightly basis is just the nature of the beast. For a nightly show, there isn't any other way to cover what happened — whether an hour-long national show or a half-hour regional show — than to use the episodic basis.

Niche shows and other shows with more journalistic chops, like 60 Minutes, which is the long-form magazine feature to the nightly new show's spot news article, are a better medium for the thematic presentation.

Television and Responsibility

I found this article very intriguing. Everyone knows that television has effects on people, but I don’t think people understand the full scope of it. As a side note, I thought it was funny how Iyengar said that people spend more time in front of screens rather than in interpersonal interaction. I had a read an article last year how social scientists were studying the social behaviors of men toward women, and they said men who play videogames are losing the confidence to flirt and approach women.

To get back on topic, it is true that t.v. news gives way more attention to events and occurrences and not on issues that can’t be reduced to short clips. I think this is why there really isn’t much discussion on the environment and quality of reservations like Dillon had mentioned. There are plenty of issues that the public is unaware of because of this. Therefore, politicians are not being questioned about issues that are important but overlooked.

When it comes to elections, it is true that news stations focus on the turnout and swing states. They do focus on the candidates’ platforms, but only on the standard issues. T.V. news always needs to provide more context even if it’s hard news or a thematic event. I think more people would vote if they knew more about their platforms in regards to other issues.

This articles demonstrates the power journalists have in shaping public thought and political discussion. 

Thematic and Episodic Framing in the News

Based on the way this article pitched these two frames, episodic framing is the easiest template in which to create a captivating 'news' program for TV audiences who turn to their screens for entertainment or relaxation, but not so much for people who seek to critically understand the global narrative of events.

When news is presented episodically, it takes on a much simpler, almost sitcom -like form. You are presented with looping footage of some exciting events; explosions, bombs, rallies, riots, shoot-outs, congressional hearings, police action, soldiers and guns, etc...  In this way, the news becomes more exciting or engaging in a shallow and easily digested manner. In fact, I'll bet that most TV viewers wouldn't even sit around to hear their news contextualized.

In our news, especially regarding what we call 'terrorism,' contextualization is almost taboo. For example, news reports commonly address suicide bombings or other violent attacks against American soldiers occupying Afghanistan. The narrative has become quite mundane now. But, I personally have not seen and media endeavor to try and explain the line of reasoning behind people, so filled with desperate rage, driven to the point of blowing themselves up to inflict damage in whatever manner that they can. When presented episodically, it comes to seem natural to us. We don't really question the fact or find it strange that our nation is involved in creating conditions which have prompted violent suicide amongst the native inhabitants to become something semi-standard.

So, as journalists, I think it important to clarify our own manner of presenting the news. Once a trend has been established, then the particular events are not so important as an attempt to contextualize and explain the trend its self. We educate reporters to develop an intellect and go out and tell us what happened, but who is being educated to help us understand why?

Also, I couldn't read chapter 1 of this article. It was absent from the preview version of the article.

Quiet Crisis

It's interesting to note that one of the ways in which America is attempting to educate young people in the engineering and technological fields is to import people from abroad. Why then, are we educating foreigners when we know, "Many of these jobs are reserved for American citizens, because of national security concerns?" I find this strange to follow up an assertion that will we bring people in from abroad  to be educated as a solution, yet many of these students will not be able to work within our country. It seems to me, that if we need Americans to retain these skills and implement them domestically, we should focus on Americans retaining these skills above all.

We need to help ourselves before we can help others. We're continually inviting foreigners into our schools, educating them, and then having them go back home to use what they've just learned from us. In this process, we deny American students a chance to retain the same information that they could use to help us domestically. We hurt ourselves twice in this sense. I understand the need for diversity and the American ideology of saving the rest of the world, but a soccer player with an broken leg isn't going to be scoring any points. We're already behind in numbers and there is a significant percentage of our number that is inhabitant by people we can't use for the sake of knowledge that we provide.

In this "flat world" the author speaks of, it will not be long until former American university students go back home, accumulate, and then establish institutions providing educations that are on par with the ones they acquired here in the U.S. At this point, they will be more active competitors and starting at an upper hand, while the America will be left in a position where we need to catch up. Eventually, they will be thriving and have little need to send students here, while we will be left with a good portion of our S&E schools empty.

The Quiet Crisis: From the American Perspective

About The World is Flat
http://www.amazon.com/World-Flat-3-0-History-Twenty-first/dp/0312425074

About Thomas L. Friedman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Friedman
http://www.thomaslfriedman.com/

On his new book
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdqe9xIA_zM

How do you compare this piece of writing with the one on the "smart power" of China?

