As a consumer of media through news broadcasts, I must admit that each broadcasting station could very well present the identical story two different ways. The U.S. media interprets news and events; to do this, media frames the stories, provides opinions and even tells us what to think. CNN and Fox News are almost exclusively my two personal sources of television news. It is not unusual to be flipping through the channels and watch a segment of each. There is a strong chance that both stations are reporting similar news. In fact, I watched both Fox and CNN a couple days ago and the majority of each stations' news was concurrent with the others'. What sets them apart is their style of coverage and how they apply politics to the stories.
News stations do not own themselves. Fox is owned by News Corp and CNN is owned by Time Warner. A factor such as different ownership can be responsible for the type of interpretation news is given. Another key difference is audience. CNN knows it has a very large audience all around the world. The same can not be said about Fox News. Even if you have not been a viewer of either station for years like myself, after one viewing of both, you will agree that Fox falls on the conservative end of the scale and CNN falls on the liberal side. As for their coverage of major events, I know what to expect.
With major events, you can expect CNN to linger over them and really over exaggerate the events. Take the supposed Swine Flu breakout as an example. CNN devoted a great deal of time to cover it compared to Fox News who gave much less hype. Fox News covered the Swine Flu relatively early in the broadcast but quickly moved on to other local events. CNN seemed to have struck gold with this. I have to agree that such coverage is exactly what an international audience wants. Personally, I would prefer Fox News for coverage of a non political event. CNN would be my choice if I was seeking a concentrated political analysis of an event. If I had to choose between partisan coverage or objective coverage, I would choose partisan coverage. Partisan coverage is not such a nuisance if you share the same political ideologies as the party. It is also less likely to distort news than objective coverage. With partisan coverage, I can recognize the frame that has been placed on the news relatively easier.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Op Ed - 21st Century Military
This Op Ed was published in the New York Times today. The piece lays out a plan by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to "modernize" the military. The move focuses on adapting the military to warfare in the 21st century. Our idea of war today is no longer two countries confronting each other with fighter jets and tanks. The enemy has changed so the tactics must change too. Gates suggests there is no longer a need for the Air Force. The Army Navy and Marines all have there own aircraft. The Air Force hardly participated in the Iraq war compared to the other branches.
Gates feels the advancement policies also cause good soldiers to leave the military. If an enlisted soldier fails to move up the ranks he/she is forced out of service. This should be changed so the military keeps the valuable soldiers who have experienced combat. The selection process should be open to a wider variety of applicants. He suggests that everyone be required to serve and those who show talent and performance be offered a spot. At the same time he feels the move will make politicians more knowledgeable about the military and give many a personal connection whether they or a son or daughter have been in the military.
I agree that Gates is looking in the right direction with this plan. However, it is not a given that warfare will remain this way. It would probably be a bad idea to eliminate something as important as the airforce which has been around since planes were invented. He also makes a valid point saying that forcing out experienced soldiers who are not able to move up is bad for the military. After going through training and gaining experience, that soldier becomes a valuable asset.
Gates feels the advancement policies also cause good soldiers to leave the military. If an enlisted soldier fails to move up the ranks he/she is forced out of service. This should be changed so the military keeps the valuable soldiers who have experienced combat. The selection process should be open to a wider variety of applicants. He suggests that everyone be required to serve and those who show talent and performance be offered a spot. At the same time he feels the move will make politicians more knowledgeable about the military and give many a personal connection whether they or a son or daughter have been in the military.
I agree that Gates is looking in the right direction with this plan. However, it is not a given that warfare will remain this way. It would probably be a bad idea to eliminate something as important as the airforce which has been around since planes were invented. He also makes a valid point saying that forcing out experienced soldiers who are not able to move up is bad for the military. After going through training and gaining experience, that soldier becomes a valuable asset.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Progress in the case of the vanishing bees
In recent environmental news, honey bees across the country have been vanishing without a trace. Whatever was behind it could quickly wipe out the bees from existence. Experts had a few guesses like pesticides or cell phones but were not sure. A few days ago, scientists' search for their suspect which had apparently been causing bees to vanish did not come up empty handed. Before they had made the connection between disappearing bees and nosema ceranae scientists knew something was wrong but tried in vain to pinpoint it. The pathogen nosema ceranae was infecting bees and most likely played a major role in their disappearance. A blogger on Treehugger published a post on this new discovery. The treatment for such a pathogen is fumagillin. Scientists plan to treat surviving colonies with it and use it to protect healthy bees.
