Iraqi Bloggers

I ran across an article in BBC News entitled "Iraqi bloggers at home and abroad." I just wanted to quickly post this link. It includes excerpts from the blogs of Iraqi bloggers who remain in Iraq or who have left the war torn country.

Iraqi Bloggers

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, is to arrive in New York tomorrow, Sunday, September 23. He also will be speaking at Columbia University the following day. The invitation from the university has been widely criticized, but the president of the university, Lee Bollinger has said he will "introduce the talk himself with a series of tough questions on topics including Ahmadinejad's views on the Holocaust, his call for the destruction of the state of Israel and his government's alleged support of terrorism" (nytimes.com).

An article in the New York Times called "Extremist Speakers a Dilemma at Colleges" discusses whether college campuses are appropriate places for all views to be aired. It seems reasonable enough. Students attend universities to learn and gain insight beyond their own. What I find questionable about allowing Ahmadinejad to speak at Columbia is whether or not he will bring valuable insight to those in attendance.

The article explains that with past controversial guest speakers, more anger has been provoked than thought. Some of these speakers include Ward Churchill who was initially invited to Hamilton College but then later canceled as a speaker, and Ann Coulter who was hit with a pie during a University of Arizona appearance in 2004.

I think that we hear enough of what these political and controversial figures have to say by way of mainstream media, and I do not anticipate the sentiment toward them will change if you simply move their comments to a university setting. In fact, their comments will probably be on the mild side, especially in the case of Ahmadinejad, and we will be exposed to a unrealistic view of the man. Where is the opportunity of gaining knowledge in that?

One part of the article that struck me as being a little ridiculous was a comment by Harvey Silverglate, a civil rights attorney who has criticized higher education for failing to support free speech on campus. He said, "...one of the things we really lacked in this country was sufficient contact with Nazis to realize what they are up to...that you're going to take really awful people and not listen to them is really suicidal for any society." I'm not quite sure what engaging in a debate with a "really awful" person will do to broaden the views of not "really awful" people, but I bet that Ahmadinejad would agree with that comment.

Click here to read the rest of "Extremist Speakers a Dilemma at Colleges"

Click here to watch Ann Coulter's "pie incident"

1st Amendment Rights

I was preparing to blog today about the now infamous event that occurred last week at the University of Florida. 21-year-old Andrew Meyer was Tasered during a forum featuring Senator John Kerry when he went over the established questioning time limit and then resisted police attempts to escort him from discussion. However, that story has in a way unraveled because the continued coverage has revealed the student as a prankster who asked several fellow students to tape him as he approached the microphone. I'm not saying that this excuses the force the officers used against him. However, the debate is no longer about his 1st amendment right possibly being compromised, which is what interested me in the first place.
I'm currently taking a media law class required for all School of Media Arts and Design undergraduates. In our first few weeks of study we have discussed the history of the 1st amendment as a defense in US court cases. It's amazing how many controversies still exist related to the 1st amendment, and browsing through the headlines this morning, I found an extremely disturbing one.
Colorado State University's student newspaper, The Rocky Mountain Collegian, published an editorial on September 21 reading "Taser this...(expletive) BUSH."

click here to read the editorial (contains offensive language)

I'm assuming the editorial is a twisted play on words reflecting Meyer's heated exclamation, "Don't Taser me bro!" However, if the point of the editorial was to bring more attention to the Meyer controversy, it failed miserably. The Collegian posted a letter from the editor, David McSwane, online that expressed it's intention in publishing the editorial:

The First Amendment is at the very core of what we do as a newspaper. We as journalists wish to celebrate it, utilize it and, sometimes, defend it. The Collegian editorial board, a group of seven student editors charged with determining a staff editorial for each issue, voted to run the editorial statement. This vote was a split vote, but the board as a whole as agreed to stand behind this decision and to continue the Collegian tradition. (www.collegian.com)

