Milk Quenches Thirst for Social Commentary

by Jordan Coughenour

An epic portrayal of the man who first embodied the word "hope," Director Gus Van Sant's biopic Milk, following the late Castro Street politician who became the first openly gay man ever elected to public office, is easily one of the most socially important and impactful films to arise out of Hollywood studios in recent years, and an undeniable contender for multiple Oscar nominations this season. Van Sant (Good Will Hunting, Finding Forrester) seems to have finally learned the essential skill of relinquishing complete control as a director, leading several of Milk's actors to execute masterfully unhindered performances, resulting in an engaging character study framed by the suddenly newly relevant gay civil rights movement in late 1970's San Francisco.

Milk's release date (although the film debuted in San Francisco on Oct. 28, before the fall elections, it did not go into limited national release until Nov. 26) tragically prevented the film from affecting the recent passing of California's Proposition 8. (For more on Prop. 8 please see: "California's Proposition 8 TV Ads" and "Proposition 8: Where's the Outrage?") That ballot initiative banned gay marriage in California. Moving in parallel, much of the movie deals with Harvey Milk's organization of protests against 1977's Proposition 6 in California, which would have fired homosexuals from teaching in the public school system. The film is one of the most effective framings of a social movement ever crafted; with screenwriter Dustin Lance Black working in an artful balance between historical fact, yet leaving spacious breathing room for the audience to follow the personal struggles of those involved in the gay civil rights battle of the time. One of the strongest of these decisions comes with Van Sant's frequent use of vintage newsreel footage and photographs to overlap the staged action; notably choosing not to cast an actor as the religious anti-homosexual warrior Anita Bryant, but rather to confine her presence to actual television interviews, leaving apt room for the film's central cast members to play.

Frequently falling victim to bloated speeches and weepy plot lines, Sean Penn (All the King's Men, Mystic River) is at his strongest point in years as politician Milk. Penn delivers a vocally and physically nuanced performance worthy of serious Academy Award consideration. He joyfully captures the hope and fervor of Milk, acting without fear or imposition in his portrayal. Penn's finest moments are the quiet pauses between the rallies and addresses; where he shows Milk's constant battle between his love of operatic theatricality and inward soul searching in an oppressive world. Neither Penn nor Van Sant ever shies away from the uniquely sexual lifestyle of Milk and those around him. From the first moments, as the film begins on the eve of Milk's 40th birthday and primary encounter of lifelong love, Scott Smith, viewers can expect to be invaded by a barrage of sensual portrayals, none lacking in psychological connotation or amorous necessity. These men who revolved around Harvey throughout his life make for a notable supporting cast to Penn throughout the film. James Franco as Scott Smith shows fluidity and able passion in a performance as Milk's sensual yet wary boyfriend, acting as something of a guardian angel throughout the course of the movie. Emile Hirsch (Into the Wild, Speed Racer) is a peppy and energetic presence as the young activist Cleve Jones, who in the years after Milk's timeline concludes, went on to create the AIDS Memorial Quilt. Hirsch is completely unhinged and nearly lunatic in his portrayal. In many of the movie's darker moments, Hirsch is a continuous shock of lightning, pertaining well to one of the actual Milk's frequent calls to, "Never blend in." One of Milk's more notable strengths lies in Josh Brolin (W., No Country For Old Men). Brolin plays City Supervisor Dan White, the eventual assassin of Milk and San Francisco Mayor George Moscone. In making the wise decision to not leave White to the sidelines as a shadowy harbinger of death, Van Sant grants the audience a delicate view into the gradual formation of a bigot. Brolin's carefully constructed progression as a character should reap some possible benefits for Brolin come Oscar nomination time too. Though the basic subject matter of the film itself demands a liberal viewpoint, Van Sant uses White's arc to give the other side of the issue its due course of argumentation. It's nearly as much of a shock to a truly engaged audience member as it is to Milk himself when White does eventually pull a trigger on Moscone, igniting one of the country's most heart wrenching double homicides.

Given Harvey Milk's constant search for a stage and enough theatricality to keep the world enraptured, it's of considerable notation that Milk's core manages to be so subtle and pure. Past the grand narrative of a social movement, lies the heart of both the issue itself, as well as the basic grappling with humanity that ensures no matter what legal jurisdiction ensues, all men are still created equal. It's the intimate moments, such as when Milk and Smith enjoy a candlelight dinner with the pressure of political duty pervading the air, or when the previously aimless wanderer, Jones is handed his first bullhorn and enlisted to active duty just prior to Milk's death, ringing true to his signature speech-starter "My name is Harvey Milk, and I'm here to recruit you." You'll have a hard time walking out of the theatre without the need to pick up a picket sign and head into the streets yourself. Milk is, overall, a powerful testament that though over three decades have passed, the continuous struggle for equality continues in the gay community to this day.

(Editor's Note: This piece is also cross-posted on the iVoryTowerz blog.)

(Milk goes into full nationwide release in the U.S. on Dec. 5. The film is rated R. The promotional film poster is from Focus Features. To see a trailer for the film, please check below.)



films
Milk
Gus Van Sant
Harvey Milk
Sean Penn
James Franco
Emile Hirsch
Josh Brolin
Academy Awards
California’s Proposition 8
Proposition 8
gay rights
politics
culture
film review
Add to Technorati Favorites

Invisible Children: Exposing Humanitarian Needs

by Emily Norton

As has been said countless times before, we of the global North failed our brothers in the Rwandan genocide. Unwilling to let another African catastrophe slip by unnoticed, three boys documented their trip through Northern Uganda and ended up launching a life-changing NGO, Invisible Children Inc. A completely grassroots non-profit, it has succeeded in raising worldwide awareness and support (nearly 3.5 million dollars in the last year and a half) for the thousands displaced by the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) in Uganda. While it began as a rough documentary, the organization's mission statement now accounts for "improving the quality of life for war-affected children by providing access to quality education, enhanced learning environments, and innovative economic opportunities for the community." The crazy thing is, they are actually accomplishing this goal. However, it's not necessarily just their programs that are doing it, but rather the mass support and attention garnered f by their excellent Western world-friendly media.

