Presentation on theme: "Before we begin -- re: Stewart/Colbert from Andrew Sullivan's blog (after a comment by him marveling at their prevalence/presence everywhere, esp now on."— Presentation transcript:
Before we begin -- re: Stewart/Colbert from Andrew Sullivan's blog (after a comment by him marveling at their prevalence/presence everywhere, esp now on blog with YouTube) A reader writes: I can't bear to watch them anymore, but this has nothing at all to do with either gent, or their humor they're both incredibly talented, and their shows are consistently excellent. But in the end, I think they've become part of the problem, and not part of the solution. The problem lies in the role they play in the overall mediasphere, especially among Gen X and Gen Y; namely, the fact that for many of these viewers, Stewart/Colbert have become a surrogate for actually engaging with politics and current events more deeply, or treating it all as anything other than an ongoing joke.
I know this makes me sound like a fuddy-duddy -- I'm only 40 -- but still... I can't tell you how many people I know who get their political news exclusively from Stewart/Colbert, and that's pathetic. It's news commentary, after all, not the news itself. Worse, because Stewart and Colbert are so clever, they make their viewers feel clever -- or at least smug -- as well. But that smugness breeds a kind of complacent cynicism, with the take-away message being something like, "Politicians are just liars and clowns, and politics itself is just a form of kabuki, so let's just treat it as the joke that it is and leave it at that." That's not an irrational conclusion. But it's also no substitute for taking the time to develop a deeper engagement with politics and public policy, because, like, you know, if there's one lesson we all should have learned while watching the follies of the Bush Administration, it is this: Politics really matters. And while politics is a topic that naturally breeds cynicism, our political process won't be improved by treating it cynically.
ANALYSIS (categories) -- How the Supreme Court interpreted the 14th Amendment 1868 – 1873 states and federal govt can protect civil rights of freed blacks 1873 1937 to validate creation of Jim Crow and protect development of corporations. Supreme Court ruled: due process etc only applied to national citizens like corporations (dual citizenship??) States could not protect individuals from corporate behavior leading to polarization of wealth and monopolies; nor from other individuals (armed white mobs lynching black communities) Individuals couldn t challenge official segregation or other laws that effectively disenfranchised blacks 1937 1941 states could protect social and economic rights, eg minimum wage, max hours 1952 1965 federal and states could protect rights of blacks to vote and end jim crow 1969 2003 14 th applied to rights of individual to privacy, eg pornography, marijuana, abortion, gay sex SYNTHESIS: 14 th amendment – Supreme Court interpreted differently over time EVALUATION? Significance? Relevance to today?
7.When we analysed (using Bloom s Definition of analysis) the 14 th Amendment we a.identified other Amendments that were in the same category as the 14 th Amendment b.concluded that one could make all the Amendments fall into four groups: Civil Rights; fixing oversights in the original document; fine tuning; and Progressive Era democratization. c.realized that the interpretation or ways in which the 14 th Amendment was used changed over time d. hypothesized that the major pressures for changing the U.S. Constitution came during periods of war or social upheaval. 26% 18% 46% 9% application synthesis
Multiple sources need to represent multiple media – must not rely solely on the internet for information. Wikipedia is merely a place to start ….. My criteria for assessing your papers 1. A thesis statement that represents a synthesis of your knowledge 2. The body of the paper is your analyses of your knowledge 3. A conclusion that restates your thesis and then evaluates it. Your paper needs to have multiple sources – Why multiple sources??????? What is true? BE VERY KNOWLEDGEABLE AND HIGHLY CRITICAL!!!!!!
21. President George Bush has created controversy by threatening to veto the bill to renew and expand SCHIP. The controversy includes all of the following issues EXCEPT: a. Bush s claiming that he has been a fiscal conservative throughout his presidency b. SCHIP s proposal is a step towards socialism c. SCHIP s criteria for children to qualify are too rigorous d. Many states will run out of money for the program if there is any delay in passing it 38% 14% 25% 22%
New York Times September 18, 2007 Obama Urges Wall Street to Protect the Middle Class By MICHAEL M. GRYNBAUM Senator Barack Obama chastised Wall Street executives yesterday as failing to protect middle-class interests and called for increased federal oversight of credit rating agencies, including a government investigation. In an appearance at Nasdaq offices in Midtown Manhattan, Mr. Obama, a Democratic presidential candidate, praised Americas free-market impulse but lamented what he characterized as its recent toll on the middle class. Our free market was never meant to be a free license to take whatever you can get, however you can get it, Mr. Obama said. And so from time to time, we have put in place certain rules of the road to make competition fair and open and honest.
26. When Barack Obama gave a speech to Wall Street executives on September 17, 2007, he argued that a. the bursting of the housing bubble threatened the status of middle class Americans b. the mortgage industry should not be regulated c. praised America s free market system d. both a and c. 64 % 29%
Which of the following questions is NOT provoked by the editorial? a. Why is single payer health care not being advocated by any of the three leading Democratic candidates? b.What is causing escalating health care costs? c. How much will the health care plans of the three leading Democrats cost? d.Are any of the other non-leading Presidential candidates advocating single-payer health care?