Okay. Firstly, I'm not exactly sure how printing this editorial "celebrates" the first amendment, but in undoubtedly "unitlizes" it. Secondly, I think that most people would agree that the role of a newspaper is to bring together a community and provide all with an equal opportunity to be informed. I think this is especially true in the case of a student newspaper. Now I realize that this was the editorial page that the staff was in charge of, but that does not mean that their responsibility as journalists disappears. Where is the educational value in such a statement? How does it benefit the community? According to the letter from the editor, it has instead divided the community and sparked outrage. Thirdly, I think the editorial is unoriginal and cliche. In these troubling times, you hear vulgar sentiments toward Bush on a daily basis. I believe the one reason this one is gathering national attention is because it's from a student newspaper. Instead of publishing something that is worth reading and possibly challenges current ways of thought, they published something vulgar and irresponsible. It makes the university look childish, and their excuse that they were merely exercising their 1st amendment rights is a simple crutch and immature excuse for thoughtless behavior.

Click here to read the entire letter from the editor

Click here to read further coverage from Fox News Online about the CSU controversy

 Do you think that the Collegian's editorial statement was an appropriate exercise of the 1st Amendment?

• 
  
  Yes


• 
  
  No

view results
Free vote poll

moveon.org

A big story in the news this week is an ad posted on the liberal web site moveon.org. It displays a picture of General Petraeus and a headline that reads "General Petraeus or Betray Us?" Moveon.org has posted several controversial ads throughout the year, but this particular one is making headlines for a different reason.

Hillary Clinton was quoted as voicing a similar opinion toward Petraeus. She has been asked in the media to refute the ad and any association she has with moveon.org. She avoided doing so on two interview clips that were aired on Bill O'Reilly tonight (Sept. 18).

Honestly, I'm sick of hearing about moveon.org and I think their advertisements are hateful and detrimental to our effort overseas.

Click here to read the full ad against General Petraeus

Bush Meets With Bloggers

In our weekly budget meeting we discuss the advances in our blogs. We chat about how smoothly we are finding the transition into blogging, the personality of our blogs, and if we think it is a beneficial practice. Some advantages of blogging we have discussed include improved writing skills, preparation for web writing, and exploring topics we are interested in. Perhaps, however, there are additional advantages to blogs we have not discussed.

I recently came across a blog entitled Public Eye on cbsnews.com written by Matthew Felling. The blog discussed recent news that President Bush had met with 10 influential military bloggers last Friday (Sept. 14) to discuss the war in Iraq and General Petraeus. This interested me because as we as a class are exploring these new mediums in the electronic age, such as blogs, very influential figures in society are beginning to realize their importance. Of course the audience Bush faced was a receptive one, and the meeting may have been a simple PR tactic, but it still struck me as important. It was the first time that the president had ever met with bloggers. Felling's blog stated, "[T]he hour-long meeting in the Roosevelt Room offered Bush another opportunity to break through what he sees as the filter of the traditional news media, while also reaching out to the providers of a new source of information for soldiers, their families and others who follow the conflict in Iraq closely."

As an alternative to "traditional news media", blogging was nationally recognized by the leader of the free world. I'd say that it's a pretty influential alternative.

Here's the link to Felling's blog

Here's another link to a blog by Bill Roggio, editor and publisher of The Long War Journal, who met with Bush this past Friday.

(Fill in the Blank) v. FOX News

I enjoy watching and reading about media feuds. Competition is a part of any business and controversy attracts viewers and readers. However, I feel like lately there has been an assault on Fox News. MSNBC's Keith Olbermann said in the latest Playboy, "Al Qaeda really hurt us, but not as much as Rupert Murdoch has hurt us, particularly in the case of FOX News. FOX News is worse than Al Qaeda - worse for our society. It's as dangerous as the Ku Klux Klan ever was."

Greg Gutfeld who hosts Red Eye on FOX News responded saying, "Look, whether you're a liberal or a conservative, you should be creeped out by this. It's not because he took a dig at FOX, it's because in doing so he suggested that the horrific crimes committed by Al Qaeda and the Klan are comparable to the action of a media outlet, whose success he envies."

Whatever point Olbermann was trying to make in this comparison was lost. With the recent anniversary of September 11th and a new tape from Bin Laden, his timing could not have been poorer. I feel like society has lost sight of the hatred terrorists have toward our nation, and I believe comments such as Olbermann's have a place in the blame. His comment cheapens the severity of the motives of Al Qaeda.