It almost seems as though we've heard it all before; the mantra of "stories changing lives." So what happened in Rwanda? Television was not entirely devoid of those scenes of carnage, and yet the desired active response was not elicited.

Invisible Children points to an adage frequently repeated by my parents (usually to quell heated words between my sister and me): it's not what you say, but how you say it. Sometimes a good hook or carefully repeated image will carry a farther reaching impact than a briefly distressing scene or statistic. The Invisible Children organization has displayed genius at marketing and presenting their cause. Their website is filled with photos of the shining faces of the young, hip activists and Africans, big-band name benefit concerts, well-constructed YouTube-style videos, and interesting advertisements of hands-on simulation events that bring the tribulations of Africans to American soil. I personally was greatly affected by their "Global Night Commute" a nationwide event in which thousands walked miles to sleep in outdoor locations, symbolizing the Ugandan children who commuted to hospitals nightly to escape abduction into the army of child soldiers of the LRA.

This on-fire group has developed a humanitarian aid teen subculture, perpetuated by the first positive media-induced domino/bandwagon effect I've seen in a long time. Once you participate in one of their events, you become a member of the cause (and their very thorough and enlightening e-mail list!). Though it could be said that they are trying to manipulate an emotional response, I don't think they're duping anyone. Currently, they are actually offering followers the opportunity to go on site and see the effects of their fundraising and petitioning. With their flashy website and appeal to the belief that youth can "make a difference," Invisible Children Inc. has sparked an international compassion movement.

(The photo of three Ugandan boys in a diplacement camp is part of the promotional materials compiled by Invisible Children.)

media
war
human rights
Invisible Children
Uganda
Lord’s Resistance Army
LRA
politics
Add to Technorati Favorites

Korea: Kim Jong-Il & his Hermit Kingdom

by Althea Avice de Guzman

In North Korea, foreign influence is prohibited. Media are barred. There are few televisions sets and limited uses for radio and the internet. Outside influence is so minimal, it seems as though the country alone exists in the world. And incredulously enough, the people's beliefs reflect just that: North Korea is the Garden of Eden while everyone else must be living contemptuously.
It is an inconceivable concept for Americans. The images we receive from that part of the world are emaciated children picking at the muddied grounds for any scrap of food. North Korean defectors are returned from China only to be executed. Human rights organizations have rallied for the United States' government to have an active role in intervening when such clear violations are being made to the human rights of North Korean citizens.

This is where American compassion can be misconstrued for arrogance because the real problem is that North Koreans do not believe there is anything wrong with their way of life. Why? Because it is the only thing they have ever known. Yes, they may acknowledge that difficulty exists, especially with the famine that continues even today, but it must be endured for the ultimate fate of the country.

If Freddy Krueger ever wore Mao's suit, it would be Kim Jong-Il, stalking the nightmare that George Orwell dreamt in his novel, 1984. Yet while Orwell dreamed of a government's pervasive control by totalitarianism, Kim Jong-Il takes it even further by establishing a theocracy, where he is God. The North Korean Constitution is essentially the Bible that is taught upon entering school, where its principles must be reflected in each class, from Russian to biology. As detestable as it may be, one must be in awe of such a perfect system of indoctrination.

In Orwell's novel, the government controls every aspect of a citizen's life, and it is no different in the reality that Kim has created: every citizen is his disciple, a fate borne from the womb. It is no surprise that for the past sixty years, there has been no documented sedition, no protests, coups or strikes. After all, a citizen is but a common believer who cannot possibly rebel against God.

All of this is possible because outside influence is not allowed and what modest media that exists in the country are controlled by the government as a means of intensifying indoctrination with propaganda reflecting the principles of Kim's Bible. Only 55 out of every 1,000 citizens even own a TV set and television only shows programs that the government approves of having patriotic principles, glorifying the leader. Reports are saturated with Kim's actions and ideals and thus do not have any room to report hardship. Even if any foreign media outlet could be accessed, there is a severe punishment for paying it any mind. Also, it seems that if ever the internet had a boundary, it would be found in North Korea. Such measures to limit media outlets like television, radio and the internet are easy because the country cannot afford any development in technology that even compares to the standard of living found in the West. All the money is invested in Kim's military ambitions including nuclear advancement.

Hence, the first step to be taken in aiding North Koreans is not through direct negotiations with the leader. There is some merit in the rest of the world criticizing America for its interference in other nations' sovereignty over their citizens. We may have good intentions, but what we need to realize is that the rest of the world has not been as privileged to know a better fate. The media saturation in this country allows for the proliferation of ideals in liberty and individualism; other countries are not so lucky.

So, where do we begin? Well, reading George Orwell doesn't hurt.

(The photo shows North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il meeting with troops; the photo was released by the North Korean Central News Agency in August, 2008, and is in the public domain.)

politics
North Korea
Korea
Kim Jong-Il
George Orwell
media
Add to Technorati Favorites

Obama, Pakistan & the Media

by Ali Golomb

The media are a public service, and they are supposed to report unbiased information through raising tough questions. The New York Times' Stephen Dubner reported that 67.8% of all daily newspapers, 98.4% of college newspapers, and 100% of alternative weekly newspapers endorsed Barack Obama for the presidency. Because the majority of the media supported Obama, they failed to ask follow up and vital questions that were left unanswered during his candidacy. Even though I myself am a Democrat and an Obama supporter, I see how the media presented Obama as a knight in shinning armor who will save the American people.

One of the ways the media failed was that they did not ask President-elect Obama to go more in depth with his foreign policy plans. Obama argued the war in Iraq has distorted U.S. foreign policy. Obama said he would withdraw troops from Iraq, and focus instead on Pakistan. However, the media failed to question Obama further. Obama said that if Pakistan does not comply, he will consider taking action. The media played down the fact that Pakistan's government does not support terrorism, and Obama is giving another sovereign nation an ultimatum — adhere to our policies or else we will take action against your nation. President George W. Bush has this same attitude with Iraq.