There is no doubt that finding out the cause behind the disappearing bees before it was too late is outstanding. The second part of the solution here is to find a way to cure the problem using the new information. The next task of locating infected colonies all across the country is going to be difficult. The bright side is that we found the cause before it was too late and fixing the problem is well within our reach. Hopefully these scientists recieve proper funding from the government to tackle this.
There is no doubt that finding out the cause behind the disappearing bees before it was too late is outstanding. The second part of the solution here is to find a way to cure the problem using the new information. The next task of locating infected colonies all across the country is going to be difficult. The bright side is that we found the cause before it was too late and fixing the problem is well within our reach. Hopefully these scientists recieve proper funding from the government to tackle this.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Third world stoves contribute to global warming
On today's front page of the New York Times was an interesting article on how stoves used in the third world impact the climate. Environmentalists claim that although carbon dioxide is not the culprit here, the actual culprit,soot, can be equally devastating. In chemistry class, I learned that a complete combustion releases heat and has a byproduct of water. So where does soot come from and what can it do to our environment? The poor farmers of these third world villages use whatever they can gather to fuel a fire. In a country like India with a population of nearly one billion, little things can really add up. The soot eventually makes its way into the atmosphere and precipitates down onto glaciers. The soot attracts heat from the sun causing the glacier to melt.
Environmental experts in the United States and India seem to have been caught off guard with this one. In the U.S, laws were passed to regulate particulate emissions (like soot) in order to protect air quality and the health of the public. No one imagined that soot would contribute to global warming. What is more surprising than its global effects is where the soot is coming from. When you have a number of people greater than the population of the United States burning this stuff every day, it does not seem so far fetched anymore.
Clearly, global warming is a serious concern for all and now that we know such a thing, we can get to work on eliminating it. Would a realistic solution be going village to village handing out new stoves? Even if that was an option, who is going to write the check ? The matter will likely require international cooperation and contributions before this will ever go away.
Environmental experts in the United States and India seem to have been caught off guard with this one. In the U.S, laws were passed to regulate particulate emissions (like soot) in order to protect air quality and the health of the public. No one imagined that soot would contribute to global warming. What is more surprising than its global effects is where the soot is coming from. When you have a number of people greater than the population of the United States burning this stuff every day, it does not seem so far fetched anymore.
Clearly, global warming is a serious concern for all and now that we know such a thing, we can get to work on eliminating it. Would a realistic solution be going village to village handing out new stoves? Even if that was an option, who is going to write the check ? The matter will likely require international cooperation and contributions before this will ever go away.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Whether or not you have an interest in skydiving, watching this video will give you a greater appreciation for YouTube. I have to agree that YouTube is an asset to all of us and as for its reputation of containing nonsense I disagree. If you plan to go on your first skydive ever and want to gain some valuable information this is your lucky break! Where else can you find such a useful resource that is otherwise incredibly difficult to find?
The case I am arguing here involves the informative side of YouTube. This video is only one of several videos that offer step by step instruction on skydiving. The person who posted it wanted to make it a resource to whomever may need it. Unfortunately YouTube attracts negative feedback because of its tendency to contain useless videos of people doing pointless and/or stupid things. If you are still not convinced I suggest viewing a few videos on something that interests you and see how much more information others put out there.
The case I am arguing here involves the informative side of YouTube. This video is only one of several videos that offer step by step instruction on skydiving. The person who posted it wanted to make it a resource to whomever may need it. Unfortunately YouTube attracts negative feedback because of its tendency to contain useless videos of people doing pointless and/or stupid things. If you are still not convinced I suggest viewing a few videos on something that interests you and see how much more information others put out there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