From the editorial: The Clinton plan would cost an estimated $110 billion a year, the Edwards plan $90 billion to $120 billion, the Obama plan $50 billion to $65 billion. All three would finance their programs partly by rolling back Bush-era tax cuts for those making more than $250,000 a year and partly with debatable savings they would get through cost-cutting.
Which of the following questions is NOT provoked by the editorial? a. Why is single payer health care not being advocated by any of the three leading Democratic candidates? b.What is causing escalating health care costs? c. How much will the health care plans of the three leading Democrats cost? d.Are any of the other non-leading Presidential candidates advocating single-payer health care? 28% 7 % 56%
The editorial argues in the introduction that the distinctions between leading candidates within each party is small, mostly a matter of tactics to reach comparable goals. According to the editorialists, which of the following is not a tactic but a goal? a.maintain employer-based system of health care b.require parents to get insurance for their children c.each state devises their own health plan d.$15,000 tax deduction if you buy private insurance 40 % 21 % 28%
Romney... wants the 50 states to devise their own plans, but without much financial help from the federal government. He promises federal incentives to help states deregulate their health insurance markets to encourage cheaper policies.... Voters who put a higher priority on reshaping the health care system along free-market lines than on achieving universal coverage will prefer the Republican plans. Those plans likely impact on costs will also need to be analyzed when more details emerge. The magic of the market may be less than magical. What is the potential problem with the Republicans plans? a. big business will not want to be regulated b. the rich will object to rolling back the Bush tax cuts c.states may not have the budget to cover their part of the responsibility d. the free market may not be able to fix the problem. 40% 43%
Voters who put a high priority on covering all or most of the uninsured will prefer the Democrats approach, as we do. The chief danger is that the Democrats have a tendency to imply that everyone can be covered with good benefit packages without inconveniencing anyone but the wealthy. Their cost and savings assumptions will need thorough analysis when more detailed plans emerge.... None of them is proposing a single payer system run by the government..... All three would move toward universal coverage and would rely heavily on mandates to do so. The voters who will prefer the Democrats plans a. will want universal health care b. will want most, if not all, people covered within a free market paradigm c. will want the rich to pay for it d. want a free ride 75% 18%
From 1775 to roughly1830, a consensus existed among northern and southern U.S. elites based on a. the profits from slavery. b. how strong the central government should be. c. the understanding that British creditors needed to be paid back. d. the need for a tariff to protect U.S. manufacturers from British competition. In 1830, the consensus among elites broke down over the issue of a. the profits from slavery. b. how strong the central government should be. c. the understanding that British creditors needed to be paid back. d. the need for a tariff to protect U.S. manufacturers from British competition. Conditions Change!! 38% 35% 26%
Buried on C7 in the New York Times today, 10/29/07: Horse Race Prevails in Campaign Reporting The news media are more obsessed than ever with the horse-race aspects of the presidential campaign, according to a new study. Despite the campaigns early start, the media have not been more reflective on the issues, the study said, but have focused on tactics and strategy. Go to journalism.org to read: THE INVISIBLE PRIMARYINVISIBLE NO LONGER A First Look at Coverage of the 2008 Presidential Campaign October 29, 2007. A study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy
What Topics the Public Wants Covered More Less Candidates position on issues Candidate debates Candidates personal backgrounds and experiences The candidates who are not front runners Sources of candidates campaign money Which candidate in leading in the latest polls Source: Pew Research Center for People and the Press September 28 – October 1, 2007 77% 57% 17 32 55%36 55%37 55%35 42%45
Just five candidates have been the focus of more than half of all the coverage. Hillary Clinton received the most (17% of stories), though she can thank the overwhelming and largely negative attention of conservative talk radio hosts for much of the edge in total volume. Barack Obama 14% Giuliani 9% McCain 7% Romney 5% Elizabeth Edwards, received more attention than rest of pack, and nearly as much as her husband. Percent of total stories Democrats 49% v. Republicans, 31%. One reason was that major Democratic candidates began announcing their candidacies a month earlier than key Republicans, but that alone does not fully explain the discrepancy.
Democrats positive coverage, 35% of stories Republicans postive coverage 26% of stories For both parties, 39%, were neutral or balanced. Most of that difference in tone, however, can be attributed to the friendly coverage of Obama (47% positive) and the critical coverage of McCain (just 12% positive.) When those two candidates are removed from the field, the tone of coverage for the two parties is virtually identical. Newspapers were more positive than other media about Democrats and more citizen-oriented in framing stories. Talk radio was more negative about almost every candidate than any other outlet. Network television was more focused than other media on the personal backgrounds of candidates. For all sectors, however, strategy and horse race were front and center.
From the Conclusion of the Report: Once again, the game of politicsrather than the ideas or even the background of the personalitieshas dominated how the press has presented the race for president. What is new in 2008 is how quickly this has begun, nearly a year before the first votes will be cast.