Even though I too would like to be assured that our nation is going to be safe, the American people do not need the media to continue to glorify politicians. Rather, the American people need the media to raise difficult questions, and demand difficult answers because we cannot trust the government totally; we need the media to serve as a watchdog. We saw what happened when we did not raise difficult questions out of fear: American involvement in an unpopular war in Iraq that the majority of the public opposes.

(Political graphic from StrangePolitics, a website that offers copyright-free political material.)

politics
2008 campaign
2008 election
Barack Obama
Pakistan
Iraq War
newspaper endorsements
George Bush
media
Obama
Add to Technorati Favorites


Subscribe in a reader

Proposition 8: Where's the Outrage?

by Chelsea Ritchie

Last week, while voters were casting their votes in mass numbers for Barack Obama in the presidential race, a different vote was counted and pronounced. California’s controversial Proposition 8 passed, making gay marriage illegal in the state. (For more on Proposition 8 and gay rights, please see: "California's Proposition 8's TV Ads" and "The Story, the Truth and Fred Phelps.") Basically the proposition bans the right of same-sex couples to marry, nulls the bonds of those already married, and overrules Proposition 22. The vote was 52.5% in favor and 47.5% against, although those percentages don't include absentee and provisional ballots.

Why have the media covered so little of this topic? While my classmates argue over the future under president-elect Obama and whether his policies are adequate, I can’t help but to wonder why the media have said so little about Proposition 8. After all, this is the highest- funded campaign on any state ballot (a combined total of $73.4 million). Clearly the media frenzy for Obama’s campaign has been shown all over CNN, ABC, NBC, and other major television news networks.

Perhaps being a Californian, I feel compelled to research but I found that while I was in California I didn't see much information about what Prop. 8 proposed. ProtectMarriage.com, a major organization which sponsored the Prop. 8 ballot, cleverly made the campaign into voting for Prop. 8 to “protect ourselves and children.” Contrasting that position, the ads against Prop. 8 hardly used “gay,” or “lesbian” and I think the ads actually looked so similar that one could easily confuse what Prop. 8 did. Since May 15, Proposition 22 has allowed same sex marriages and I have never felt the need to “protect myself.” I did the research and saw what exactly Prop. 8 petitioned, but my fellow Californians may not have. My good friend Remie even told me she was proud to vote for Prop. 8 because she wanted to protect gay marriages. What she really did was vote to ban it. It’s this kind of confusion that probably changed the voter outcome for or against Prop. 8.

There needs to be more awareness about this proposition and I blame the limited coverage of the media to the passing of this petition. It is the responsibility of our news anchors, newspaper columnists, radio DJ’s and bloggers to spread the awareness. Yes, it is also the voter’s responsibility to research before you vote, but many people rely on the mainstream media to deliver the facts. Just because the media were occupied with the presidential election is not an excuse to barely show a proposition this big.

(The photo shows a post-election protest by those against California's Proposition 8 in San Francisco. The photo is by ingridtaylar via Flickr, using a Creative Commons license. For more on this topic please see these posts on the iVoryTowerz blog: "Isn't Love All You Need?" and "California: Prop 8 Turns Back the Clock.")

politics
Proposition 8
Prop 8
California Proposition 8
gay marriage
gay rights
media
Add to Technorati Favorites

Post-Election Analysis: What About Those Negative Ads?

by Logan Ruppel

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Mysterious phone calls at 3 a.m. A little girl picking daisies who gets nuked. We are all only too familiar with the mudslinging negative campaign ads that gained popularity during the 1960's and have become ubiquitous on television during the past several presidential elections. Negative advertisements involve attacking a political opponent's policies, past voting record, or personal character to garner support instead of focusing on one's own policies and personal qualities. Sometimes the ads are used to impose opinions on the candidate's "good" policies compared with the opponent's "bad" policies, rather than allowing people to decide for themselves.

Negative ads that focus on policy tend to only promote the benefits of a candidate's platform, while ignoring any possible negative consequences. Not surprisingly, these ads present to the viewer only negative aspects of the opponent's policies and fail to mention any benefits. In order to make an effective, legitimate argument, ads need to accurately represent both sides of an issue, laying down credible facts and figures to prove one side while disproving the other. Unfortunately, it probably isn't possible to address all of these proposals in the small space of a 30 or 60 second advertisement. The only campaign-funded TV spot that came remotely close to achieving this during the 2008 campaign was President-elect Barack Obama's half-hour infomercial that presented his message in a clear, concise way.

Many attack ads venture into the realm of logical fallacy, in this case ad hominem. Political advertisements based on this fallacy, which literally means "argument against the man," ignore the real issues and policies at stake. These ads use personal criticisms of an opponent as evidence to disprove his own arguments. This type of reasoning is flawed because there is no connection between personality and stances on issues. One of Senator John McCain's advertisements in the 2008 presidential campaign compared Obama to Paris Hilton and Britney Spears, saying "He's the biggest celebrity in the world, but is he ready to lead?" and "Higher taxes, more foreign oil." This ad characterized Obama as nothing more than a famous face with no substance just because he has become wildly popular in America and the world. Also, saying that Obama is for higher taxes was misleading, as he intends to lower taxes on everyone except the very wealthy and wants to lessen dependence on foreign oil, not increase it.

Most candidates who use negative campaigning are in a last ditch effort during the final weeks of an election to make up for falling behind in the polls and fundraising. Public reactions to excessive negative campaigning have been largely negative themselves. While the base of support for the attacker most likely will be rallied to support him or her, the more moderate or swing voters may be disgusted with the tone of the campaign. Negative ads force an emotional response in viewers, possibly prompting them to forgo intellectual opinions of candidates and reject them out of fear. By going too far or too personal with attack ads, candidates can actually provide a boost for their opponent's campaigns by turning people off to the aggressive and seemingly loathing candidate. Negative ads overall contribute to polarized politics by driving a wedge of animosity between already opposed voters and lessen voter turnout due to alienation of the centrist electorate.

