In the BBC article concerning the failure of the Republican party to pass the American Health Care Act, Paul Ryan's decision to pull the bill is framed in a light of complete disaster. This article lists five reasons why its inability to pass this bill was a disaster for the Republican Party. The reasons listed are: Trump's incompetency as a deal-maker, Paul Ryan's lack of influence over the House, the negative impact this loss has on Trump's entire presidential agenda, the GOP's new plan to watch Obamacare implode, and an angry Republican base of support. The Washington Post portrays Ryan's decision in a slightly different frame. While the article still starts with the failure of Ryan and Trump to pass the bill, calling it a "dramatic failure," it goes on to give the opinions of several other Republican party members. This article frames the pulling of the bill as a failure, but also outlines the Republican plan moving forward.
Friday, March 31, 2017
Two views on Trumps
executive order against Obama's climate change order
Both articles admit that climate change is happening. Besides this they have one more thing in common, they state that the action by President Trump and his administration is wrong, but due to different reasons.
At this point the framing of the New York Times "Climate Progress, With or Without Trump" and the Fox News "Trump is wrong on climate change" article start to differ.
The New York Times article is setting up a frame that climate change is the right thing to do and the government should support it; they point out the leading role the United States should develop in the world in regards to the fight against climate change; they mention the efforts US cities are currently undertaking; they talk about the reality of inefficiency of coal plants; the critical mass that is reached to take action against climate change and the greater goods that originate out of these efforts like cheaper electricity, health benefits etc.
The New York Times article claims that the fight against climate change can be won.
The Fox News article sets up a different frame that demands the government to support and develop strategies to face the consequences of climate changes. The author Oren Cass says the major source for emissions will be the developing countries in the world, reducing the emissions in the US won't change this trend and therefore we need to face the consequences of climate change in the future. He demands the government to support research and help states and cities to prepare and adapt to the future challenges. He believes in the US as a nation which can adapt by innovation, but denying the need of solutions, which is what in his eyes the Trump administration does, does not help to come up with innovations.
The Fox News article claims that the fight against climate change can NOT be won.
The Frame of the New York Times is that Trump is wrong, but still optimistic and values the undergoing independent achievements of the US people, cities and companies. The Frame of the Fox News article is agreeing partly with Trump, canceling the fight against climate change is supported, but the need to come up with innovations and adaptions against the consequences of a climate change is a critical demand.
Both articles admit that climate change is happening. Besides this they have one more thing in common, they state that the action by President Trump and his administration is wrong, but due to different reasons.
At this point the framing of the New York Times "Climate Progress, With or Without Trump" and the Fox News "Trump is wrong on climate change" article start to differ.
The New York Times article is setting up a frame that climate change is the right thing to do and the government should support it; they point out the leading role the United States should develop in the world in regards to the fight against climate change; they mention the efforts US cities are currently undertaking; they talk about the reality of inefficiency of coal plants; the critical mass that is reached to take action against climate change and the greater goods that originate out of these efforts like cheaper electricity, health benefits etc.
The New York Times article claims that the fight against climate change can be won.
The Fox News article sets up a different frame that demands the government to support and develop strategies to face the consequences of climate changes. The author Oren Cass says the major source for emissions will be the developing countries in the world, reducing the emissions in the US won't change this trend and therefore we need to face the consequences of climate change in the future. He demands the government to support research and help states and cities to prepare and adapt to the future challenges. He believes in the US as a nation which can adapt by innovation, but denying the need of solutions, which is what in his eyes the Trump administration does, does not help to come up with innovations.
The Fox News article claims that the fight against climate change can NOT be won.
The Frame of the New York Times is that Trump is wrong, but still optimistic and values the undergoing independent achievements of the US people, cities and companies. The Frame of the Fox News article is agreeing partly with Trump, canceling the fight against climate change is supported, but the need to come up with innovations and adaptions against the consequences of a climate change is a critical demand.