The "smart power" piece: The smartness of China in terms of foreign policies, from an Asian's perspective

"The quiet crisis": The weaknesses of the U.S. in terms of competitiveness, from an American's perspective

Friedman's view has received attention from a large number of Americans since 2005.

Reflections on education and immigration policy.

The Tiger Mom controversy
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704111504576059713528698754.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_Hymn_of_the_Tiger_Mother

Stress management among children
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/10/magazine/why-can-some-kids-handle-pressure-while-others-fall-apart.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp

Criticism:
http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/6855:the-emperors-messenger-has-no-clothes-bel%C3%A9n-fern%C3%A1ndez-dresses-down-thomas-friedman

The Quiet Crisis

While I do agree that some progress has been made since this was written, I have to agree that the U.S. is beginning to lag behind in science and math education. But with everything that the government could do to relieve the U.S. of this "quiet crisis" such as donate money or start programs, I think that a huge part of this effort lies heavily on the shoulders of America's public school teachers. Elementary teachers spend more time with children than anyone (other than their parents) and have a tremendous effect on the attitudes of generations of children. I could not relate more to Meleena's memory of hearing "what am I ever going to use this for in real life?" in regards to math and science classes. And when I think of it, not one of my teachers ever backed up their end. It seemed like they were just there to teach, simply because math and science have always been taught in public school, and not because math and science are currently the most critical classes in regards to America's future. Of course, it is difficult to make children understand the concept that if they work hard at math and science, they could have an enormous impact on our standing in global society.

I would also like to point out that, though increasing numbers of foreign (mostly Asian) entrepreneurs are still coming to America to start their companies. I think that until the majority of Americans start going oversees on entrepreneurial ventures, the power shift won't happen. I think we still have time to turn this around, but I do agree that something needs to be done.

Possibly, Americans are getting too comfortable "at the top", but what other countries think of as "leisurely activities" we think of as inherently American pastimes. The idea of America (currently) is built around leisure, rather than work. I don't think America has an intelligence problem, I think we have a motivational problem. I think that as long as we are aware of our economic competitors, we will take the actions necessary to stay at the top.

The World is Flat

Although this article might be a little outdated, some of the points still hold a lot of truth. I believe that America is a good thing that has created a lot of bad things. This article highlights the decline of American students interested in and pursuing science and engineering degrees; it also highlights America's culture which is now geared towards having fun, watching television, and making money. Many Americans want a job that they can enjoy; they want to be creative, but not in a science or engineering sense, they want to be creative in their own sense, have fun, and make money at the same time. America gave their citizens the freedom to define themselves how they please, although it is somewhat limited to the culture that surrounds them, so America also has to deal with the fact that its students are not defining themselves with science and engineering careers (although the future success of the country is up to the citizens.)

This also brings up the crisis in the education system. It could be said that the nation is now aware that it's education system is lacking, but how much can change in a country that doesn't know how to embrace change? The Texas standardized test change from TAKS to STAAR stirred up so much controversy amongst the education agency, teachers, parents and students. I wrote an article on this topic in the midst of the decision-making, and most of the parents were concerned because the test was going to be tougher than the TAKS and and they feared their child would not pass. Although changes in testing and curriculum need to be accompanied by changing teaching method, these controversies over small changes are only foreshadowing the anger that will come with a national change, if one is made.

In the article, Eric Stern touches on students' disinterest in sciences and maths. From my own education experience, an almost daily phrase I heard in middle and high school, in regard to math and science classes, was "I am never going to use this in real life." I'm not sure what we all thought "real life" was, but it certainly didn't include any consideration of science and engineering careers.

The Quiet Crisis

I think we've made some progress from when this essay was written to now. The essay mentions how "we should be concerned about the gaps in our education, infrastructure, and ambitions that threaten to weaken us from within" and over the past several years, I feel there has been a focus on these things. Political leaders have turned their eyes to the education of their country's youth, we're learning about how other countries view ours and our ambitions, drawing our own conclusions from what we can gather... The essay feels a little out-dated.

Creativity vs Rote Learning - Are they really all that different?

I understand that the world views the people of each group differently, at least. We each seem to have a reputation that follows us around.

Quiet Crisis

The lede anecdote of this story being so out of date — the United States Olympic basketball team has won two consecutive gold medals to go with a FIBA World Championship in 2010 — threw me off, I will admit. However, I do understand the crisis Shirley Jackson spoke of in 2004, and how Americans want to be at the forefront of technological advancements.