(Photo by larilari of Goiania, Brazil via stock.xchng; photo discovered through everystockphoto.com. To see the classic "Daisy" ad from 1964, please check below.)



politics
2008 campaign
advertising
negative advertising
Barack Obama
John McCain
McCain
Obama
Add to Technorati Favorites

The Media & Today's Patriotism

by Sarah Filley

After what seemed like the never-ending story of a fight for the presidency; the United States will soon have a new administration. During election, my network of choice was CNN. After a quick and painless vote count, floured with mostly ignored commentary by the likes of Campbell Brown, Anderson Cooper, and, of course, Wolf Blitzer, I found myself saying to a friend, “Oh my lord, I love America!” and instantly I wondered, why have I never said this before election night. I attribute this in part to my upbringing in a nearly anti-right wing, raging liberal town where “Fuck the government,” and “Shit I better move to Canada,” are chants that were heard far too often throughout the past eight years. But I also think that for me personally, the media have altered my sense of patriotism.

Watching the news has instilled in me a resolute uncertainty about my country. There are too many conspiracies, too many plots, and overall too many analysts with frightening things to say about our leaders to always feel a sense of confidence or trust. News outlets exist to bring to light the little known secrets of the influential men and women of America. In February 2008, The New York Times falsely accused Sen. John McCain of having an affair with lobbyist Vicki Iseman. Skepticism arose through the media’s coverage of Barack Obama’s connection with William Ayers and Reverend Jeremiah Wright. The media took a comment made by now Vice President-elect Joe Biden and implied it had racially insensitive connotations, potentially stirring up trouble. Investigative journalism wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for the mistakes and discrepancies made throughout history.

The definition of patriotism has changed drastically with the emergence of the media. Since Thomas Paine incited revolutionary sentiment in 1776, the media have flourished by presenting the American people with the kind of information that makes it possible to lose faith. Now don’t get me wrong, I am not in favor of living in a cloud of ignorance. Having the power and right to question our authorities and be made aware of what’s going on at the national level is part of what makes living in America so great. But since the media began uncovering certain inconvenient truths about our government, there are fewer and fewer people who can, without doubt, say that they have full faith and trust in our nation and its leaders. So during this week, after history was made and a beautiful example of the democratic process was displayed to the world, I would like to take a chance to profess my love for this country. By next week there will be more scandals. Something new will arise in the media that might scare us or cause us to doubt. But in this pause for celebration, I will remember that I do have faith in my country. And despite the fervent scares that the media have maxed in on, I know it is possible to be informed as well as patriotic. I am proud, and always have been, to be an American.

(The photo of CNN Center in Atlanta, GA is by tanjila via Flickr, using a Creative Commons license.)

politics
2008 campaign
CNN
Barack Obama
John McCain
Joe Biden
Thomas Paine
media
Biden
McCain
Obama
Add to Technorati Favorites

America's Youth: Rocking the Vote

by Liz Marjollet

Although it is usually thought that the youth vote is severely underrepresented in elections, I would beg to differ in this election. Youths are definitely becoming more involved in the democratic process. For example, as a college student, I spend my days on Facebook and my nights watching shows such as Saturday Night Live, The Daily Show, and The Colbert Report, along with studying. Facebook has been advertising the election like crazy, with the ability to give your friends free pins endorsing either the Democratic or Republican candidates. Also, many people have been "donating their statuses" to one of the two candidates.

Much of the youth are also more excited about their ability to vote, especially with this election. The historical ramifications alone are reason to want to get involved. Either America's first black president will be elected into office, or Sen. John McCain may have the possibility of a big upset; not to mention McCain's running mate Gov. Sarah Palin, who would be the first woman in the number two position. As well, there has been more fuss over exercising one's right to vote. It gives power to the people, who take their responsibilities seriously.

The media have also used the election as an advertising point to great extremes. For example, Starbucks, McDonald's and Ben and Jerry's have all promised free product with a patron's sticker testifying that they voted. As well, the election has been the lead news story for weeks, if not months. Last night, SNL ran a special two hour program because of the elections. The Daily Show and The Colbert Report both have been poking fun at the candidates and the election in general for weeks. Even now, on my Yahoo! page, there is a poll asking if I voted, and there's an ad for Dodge Rams, with a blue truck and a red truck attached by a chain and facing each other with an American flag backdrop, stating, "Pick your ram. Click to Vote." Google's homepage is creative as usual, with all the letters covered by curtains, as if they were voting, and the second "g" has a "vote" pin on it.

Along with the internet, radio and television have also been a huge part of the hype. Radio stations spend their time reserved for talking discussing the elections. Television is also flooded with the ads put out by both campaigns. Because the election is now able to be everywhere, young people cannot feign ignorance about the issues both campaigns discuss, because no matter the medium, the issues are discussed, whether in serious or satirical terms. The current state of foreign and domestic policy, along with the economic crisis, only add to the list of reasons that youth voters need to get to the polls. But I have a feeling much of the youth already did.