Thursday, March 30, 2017
Scott Pruitt's Decision on Chlorpyrifos
Yesterday, The New York Times ran an article about Scott Pruitt’s – the head of the Environmental Protection Agency – recent statements regarding the recommended ban on chlorpyrifos, a harmful insecticide still used by farmers. Under an image of Pruitt speaking behind a podium, the story presents his remarks as representative of a sort of internal opposition (his reversal of the agency’s previous position under Obama was a rejection of “the scientific conclusion of the agency’s own chemical safety experts”). This sort of framing might appear to be a sort of delegitimizing tactic and critique of Pruitt’s qualifications to be in the position he’s in, but he also has a long history of oppositional behavior regarding EPA policies and procedures; in other words, the story aligns with the general criticism his appointment has evoked since he assumed office. The story juxtaposes reputable scientific findings (the author is sure to mention that scientists were conducting research at Columbia, specifically) with those who stand to lose the most from it being banned: Dow Chemical, the manufacturer of the insecticide. There is some balance presented as well – a panel of chemical safety experts reviewed the data – but the consensus within the scientific community remains: the chemical should be banned, and Pruitt is clearly catering to corporate relationships rather than keeping the health of the population in mind.
NPR ran a similar story that same day, though theirs began with a noticeably different tone and position: rather than visually draw the reader to Pruitt – and his status as an unqualified leader inciting internal turmoil within the agency – it led with an image of an orange grove that had been treated with the chemical; a skull and crossbones is included with the sign’s “do not enter until...” disclaimer, presenting a particular sort of bias against its safe use on consumable goods. While the article does describe Pruitt’s actions as being counter to his own agency, the focus appears to be more so on the effects of the chemical rather than the discrepancies among those determining the legal parameters of its usage. For instance, studies of families that had been exposed to chlorpyrifos are referenced as evidence that shifted the agency’s initial stance on the chemical being safe to use as long as it was outdoors, and a farmer’s testimony is presented to balance claims of the chemical’s harm: if it is used correctly, then there’s nothing wrong with it. Both The Times and NPR draw on statements from the former assistant administrator of the EPA (Jim Jones) and an attorney with one of the environmental groups that has petitioned for a ban (Patti Goldman of Earthjustice) with an overarching assessment that unless a chemical is proved to be harmless, it shouldn't be allowed. Chlorpyrifos doesn't satisfy that criterion, which, regardless of NPR's more balanced attempt at framing the dilemma, reminds readers how protection is going to be qualified by the current administration.
NPR ran a similar story that same day, though theirs began with a noticeably different tone and position: rather than visually draw the reader to Pruitt – and his status as an unqualified leader inciting internal turmoil within the agency – it led with an image of an orange grove that had been treated with the chemical; a skull and crossbones is included with the sign’s “do not enter until...” disclaimer, presenting a particular sort of bias against its safe use on consumable goods. While the article does describe Pruitt’s actions as being counter to his own agency, the focus appears to be more so on the effects of the chemical rather than the discrepancies among those determining the legal parameters of its usage. For instance, studies of families that had been exposed to chlorpyrifos are referenced as evidence that shifted the agency’s initial stance on the chemical being safe to use as long as it was outdoors, and a farmer’s testimony is presented to balance claims of the chemical’s harm: if it is used correctly, then there’s nothing wrong with it. Both The Times and NPR draw on statements from the former assistant administrator of the EPA (Jim Jones) and an attorney with one of the environmental groups that has petitioned for a ban (Patti Goldman of Earthjustice) with an overarching assessment that unless a chemical is proved to be harmless, it shouldn't be allowed. Chlorpyrifos doesn't satisfy that criterion, which, regardless of NPR's more balanced attempt at framing the dilemma, reminds readers how protection is going to be qualified by the current administration.
Ivanka Trump: New Assistant to the President
Ivanka Trump's 'piggybacking' White House position raises questions over her murky business interests
- Source: New York Daily News
- Facts:
- Ivanka Trump getting title of "Assistant to the President"
- Continues to own her brand, but past on daily operations to a senior employee
- Put assets in a trust to negate conflicts of interest.
Ivanka Trump joining father’s administration in official, unpaid position
- Source: Fox News
- Facts:
- Ivanka Trump to gain title as "Assistant the the President"
- Unpaid position
- Continues to own her brand, but past on daily management to the company president
The two articles above cover the same story about Ivanka Trump getting the title of "Assistant to the President" at the White House. A few key details show how the stories are framed differently from each other.