Another thing that struck me was that Olbermann used Playboy magazine as an outlet for his comments. I think it gives the magazine a political voice it may not want. Perhaps since it is an entertainment magazine rather than a political one, Olbermann thought he could get away with having a bit of a loose tongue. Either way, I find his comments offense and the publication that carried them disreputable.

Politics in the Classroom

I got an interesting phone call from my younger sister this afternoon who is a junior at Towson University outside of Baltimore, Maryland. She proceeded to express a deep frustration directed toward a class she was enrolled in: sociology of race, class, and gender. She told me that she had just sat through a power point presentation focused on the shortcomings of the Bush administration. The presentation accused the administration of passing more laws to restrict rights of woman exceeding those had existed before the passage of the 19th amendment. She asked the teacher if the class would be tested on the material. Her professor said that anything on the power point was fair game. My sister proceeded to ask for examples or references toward the source of the information presented. A classmate echoed my sister's request, demanding the same. The teacher replied that if they wanted more information, she would e-mail it to them or they could talk to her after class, but the material presented was indeed factual. My sister and her classmate then left the class early.

My sister's account of the debate frustrated me as well. I understand that everyone has their own political opinions, and no matter their basis, they should be respected equally. However, I still find it difficult to listen to a debate or read a piece that goes against my political leanings and stay open-minded and neutral to see if I can learn something. Nonetheless, I value the importance in doing so.

My argument against this professor's opinion and presentation of supposed facts was the setting. In the classroom, I believe professors have the responsibility to leave their political opinions at the door. If they want to present facts that they believe will serve a beneficial supplement to a point in a lecture, they should include their sources, just as if a student would have to if they submitted an essay.

I do not see anything wrong with professors being up front with their students when it comes to their political opinions, nor do I see anything wrong with using the subject of politics as an impetus for a lecture or debate. However, testing students on unreliable facts or opinions and requesting time outside of class for clarification does not seem beneficial to the student or class.

A Little Bit of History

I am an avid news junkie. If I have not picked up a newspaper, turned on cable news, checked out the headlines online, or tuned into news radio while driving for a few moments, I actually feel guilty. I like to know what is going on nationally and internationally. I want to hear the story about the rookie pitcher who threw a no-hitter against my beloved Orioles. I want to hear the latest story about Brad and Angelina. I want to hear specific details about the troop surge in Iraq. Being informed makes me feel like a relevant citizen in society. I can form my own opinions and relate to both those who agree and disagree with me. Should I feel guilty when I don't have the time to watch the news before I fall asleep after a long day? Probably not, but I do.

However, I have realized through the completion of a media history course and throughout my print journalism education at James Madison University, that being informed is simply not enough. Media outlets are big businesses publicly traded with, at times it may seem, only one common goal, to make money. They are owned by some of the largest companies in the world ranging from General Electric to Disney. Reporters, no matter how independent they may claim to be, have to answer to one person, their boss. When I learned of Diane Sawyer's public apology to two tobacco firms after ABC was threatened with a defamation lawsuit, it became evident to me that agendas in the news industry do exist. 60 Minutes was attempting to reveal facts about the manipulation of nicotine levels in cigarettes, but the story was pulled when the parent company faced losing money. When I started to realize the truth that the media industry was just an industry, my doubts began to surface.

A dismal realization? Yes. I want to know the truth and the facts, but when I hear so many different truths and facts from different networks, radio stations, websites, and newspapers, I am forced to decide for myself. However, when I think back to the emergence of the print press in Europe and the colonies, I realized that the press is always changing. It emerged to either support or attack the party or leader in power. There was no question as to who a particular newspaper or pamphlet supported. Then, the press evolved into a marketplace of ideas where different opinions could be voiced and received. The penny pressed evolved, advertising took over, and money became the name of the game. Today, money is still the name of the game, but I have hope that one day I will not have to watch FOX News to get one half of the story, and CNN to get the other half.

As I prepare to watch the GOP debates sponsored by FOX News and hosted by a FOX News anchor Brit Hume, I hope that one day, the other half of the country, many of which are vehemently opposed to tuning into the station, will be able to watch the debates without a built in media prejudice.