I have to ask, though: how many of us have a Sony product? Samsung? It strikes me as funny sometimes we're so obsessed with being the "best" that we overlook how we benefit from the technology of other nations, and vice versa.

Falling behind in science

In terms of the American lifestyle, we have gotten very comfortable with our lifestyles, yet we complain that we don’t have the latest products and that we work too much. You always hear stories from grandparents and how they struggled and had to work hard and live with the basics…and most of their work was manual labor. However most of us are still living off of our parents and probably will be for a couple of more years. We don’t like manual labor like skilled jobs and we don’t like to pursue demanding educational jobs either. We like the middle range, but we want to reap the benefits of wealth.

We need to update our education system, and this needs to start at the elementary levels. But, this is something the levels of government need to enforce. In addition, it starts with the family. Parents need to be stricter with their children. Kids these days are way too spoiled. I’m not comfortable with the idea of giving young kids ipads to play with because most of the time I see them playing pointless games. Kids demand something and the parents give it to them. For holidays and birthdays, relatives give children toys and toys, whereas there should be more toys that are at least educating.

The author mentions several times how in mid-20^th century, we, as a country, had dreams, goals and role models. We don’t have these anymore except get rich quick via the internet. It seems like once we landed on the moon, we were like well that fantasy is now reality and so imagination ceased. The author made a good point in saying that Chinese worship Bill Gates like he was Britney Spears, and in America, we worship Britney Spears because she’s Britney Spears. We spend more time and energy on educating ourselves on figures like Kim Kardashian and Tony Parker.

At the same time, I wonder what effects these social pressures are having on individuals in Asia. For example, my roommate is from India, and she is constantly being lectured on how she is not pursuing a medical or engineering career field. She always is beating herself up about it as well. In this sense, I am glad that I am not pressured to pursue a field of study that I’m not interested in.  

"Smart Power, Chinese Style"

On "Smart Power, Chinese Style"



I enjoy that the author begins with the observation that there is an ancient and epic struggle between existing power and an emerging power. It is hopeful to note this because it is then easier to see that if these powers work together, a peaceful submission into the future for all parties and those whom will be effected is possible to achieve. Unfortunately, I think the American way of thinking is more along the lines of, "They have more power. They are a threat. How can we remain #1 immediately?"

I agree with Mahbubani, although this was not objective as he had proclaimed it would be, on some of his important points. China is going through their recovery process in a globally beneficial way by strengthening ties with the world around them. In result, they are not only improving other countries domestically, but inevitably gaining power for themselves along the way. They are looking with an eye to long term success in the future surrounded by allies which makes them the most notable growing power today. America, on the other hand, has become distracted by its power.

He states that, "each time a new problem surfaces, China looks for the advantage in it, assuming that it must adapt to the world, not shape the world as it wishes." When we need something, we ignore everyone else and use force to obtain it instead of figuring out an intelligent solution that will not only get us what we want, but improve conditions around the world as well by strengthening our ties internationally. In other words, while we are only looking to help ourselves at any short term costs, China is carefully seeing what players it needs for long term effects. 

In addition, China began beating us out by "helping" us in 2003. They helped us join a war that wasn't good for international relations. This decision was a win-win for China. While allowing America to dig its own grave, China has been off continuing to make beneficial ties with other global economies. As a side note: How blind was America to this? Or did we just want to go to war so bad, we looked the other way at this realization? It's not to say that China is there yet, but not only their progress is worth paying attention to; the way in which they are progressing, to me, is almost more important.

When one continues to act solely in their own, immediate favor, they end up in position where even their own favor is not favorable. Why? Because you begin in a position that is equal to its end. If you start off taking what you want and giving nothing in return, you're going to end up alone and with enemies. Instead, China is being an active geopolitical acumen creating deals for the good of the publics they mean to associate with. So they are gaining allies as well as revenue. Sound familiar? The irony here is that America is known for these actions. But in the past few decades, we have grown from this practice by ignoring others' needs to focus on our own problems. Yet where's the progress? One step at a time, they are providing the exact example we historically exemplified, while, one step at a time, we are burning bridges along our path to recovery when we should be building them. In this way, China's progress is a reflection of not only where we were, but where we need to be. 

Activits for Canada's First Nations

I've come across an editorial article relevant to our Canadian guest's insight from Friday. 

'Idle No More' and Colonial Canada