Real or Not Real? Does it Matter?

          Ever since the Watergate scandal, Americans have been distrustful of the government, especially politicians. Politicians continue to have a negative stigma because of the media coverage they receive. Scandals, backroom deals, and other negative actions are reported so often to the American people that when Politicians are really trying to get things done, it’s not believable. I believe the majority of Politicians are good people who want to make a difference for the constituents they serve. When it comes to down to Congress taking action, the media dramatizes the debate process, making it seem as though no one is willing to get work done. In reality, it is a great idea to have a contentious political process because it ensures that all views are being heard. So why is that when members of Congress are actually trying to get work done, the media reports it as though there is always a hidden agenda? Take for example, Marco Rubio and the immigration plan.

        Rubio’s plan involves tight security around our borders, enforcing and modernizing the immigration system, and having people come into the United States based on skills not if they already have a family member here. He also calls for fines for those illegal immigrants who are already here and they would have to wait at least 10 years before they could become a permanent resident of the United States. Marco Rubio and other members of “The Gang of 8” proposed bill is a bi-partisan approach to help address the problem of illegal immigrants. These Republicans and Democrats have banded together to actually pass some sort of reform. However, the media is portraying this immigration reform plan as a stepping stone for Rubio to get into the White House.

       We all know the kind of media coverage a politician receives can either hurt or help their political future.  Marco Rubio has recently been getting a great deal of media coverage because it is believed that he will run for the 2016presidential election. The problem with getting too much media attention is that the media portrays your actions as having a hidden agenda. On Sunday, Rubio headed off to all the Sunday talk shows to promote his immigration reform plan. Just because Rubio is concentrating on immigration reform, does not mean that he is only doing it for the Presidential bid. I think as a society, we should start to get away from the theory that politicians have a hidden agenda when they are actually just trying to do their job. I believe it is good for our democracy to have our politicians argue about this issue and then come together to make an informed decision. The media is portraying Republicans as not wanting to consider this plan because it is too liberal. In reality, this is a bi-partisan plan, after all there are four Republicans and four Democrats who are working together. Having democrats praise Rubio and his bi-partisan plan is not a bad thing! It just means that he is actually trying to be a work horse not just a show horse. Work horses, like Rubio and other members on this bill are Legislators who actually come up with plans instead of just talking about what needs to be done. Show horses are usually legislators who are very vocal in the media, usually criticizing other members of a political party. 

       Nevertheless, I believe that Marco Rubio’s immigration reform plan is something worth talking about. Not because it could potentially get him in the White House one day, but because immigration is something that this country needs to address.  I think the way the media is portraying his plan is not fair to the actual issue; immigration should be addressed because we need a solution.  As someone who has constantly supported the Democratic Party, I think this reform is a great bi-partisan plan and something worth talking about, not just because the Media thinks it will benefit Rubio. Republicans and Democrats should get together and work on this plan instead of constantly criticizing the other parties for not doing anything. It is clear that we need more work horses than show horses in Congress.

Media Bias or Media Blame?

       These days, it seems as though the Conservative and Liberal Media really have it out for each other. Each side constantly blames the other for expressing too much bias towards their side. It seems like every time I turn on the news or read a blog, everyone is pointing fingers as to why something did, or didn't happen. But, what about the actual content of the news? It’s true that it’s important for the government to take blame for their actions. However, at a certain point, Americans don’t care whose fault it is, they just want the problem dealt with; let’s take for example the sequester. The media seems to be having a field day with the sequester drama. The sequester, like other political news is more attractive in the media if it is portrayed as a crisis. People get bored when it comes to political news. Thus, the media has to dramatize these storylines in order to get more ratings. If they reported that both parties were working together, the news would get fewer ratings. In reality, the American public thrives on conflict and finds it more interesting than agreement. In the end, it is no surprise that media coverage has been very dramatic and biased.

            The media coverage for the sequester has varied depending on which political party’s news outlet you follow. Conservative blame the “liberal media” for being too “dramatic” about the sequester. They blame liberals for instilling fear of tax cuts to the public. Also, they argue that liberal journalists are just conveying talking points to the President’s agenda. In other words, Fox News is basically calling the liberal media “puppets of the presidents.” The theory that the President can influence public opinion through the media is correct. The more favorable news coverage the President gets, the higher his approval rating goes. Conservatives fear that if liberal journalist constantly blame Republican’s for not doing anything about the sequester, then the Republican approval ratings will drop.