Clarifying American Citizenship
Barack Obama was questioned throughout his presidency about whether he was born on U.S. soil or, as the current president has claimed, born in Kenya. When Senator Ted Cruz was campaigning for the republican primaries, the status of his citizenship was also questioned. Here are the facts: Ted Cruz was born in Canada to an American mother, therefore, Ted Cruz is an American citizen. Fox News does an excellent job clearing this up in the link posted below. The New York Times also covers this controversy, while also highlighting the absurdity of Donald Trump's claims against Cruz. Fox News, on the other hand, refrains from throwing shade at then candidate Trump and sticks to a very "matter of fact" reporting style, which is rare for this particular outlet. Links to both articles are posted below.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/14/who-can-settle-cruz-eligibility-question-once-and-for-all.html
https://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/01/06/donald-trump-keeps-dwelling-on-ted-cruz-citizenship-issue/
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/14/who-can-settle-cruz-eligibility-question-once-and-for-all.html
https://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/01/06/donald-trump-keeps-dwelling-on-ted-cruz-citizenship-issue/
North Carolina Bathroom Bill
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/30/us/north-carolina-senate-acts-to-repeal-restrictive-bathroom-law.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
The new bill puts state legislators in charge of determining bathroom rules rather than schools and local officials.
The left New York Times article, focuses on how this bill is a good first step but more needs to be ensured for the transgendered community, and that it is not a true repeal.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/30/north-carolina-bathroom-bill-lawmakers-vote-to-undo-measure.html
While bias is not shown clearly, this one focuses on how the bill is sufficient for the transgender community.
The new bill puts state legislators in charge of determining bathroom rules rather than schools and local officials.
The left New York Times article, focuses on how this bill is a good first step but more needs to be ensured for the transgendered community, and that it is not a true repeal.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/30/north-carolina-bathroom-bill-lawmakers-vote-to-undo-measure.html
While bias is not shown clearly, this one focuses on how the bill is sufficient for the transgender community.
Framing
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/30/us/north-carolina-senate-acts-to-repeal-restrictive-bathroom-law.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/30/north-carolina-transgender-bathroom-bill-flushed-by-lawmakers.html
The latest news out of North Carolina today is their repeal of their controversial House Bill 2 or better know as the "bathroom bill." This controversial piece of legislation limited rights of the transexual community of the state use public bathrooms inline with their gender identity. This comes a massive victory for the LGBTQ community across the country. Fox News reporting on the matter made it seem much less so. They focus in their article about the repeal of the law as a purely "economic decision" as the state faced sanctions no longer from the federal government but from businesses and organizations across America. Including cancelled Springsteen concerts and the loss of their right to hold the NCAA Men's basketball National Championship. The reporting is negative about the repeal to say the least and features quotes only from those who see it as a loss. On the other hand the New York Times article written on the issue focuses much more on the broader meaning of the law passing. The Times talks about it being important financially for the state but also looks at the integrity of the bill as a whole. They raised questions about certain stipulations attached to the repeal as well as get both sides view on the bill which ironically turned out to be negative.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/30/us/north-carolina-senate-acts-to-repeal-restrictive-bathroom-law.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/30/north-carolina-transgender-bathroom-bill-flushed-by-lawmakers.html
The latest news out of North Carolina today is their repeal of their controversial House Bill 2 or better know as the "bathroom bill." This controversial piece of legislation limited rights of the transexual community of the state use public bathrooms inline with their gender identity. This comes a massive victory for the LGBTQ community across the country. Fox News reporting on the matter made it seem much less so. They focus in their article about the repeal of the law as a purely "economic decision" as the state faced sanctions no longer from the federal government but from businesses and organizations across America. Including cancelled Springsteen concerts and the loss of their right to hold the NCAA Men's basketball National Championship. The reporting is negative about the repeal to say the least and features quotes only from those who see it as a loss. On the other hand the New York Times article written on the issue focuses much more on the broader meaning of the law passing. The Times talks about it being important financially for the state but also looks at the integrity of the bill as a whole. They raised questions about certain stipulations attached to the repeal as well as get both sides view on the bill which ironically turned out to be negative.