(Graphic by Shep Fairey for ObeyGiant. To see a joint announcement about voting from Jon Stewart of The Daily Show and Stephen Colbert of The Colbert Report, please check below.)




politics
2008 campaign
rock the vote
Saturday Night Live
Daily Show
Colbert Report
Sarah Palin
John McCain
facebook
google
Palin
McCain
media
Add to Technorati Favorites

So Where's the Truth in the Election?

by Irena Schneider

Looking backward now even before the polls close: the election is over. Somebody won and somebody lost. And the world goes on, promises to save the universe gone, tears from fervent supporters gone, silly half-truths in the demagogic limelight… well, perhaps those will never be gone. November 4, 2008 is the apex of a legacy left by a populace that has exhausted its frustration with the past eight years, filled with convictions incredibly sturdy, melodramatic, imbued with a prophetic tone beaming in quivering surety all lodged somewhere at the back of our throats. In twenty years, we will perhaps remember the magnetism under the dome of the Democratic National Convention, when Barack Obama stared ahead and waved, engulfed by a stage of crying supporters while the theme from Remember the Titans blasted across our TV screens and made us want to begin sobbing with hope. We will remember fellow diva Sarah Palin and her insistence to discuss energy policy when asked about taxation policy. Surely, we will remember our friend Joe the Plumber, a hero for a good couple of hours until someone leaked that the poor man doesn't even have a plumber's license. And while our favorite journalists in the CNN newsroom bemoaned the end of such a great metaphor to feed to unconcerned so-called "average" citizens (big compliment to the middle class, of course), at least we had the privilege to kick back and laugh at the process with Saturday Night Live.

It's been a good time. We will remember the agonizing attempts to figure out who's more "presidential," the panic from sexist and racist jibs and jabs, the lies, the ads, the comfortable commotion of establishment politics painstakingly picked apart, tossed around, and put back together by American punditry. Perhaps we will also remember the darker shades of this critical moment. There's the fear and uncertainty about what America has become. We may recall the bailout, for instance, but will we recall the rescue?

Unlikely. Just as unlikely that we'd remember July 12th and Ron Paul's march for freedom, where more than five thousand individuals clambered onto the front lawn of the Capitol and wondered how to become a "mainstream" voice. Neither will we remember the debates between Chuck Baldwin and Ralph Nader or the footage of Bob Barr responding to Obama and McCain during debate time. We will not remember the cancer in our monetary system. On the bright side, at least we might bask in our once-gloried intentions to apply a band aid (and bring back the wisdom of certain reporters at CNBC trying to figure out how to bypass the Constitution when the bailout was initially rejected). There was the housing boom, we might ponder. But what caused the housing boom? To suggest that federal reserve or government policies have been the motivation for our crumbling infrastructure would not only be considered preposterous, but it would be much too difficult to relay. Such is the reality of corporate media: the importance of today's political world is the soundbite and the bottom line. The point is not to encourage critical thinking and provide the populace with information necessary to effectively question the government (as the founding fathers intended our democracy to function). The point is to herd the populace into the realm of irrational responses and gut-provoked indignation and finger pointing spurting from headlines and pithy political drama. There is almost nothing behind the lines. And why would there be? People are much too busy with daily life to ask the deeper questions about root causes or discover the few brave souls struggling on the fringes of the bureaucratic-media-interest-Congress issue network. Within such recycled surface sentiment, journalists are simultaneously much too busy thinking of how they'll next grab the attention of that very busy public.

So where's the truth?

Perhaps we might find it after our love affair with our candidates has subsided. After all, there is a limit to how much we can bandage a patient before we realize he's actually dying of something much deeper inside. But in the meantime, we're not intended to seek the truth. So in the final moments of this historical election, let us lay back and recall the jib jabs and the lies. Let us sob and point fingers. Let us be average joes. Relax, it's only about November 4th, 2008. Nothing new to say. We need not wonder.

(The political cartoon is by Thomas Nast of Harper's Weekly from the 19th Century. This cartoon is now in the public domain. To see John McCain's appearance on NBC's Saturday Night Live with Tina Fey, please check below.)



politics
2008 campaign
Sarah Palin
Barack Obama
John McCain
Republicans
Democrats
Ron Paul
Chuck Baldwin
Ralph Nader
Joe the Plumber
Saturday Night Live
Palin
McCain
Obama
corporate media
media
Add to Technorati Favorites

Argentina & the Mainstream Media

(Editor's Note: This piece is cross-posted on the blog, iVoryTowerz.)

by Rick Rockwell

The issue of how mainstream media frame reality and change the political landscape through their choices doesn’t end at the U.S. border. No. Recent experience reinforces the belief that this is an issue from here to Tierra del Fuego. And the problem flows east and west, globally too.

But let’s get back to Tierra del Fuego.

If you go there, you won’t find many imprints from the media, of any type. But if you do — likely they’ve flowed from Argentina’s capital of Buenos Aires.

One of the topics the mainstream media in Buenos Aires are trying to avoid is the one they like the least: media reform. The government of President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner has set a goal to rewrite the country’s telecommunication laws by the end of her term in 2011. To that end, the government convened an international conference in Buenos Aires to gather ideas for the reform. (The author was among the invited and addressed the conference.) Hundreds of Argentina’s elite attended: members of Argentina’s Congress; bureaucrats; lawyers; influential academics and writers. Speakers from seven countries (including Spain and the U.S.) spoke to the group and the conference was conducted in three languages. Yet beyond public television, only one national network carried any news about the conference. And not one newspaper mentioned it.

If you depended upon the mainstream media, the conference and its message of reform didn’t exist or meant very little.

But if deciding for citizens that media reform is not necessary through ignoring debate and discussion of the topic, the media barons of Argentina show exactly why such reform is necessary.

Much like in the U.S., the electronic media are in the hands of a powerful oligarchy of businesses. The players are different. But they tend to act in familiar ways. Beyond the corporate media’s concentrated economic and political power, another concern is whether these corporations have Argentina’s best interests at heart or whether their international origins and need for increasing profits trump all.

For instance, Argentina's market is dominated by Grupo Clarin, one of the most powerful multimedia concerns in the region, which owns a television network, the Spanish-language world's most popular newspaper website, and the most circulated newspaper in Latin America. Although owned by Argentines, Grupo Clarin has significant minority ownership from abroad: Goldman Sachs in New York holds a key stake in the multimedia company. And many in Buenos Aires believe Grupo Clarin acts in the best interests of its investors in New York first.

Then there's the television network owned by Telefonica of Spain, which is also involved in cell phones in Latin America and Europe. One of Argentina's television networks is also controlled by a holding company that when you strip away the various shell enterprises is run by a Mexican businessman who lives in Miami. And Carlos Slim, one of the world's richest men, who owns Mexico's phone giant Telmex is also on the scene, controlling large swaths of the wired and wireless phone networks, and the internet service providers that are a natural outgrowth of such businesses.