On the other side of the argument, liberals blame conservative media for putting too much blame on the President. Liberal journalists blame Republican lawmakers for not being open to compromise. Democrats argue that they have been willing to comprise for a long period of time, but they are not getting the same response from the Republican Party. Instead, conservatives have taken a “my way or the high way” approach. When they do not get their way, they openly blame the President and other democrats for not comprising. I think that it is easy for journalist to blame the President because he is an easy target. Unlike the 535 Members of Congress, the media can easily point blame on the president. The president’s actions are also very easy to track because he is just one person. Criticizing and critiquing his actions is cheap, easy, and makes for good entertainment. The press is more likely to echo extreme opinions from commentators or partisan news media because of the entertainment factor; the audience thrives for a type of infotainment broadcasting.

 So who is right? Are the liberals being to dramatic about the tax cuts, or the Conservative putting too much blame on the President? If I took a side and blamed liberals or conservative, then I would be just as guilty as the media. I want to take a non-partisan approach in this piece and say that both conservative and liberals are to blame. There is bias on both sides, which in turn carries over to the American people. Democrats blame Republican lawmakers for only caring about wealthy business owners. Republicans blame Democrats for wanting to give money to lazy people who do not want to work. These arguments will eventually cause a separation between the American people.  The extreme view of partisan media strengthens the viewer’s political identity and limits their worldviews. This in turns creates a heightened distrust of mainstream media on the part of the viewers.

I think it’s time for the media as a whole to stop assigning blame and start focusing on the real issues at hand.  I have come to believe that media bias will be a never ending debate. It is more entertaining for one side to point out flaws and blame others, instead of talking about the real issue at hand. People already have distrust in government and find politics boring. In order to get ratings, news channels have to make the news worth watching!

It's NOT all about you anymore Mr. Pres!

If you are a political junkie, you are more likely to pay attention to the content of the speech from the President and Marco Rubio than maybe what Mrs. Obama was wearing or John Boehner's facial expression. But, what about the rest of America? I turned on my TV, logged onto twitter, Facebook, and different blogs expecting to get an in-depth analysis of the President’s speech. Much to my dismay, I read headlines like “Rubio and the Watergate Scandal” or “Tweets from the floor.” It seems like America is not interested in the actual content of the speech but what happens literally in front of him or behind him. During the state of the union address, John Boehner was trending on twitter. This was not because of his political ideology, but simply because of his facial expression, or lack of enthusiasm.  The main focus during the speech seemed to be when John Boehner stood up, rolled his eyes or genuinely seemed uninterested.

After the President’s speech, Marco Rubio delivered the Republican’s response. Was anyone even listening to what he was saying? As soon as he paused to take a sip of water, the Internet exploded. Is politics so boring that when a man pauses to take a sip of water it makes headline news? I am flabbergasted by the amount of media coverage this got. Politico, Huffington Post, ABC news among others all featured stories about “Marco Rubio’s drinking problem.” For everyday Americans who are watching the news or reading about it on blogs or Twitter, it takes away from the importance of these speeches. With the focus being shifted from what both parties are saying, people lose 

track of what is really important. Now, I'm not saying that the media isn't covering these stories in hard news content for people like you and me. But, it seems that people are more interested in the soft news. The State of the Union address is supposed to be an effective way for the President to relay his message to not only Congress but also the American People.  If people are worried about John Boehner’s facial expression or Marco Rubio taking a sip of water, the President "going public" seems to be ineffective. People are losing track of what is really important because they are more focused on unimportant things. 

          In today’s society, it seems that the President is not getting the attention he used to get. Logging onto Yahoo, and tuning into CNN the attention shifted from the President’s speech, to the First Lady’s choice of dress. The first lady has become such a style icon that it takes away from the President. People seem to forget that the Michelle Obama is a Harvard Law School graduate, not a celebrity. Granted, the First Lady should be an important figure for the American people but, she should not have celebrity-like status.

It seems to me that since people are already uninterested in politics so the News Media tries to find ways to keep viewers engaged. Networks are already hesitant to give the president airtime because they lose money. If they do not keep viewers engaged, they will lose even more money in the hours after. Pointing to flaws, silly things, or fashion makes viewers more likely to continue to watch. People are more likely to be able to relate, or know what news anchors are talking about, when the news media analyze the First Lady’s dress color. All in all, the new media’s coverage of the state of the union address has been very disappointing because they are not giving American’s what they need; instead they are contributing to the declining era of hard news. 

With the decline of hard news, don't be surprised if we start seeing State of the Union Addresses like this one!