In this article by Fox News (2009 called and want their easy target back) they go over the implications of the recently passed bill that undoes the various consumer protections that the Obama administration put forth concerning ISP data collection. The article itself seems rather unbiased and technical at first, but inevitably downplays some of the more egregious things that ISPs can now do with consumer data and how they can collect it. Additionally, the author doesn't give the impression that they know anything about mobile or internet technology, even referring to a VPN as a single project that's currently in development. The second article, from the New York Post, chooses to go a different route, including several interviews from both citizens and experts. This attempt at coverage seems to have the goal in mind of making it more accessible to people by including simplifications and perspectives from a lay-person. The NYP coverage was much more critical of the effects the legislation could have and was very clear about its opinions.
By contrasting both articles, we can see the differences in biases of course, but we also see the style in which they frame their stories. Fox News choosing to use a faux-technical perspective and present their opinions as facts, while NYP chose to appeal more to emotional and practical audiences with their article.
http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/30/retirement/state-ira-senate-vote/index.html?iid=ob_homepage_deskrecommended_pool
https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2017-03-30/senate-votes-to-repeal-labor-dept-municipal-retirement-plan-rule
Congress is moving to stop a bill that has to do with giving low-income workers access to retirement and 401k plans. Each
of the above articles presents different frames on the topic. The article from CNN uses the verbiage,
"Dozens of states are trying to make it easier for workers to save for retirement, but Congress could throw a wrench in their plans", and throughout the beginning of the article, continues to mention Congress "killing" plans that could "help". The framing makes it seem as though Congress is the bad guy, without a desire to help the underdog. The article goes on to later address Congress's concerns, but it happens much later in the article.
The second article goes about framing very differently. This one presents a more balanced portrayal of the situation, sampling quotes and directly balancing one side with the other. It presents a longer explanation of Congress's rationale, while also offering the concerns from the workers.
One of the frames is more heavily opposed to Congress's decision, while the other offers points and counter-points and frames with equally-sided information.
Russia's influence in the US Election - March 30th
Russian 'information warfare' included targeting Marco Rubio staffers, Senate panel told -- Fox
Russia hired 1,000 people to create anti-Clinton 'fake news' in key US states during election, Trump-Russia hearings leader reveals -- The Independent
Today, it was revealed that the Kremlin hired ~1000 people to create "Fake News" and post them in key swing states.
Above there are two links - one links to the Independent.co.uk, while the other is a link to Fox News.
Per Fox News -- “Unfortunately, you will learn ... that our community has been a target of Russian information warfare, propaganda, and cyber campaigns – and still is,” ” said Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., at the start of a key hearing by his committee. One of the targets of their interference apparently is Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., a hardliner on Russia who confirmed that former members of his presidential campaign staff had been targeted on several occasions.
Per the independent -- "Mr Warner said: “We know about the hacking, and selective leaks, but what really concerns me as a former tech guy is at least some reports – and we’ve got to get to the bottom of this – that there were upwards of a thousand internet trolls working out of a facility in Russia, in effect taking over a series of computers which are then called botnets, that can then generate news down to specific areas."
Both news reports highlight that Russia engaged in influencing our election, something that they are reportedly doing now to other countries, however Fox only focuses on party member Marco Rubio, while the Independent focuses on the attacks on Hillary Clinton, not mentioning Rubio. The Independent does include Paul Ryan's (R) statement denouncing Russia. These are examples of Bias, and Framing.
Russia hired 1,000 people to create anti-Clinton 'fake news' in key US states during election, Trump-Russia hearings leader reveals -- The Independent
Today, it was revealed that the Kremlin hired ~1000 people to create "Fake News" and post them in key swing states.
Above there are two links - one links to the Independent.co.uk, while the other is a link to Fox News.
Per Fox News -- “Unfortunately, you will learn ... that our community has been a target of Russian information warfare, propaganda, and cyber campaigns – and still is,” ” said Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., at the start of a key hearing by his committee. One of the targets of their interference apparently is Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., a hardliner on Russia who confirmed that former members of his presidential campaign staff had been targeted on several occasions.