What these giants of the media world are trying to avoid is a 21-point plan drawn up by civic groups and the Fernandez government. The plan would limit the control of huge media giants and promote diverse ownership and pluralism in the electronic media.

Will the reform work? Does it have a chance?

If the big media have any say, such reform doesn't exist. So why worry? Be happy. We now return you to your choice of corporate media entertainment channel.

(Graphic by saguayo of Mexico City, D.F., via Flickr, using a Creative Commons license.)

media
Latin America
Argentina
media reform
corporate media
Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner
Cristina Fernandez
Buenos Aires
Carlos Slim
Telefonica
Clarin
politics
Add to Technorati Favorites

A Film Called W.

by Dan Sweeney

The first thing I noticed upon walking into the theater to watch W. was the small size of the audience. The movie first came out on October 17th and only a week later there were only eight people in the theater to watch it! This illustrates a definite lack of interest toward George W. Bush and his administration. The timing to show this film could not have been better, due to all the election hype and more people than ever becoming involved in the political process. However, this film shows that people today are not willing to pay money to watch a political drama and are still not fully involved within the democratic process. On the other hand, people might not have seen it, because they dislike George W. Bush so much that they do not even want to watch a satire on him. This points out that the film medium does not have nearly the political persuasive power as the other types of media out there.

The star of the film is Josh Brolin, as President George W. Bush. He does a great job imitating the president's speech and mannerisms. He quickly draws the viewer into believing that he is actually George W. Bush, even though he physically resembles Sen. John Kerry quite a bit. The other actors did just as well imitating the respective personas of the Bush administration. These personas are the only real comedy in the film, because they act in the way that they are stereotyped to be. (An old man in a suit, two rows behind me, was the only one who laughed multiple times throughout the film and mainly when these personas such as Karl Rove appeared.) Although the director portrayed these people in a comedic light, their perspectives on the war in Iraq should have been seen by the public before the war, especially Colin Powell's.

The trailer misleads people as to the genre of the movie. The movie is not a comedy, but more of a drama and biography. On a deeper level, one could argue that the trailer misleads the viewers as much as President Bush has misled this country. The film shows President Bush's life from his college days up to 2003 in the middle of the Iraq War. It follows his life truthfully taking only a few creative twists. Surprisingly, the film shows many aspects of his life that the public might not know about him and should know about him, with a major aspect being the relationship between George W. Bush and his father. However much that the audience might hate the story, the cinematography is incredible and explains why this film managed to achieve such rave reviews. The director, Oliver Stone, utilized incredible cinematographic effects that ended up being much better than the actual plot. Overall, the movie added a different perspective on the life of George W. Bush and his administration that should not be ignored. Although it might not be worth the ten dollars to see it in theaters, it is definitely worth renting. After watching this, you, like me might just end up feeling sorry for the guy.

(Promotional photo for the film from Lionsgate Studios. The film is rated PG-13. To see a trailer for the film, please check below.)



media
films
W
biography
satire
drama
Oliver Stone
Josh Brolin
George W. Bush
Add to Technorati Favorites

California's Proposition 8 TV Ads

by Alissa Scheller

On May 15, 2008, California became the second state (after Massachusetts) to legalize same-sex marriage. So called “activist” judges, ruled that statutes limiting marriage to a relationship between a man and a woman violated the equal protection clause of the California Constitution, which prohibits discrimination based on race, religion, gender or sexual orientation. Since June 17, same-sex marriages have been recognized by the state of California. Proposition 8 is a ballot initiative that would introduce an amendment to the California Constitution defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

Both the Yes on 8 and No on 8 campaigns have used media outlets, such as television ads, to promote their viewpoints. One television ad sponsored by Let California Ring features a woman going to through various obstacles to reach her wedding, and concludes with the statement: “What if you couldn’t marry the person you love?” Other No on 8 television ads parody the Mac vs. PC ads, and focus on how leaving the state constitution as it is would have no effect on traditional families.

Interestingly enough, few of the No on 8 ads actually depict gay people — the very people the campaign is fighting for. The ads mainly feature heterosexual couples with gay children, friends, or family members urging voters to ensure that all people are treated equally. One ad has two women (who are very clearly not a lesbian couple) talking about the issue. Another has Superintendent of Schools, Jack O’Connell, telling voters that Prop. 8 has “nothing to do with schools or kids” (after a Yes on 8 ad asserted — falsely — that if the proposition failed, schools would be required to teach children about same-sex marriage). The entire ad does not mention the words “gay,” “lesbian” or “same-sex.”

One Yes on 8 ad features a child telling her mother that she learned about same-sex marriage in school (the impossible circumstance to which the No on 8 ad with Superintendent O’Connell was referring). Another shows San Francisco mayor, Gavin Newsom, proclaiming to a celebratory crowd (after same-sex marriage was legalized in May) that “It’s going to happen whether you like it or not,” and later — again, falsely — claiming that if Prop. 8 fails, its supporters will be sued for their personal beliefs. Again, there are no depictions of actual gay people.

I think that this exclusion of gay couples from the television ads is because it could easily backfire — use words like “discrimination” or “exclusion” and people are more willing to be on your side. Use words like “gay marriage” and, well, a lot of people will disagree with you. However, by not showing gay people in their ads about gay people, it seems to me as if the campaigns don’t want gay people to become the focus of an issue about gay people.

To be quite honest, as a Californian, I fervently hope that Prop. 8 fails, but I think both campaigns have made mistakes in their television ads. I understand the reasoning behind the exclusions of gays from television ads on both sides — to make the ads more appealing to heterosexual voters — but I find it interesting that in the ads, Californians rarely get to hear from the main benefactors of same-sex marriage.