Per the independent -- "Mr Warner said: “We know about the hacking, and selective leaks, but what really concerns me as a former tech guy is at least some reports – and we’ve got to get to the bottom of this – that there were upwards of a thousand internet trolls working out of a facility in Russia, in effect taking over a series of computers which are then called botnets, that can then generate news down to specific areas."
Both news reports highlight that Russia engaged in influencing our election, something that they are reportedly doing now to other countries, however Fox only focuses on party member Marco Rubio, while the Independent focuses on the attacks on Hillary Clinton, not mentioning Rubio. The Independent does include Paul Ryan's (R) statement denouncing Russia. These are examples of Bias, and Framing.
Each above article concerns the nature of Ivanka Trump's role in the White House and her father's administration. One article comes from the New York Times and the other from Fox News. There are marked differences in the presentation of each article. The Times includes a more detailed description of prior concerns raised by ethics experts on Ivanka's role as advisor to the president. The Fox article mentions the concerns but quickly moves on and displays Ivanka's new (unpaid) position as a remedy to any ethical questions. The two articles also rely on different sources; the Times quotes former ethics lawyers under President Obama, as well as Ivanka and her counsel. Fox News includes Ivanka's statement and statements issues by the White House, which are considerably more positive than the ethics lawyer quoted in the Times.
The framing in focus and language, as well as the sources each news site chose to include, drastically alter the substance of the story. Fox News is implicitly telling audiences that Ivanka's addition to the White House should be celebrated, while the New York Times applies a more scrutinous lens to the situation and suggests that Ivanka's role could be unethical.
The framing in focus and language, as well as the sources each news site chose to include, drastically alter the substance of the story. Fox News is implicitly telling audiences that Ivanka's addition to the White House should be celebrated, while the New York Times applies a more scrutinous lens to the situation and suggests that Ivanka's role could be unethical.
Wednesday, March 29, 2017
The 1960s
Gitlin Discussion Questions
- What does Gitlin mean by ideology and by the statement “the mass media have become core systems for the distribution of ideology.”
- What does he mean by the statement “Just as people as workers have no voice in what they make, how they make it, or how the product is distributed or used, so do people as producers of meaning have no voice in what the media make of what they say or do, or the context within which the media frame their activities.” (3) Do you believe this?
- What happens when political movements rely on mass media?
- What is a media frame? What are some examples of reoccurring news frames?
- According to Gans (as referenced by Gitlin), what accounts for prevailing frames?
- According to Gitlin, What is hegemony and what is counter-hegemony?
- According Gitlin, what does media have to do with democracy?
Pay attention to the way each story is framed differently: themes, language, sources, visuals, what is emphasized and deemphasized.
(The Young Turks claims to be "the world's largest online news show" and has a YouTube Channel, Fusion show, and a ton of viewers.)
Thursday, March 23, 2017
WELCOME!
What is media activism and how is it changing in the era of mobile and digital tools and networks? Do traditional sites of power and authority have more leverage in this new environment or are there more opportunities for resistance? These questions are all over the news and scholarly literature these days as the world erupts in protest over various forms of injustice. Check out this time-lapse visualization of protests since 1979. It gets especially amazing around the 2000s when the map gets super crowded. And here is the explanation of how the data was collected.
Recently there have been demonstrations erupting in the US around the election and policies of Trump, climate justice, police violence against African Americans among other things. The protests are represented in various ways.
Report from Fox.
Focus on phones from the Daily Mail.
Images from CBS.
Tim Pool coverage from Ferguson.
Jon Stewart on complaints against protestors.
CBS on The Women's March.
One of the benefits of activist media is it can represent diverse perspectives. Here Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie talks about how to confront what she calls "the danger of the single story." What does this have to do with activist media?
Media activism today is also goes beyond representation to changing the media structures, forms, and practices. Jeff Chang hints at this in this video about his book. You can signup to hear him at the as upcoming Harper Distinguished Speaker lecture on April 13 (5:30 reception, 7:00 speech).
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)