(The photo of demonstrators in favor of gay rights and gay marriage was taken in San Francisco; the photo is by crichton91 via Flickr, using a Creative Commons license. For more on the gay rights debate, please see: "The Story, the Truth and Fred Phelps." Also, please see the iVoryTowerz blog's "Isn't Love All You Need?")

media
television
advertising
television ads
gay rights
elections
California
Proposition 8
same sex marriage
Add to Technorati Favorites

The Media Cover for Obama

by Camila Perez Gabilondo

With the presidential election only eight days away, Senator Barack Obama decided to leave the campaign trail for two days to visit his ill grandmother in his home state of Hawaii. This is a historical occurrence since no presidential candidate before him had abandoned the campaign this close to an election. Obama was absent at his scheduled rallies in Wisconsin and Iowa this past week, leaving his running mate Senator Joseph Biden and his surrogates on the trail. This could have been a chance for candidate Senator John McCain to make the most of the final stretch of the campaign in his favor, but Obama had an important player on his side: the media.

Thanks to media coverage of his personal hardship, Obama's absence was not felt at all. Over the last several days, countless articles on his grandmother's condition and the tragedy it entails for the presidential candidate were published in diverse media, including The New York Times and The Washington Post. Not to mention that his ads continued to run. We could say that he was just as present, or even more so, in the media than if he had actually gone to his rallies as planned.

Besides, the emotional note that many journalists included in their coverage of the story certainly helped strengthen Obama's image as a sensitive family man, as well as inspire sympathy in the public. Obama was quoted numerous times saying that these were probably his grandmother's last days, and in an interview with Good Morning America, he stated: "Without going through the details too much, she's gravely ill. We weren't sure and I'm still not sure whether she makes it to Election Day." Most articles also included quotes of Obama mentioning his grandmother's importance in his life during the campaign, or even the fact that he affectionately calls her "toot", the short form of the Hawaiian word for grandparent, "tutu."

The media have managed to make most of us sympathetic with Barack Obama's situation, and his current personal struggle has, even if mildly, tugged at our heart strings. If this has not helped Obama's campaign, it has certainly not harmed it.

(Political graphic © copyright Comandante Agi and used with permission; you can see more of the comandante's political graphics at his blogs, PIME and Guys from Area 51.)

media
elections
election 2008
Barack Obama
Add to Technorati Favorites

The American Media: The Best Friend of the People

by Ali Golomb

The American media, now more then ever, are the people's best friend. With the United States engaged in an unpopular war, experiencing a downward shift in the economy, and increased government spending, a many are turning to the media with their questions concerning where exactly their tax dollars are going.

On October 7, 2008, a week after Congress' bailout plan was passed, The New York Times ran an article entitled, "A.I.G. Takes its Session in Hot Seat." It reported, that shortly after A.I.G. received a government loan of 85 billion dollars, it took its top agents on a $442,000 resort trip. The notion of A.I.G. using taxpayer dollars to take its top agents to a resort, when the company was in serious financial turmoil, was extremely unsettling for many Americans.

With many Americans out of jobs, defaulting on mortgage payments, and struggling to make ends meet, having their taxpayer dollars spent on a losing war overseas isn't a priority. On October 13, 2008, The Washington Post ran an article entitled, "Balancing Defense and the Budget." The article reported on various companies that were receiving millions of dollars in government contracts. In addition, it showed "the past eight years, the Pentagon's defense budget has jumped 86 percent, from $361 billion to $672 billion."

The media's reporting of exactly where American taxpayer dollars are going is provoking a great deal of anger. The American people's collective anger is leading to reforms in business practices. On October 14, 2008, The Washington Post reported Congress making reform progress already in the article, "U.S. Forces Nine Major Banks To Accept Partial Nationalization." The article said that companies that accept government loans, "could not offer their executives new retirement packages, though the old packages would remain intact." This means, tax payer dollars would not go into the pockets of top executive agents, but would be spread throughout, for the betterment of the entire company. This would result in a more favorable situation for the majority of middle class workers.

As the American people read and watch media for updates on the status of the United States, it provokes many emotions. The American people's reaction to what they see and hear from the media is driving Congress to create and pass policies more favorable to the people. The media are serving the people's interest by reporting to them what is happening in current affairs. The media are not actually changing policies in the United States. Rather, the media are encouraging the American people to act. They are reporting the facts, and the American people are then deciding what they want to do with the information. Thus far, the majority of the American people are disapproving of the direction of the United States, and Congress is listening.

(Graphic from radicalgraphics.org, which offers its material for free.)

politics
media
AIG
bailout
Bailout Plan
Business Reform
Add to Technorati Favorites

Bloomberg & the Strength of the Media

by Brian Chang

It's been ages since the days when the news media worked as conveyors of balanced information, not the corporate profit maximizers they are today. As the news media began to emerge a powerful machine, they started wielding ever-growing influence throughout society, especially in the field of politics. Now, the news media generally work to best preserve their interests in government by relaying convincing, subjective information to the public and directly playing a hand in politics.

The regulation of information revealed to the public has worked wonders for the agendas of news media executives. News networks are powerful in the sense that they possess a wealth of information. With this wealth however, they limit some information while stressing other information. By doing so, these news networks possess the power to manipulate and misinform the public. The effects of this ability to sway the public have been observed from the large public support for an invasion of Iraq prior to the war. Many citizens seriously believed that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 terror attacks, while others were sure Saddam was a close ally of Osama Bin Laden.

The media's involvement in politics isn't new. According to Mediachannel.org, "media companies are among the highest donors to political campaigns" and "make up some of the most powerful lobbying interests in the capitol, leveraging their power as opinion-shapers." With strong influence and ties to the government, media corporations are directly able to shape policy views and push for laws and policies that favor the industry. Given the media industry's influence in politics, however, Mayor Michael Bloomberg's recent undertakings behind his search for a third term further questions whether the news media have become too strong.

Mayors in New York City by law are only allowed to serve two terms. Mayor Bloomberg, citing his skills in economic and business, desires a third term to take on the economic crisis in New York City. He has tried to persuade city council officials to allow for a temporary third term without the consent of the voting public. As unsettling as this sounds, this wasn't the most shocking news. According to The New York Times, to gain legitimacy and support for his third term, Bloomberg privately met with Rupert Murdoch (owner of The New York Post), Arthur Sulzberger Jr., publisher of The New York Times, and Mortimer B. Zuckerman (owner of The New York Daily News). These three media moguls, alongside other business leaders, have recently shown their support for the mayor in his candidacy.

The image is startling. Wait, a politician, a mayor, going before news media executives to ask for support? Isn't it the media corporations that traditionally go before government to ask for favors and support? How powerful have the news media become that politicians must (ironically) keep media executives satisfied and content?

The news media have always been seen as the middleman between politics and the public. This no longer seems the case. With the media so embedded in the world of politics, how do we keep media and politics in their respective roles? This leads to the question, have the news media gone too far beyond their role?

(The photo of Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City is from 2007; the photo is by laurence.thurion of Paris, France via Flickr, using a Creative Commons license.)

politics
media
news media
New York City
Michael Bloomberg
Rupert Murdoch
Add to Technorati Favorites

Swing States & Presidential Elections

by Logan Ruppel

In relatively close elections, as the past few have certainly been, it is the swing states — the battlegrounds that end up determining who becomes the next president of the United States. We all know which regions traditionally vote Democratic: the Northeast, the West Coast, and some of the Midwest, while the South and non-coastal West tend to vote Republican. Of course, there will always be exceptions to these generalizations with new swing states popping up every election, along with some perennials such as Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

Due to the ever-shifting political landscape, states running tight races just an election ago can turn definitively to one party or the other in just a few years or even months. For example, New Hampshire was solidly won by President George W. Bush in 2000, while in 2004, Sen. John Kerry narrowly squeezed out a victory there. New Hampshire's erratic voting over the past few decades is largely because its voters tend to be socially liberal like the rest of the Northeast, but also fiscally conservative and libertarian.

The political alignments of states can change drastically even in the few critical months before an election, as is the case of Pennsylvania in the 2008 election. Early in the race, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) had a slight advantage in Pennsylvania. However, just a few months later, in October, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) has gradually gained enough strength to sit on a comfortable nine-point lead in the polls. It's possible that due to Obama's loss in the Pennsylvania primary to Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), it simply took some time for him to build support in the state.

Ohio has been an influential swing state for over half a century, voting for the winning candidate in every election since 1948, except for 1960. Ohio's battleground status is mainly due to its 20 electoral votes and relatively moderate electorate. This means that there is a significant number of independent voters and those with party affiliations don't always vote that way.

Florida has been another important swing state in recent elections, most notably in the 2000 election. I don't even want to get into the outrageousness of the Florida voting system and the Supreme Court's highly partisan decision to forgo a recount. The end result of these shenanigans was a margin of victory in Florida for Bush of only 537 votes more than Gore that decided the election. It is important to realize that a recount would have involved more than 100,000 votes, a figure that could easily have changed the outcome of the election.

The current battleground states in the 2008 election are Ohio, Florida, Nevada, Virginia, North Carolina, and Colorado, all a bit tilted for Obama, along with Missouri and Indiana which slightly favor McCain. All of these states' polls are within the 3% margin of error, meaning that they could actually be tied or barely favor the other candidate. Make sure to keep a close eye on the races in these eight states, because they will make the vital difference in deciding whether America trusts McCain or Obama with steering our country in a better direction than it has been going for the past eight years.

(The graphic shows a map of the United States, adjusted for population size with a county-by-county breakout of the vote during the 2004 presidential election. The map's colors are in what have become the traditional colors depicting Republican votes in red and Democratic votes in blue. The map is © copyright M. T. Gastner, C. R. Shalizi, and M. E. J. Newman of the University of Michigan, who make this map and others available through a Creative Commons license.)

politics
2008 campaign
swing states
Barack Obama
John McCain
Republicans
Democrats
McCain
Obama
Add to Technorati Favorites

Biden & Palin Star in the Only Vice Presidential Debate

by Zack Huhn

Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) and Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) entered the stage and met for the first time at the vice presidential debate in St. Louis on Thursday, Oct. 2. Palin was immediately confident and seemingly enthusiastic to be there. I felt that Biden was initially rather reserved, and he allowed Palin to control the first third of the debate; although he eventually kicked it in gear and overwhelmed Palin with facts and figures on everything from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to the economic crisis that our nation is facing today. He ruthlessly called the governor out on Sen. John McCain’s voting record and policies — when Palin tried to do the same to the Obama campaign, Biden was ready with his facts and figures.

One might argue that Biden seemed too scripted or Palin seemed too much like a soccer mom, but the fact is that this debate was lacking any passion from either vice-presidential candidate. I wondered to myself if there was an unwritten rule or a simple strategy that said Biden wasn’t allowed to be his typical, condescending self since Palin was a woman? How many times did Palin reassure Biden that she respected him? Yeah, maybe they handled each other with class, but I argue that without emotional fire in a debate, the candidates are able to stick with their predetermined scripts and play the games of old politics instead of being raw and honest with the viewing audience.

I don’t think anyone will argue that Biden was the clear victor in this debate, but Palin certainly was able to hold her own and managed to surprise much of America in doing so. She did an excellent job of "talking up" John McCain, so to say, and was never left speechless — always referring back to one of her strong points, energy or Alaska.

(The photo of Sen. Joe Biden shows him at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland in 2005. The photo is © copyright the World Economic Forum and is by photographer Remy Steinegger. However, the World Economic Forum offers this photo for use through Flickr, using a Creative Commons License. To see a segment of the debate, please check below. To see more videos of the debate and further analysis, please check: "Vice Presidential Debate Highlights" on the iVoryTowerz blog.)




politics
2008 campaign
Joe Biden
Sarah Palin
vice presidential debate
Barack Obama
John McCain
McCain
Obama
Add to Technorati Favorites