Midterm

RA: 2; Response to Survey

       In this digital age where information is so readily available at the tip of our fingers, conducting a survey to see "just how informed" the American public is, specifically residents in the Bay Area, towards topics that include the local governor's race, and what type of media, if any, they pay attention to, would be a great way to asses how informed the bay area citizens are, in a day and age that is flourishing off of accesible information, in all aspects of life.  My personal survey consisted of five questions that were either true or false questions, or one word answers.  I decided to create the survey in this sort of structure due to the ability to quanitfy data in a much easier manner.  The topics in the survey regarded the local governor's race, the indivduals political party affiliation, and what new's broadcasting company they were most likely to watch if they had to pick one.  My hypothesis was that the people who answered my survey would be somewhat politically informed, in the sense that they knew where they stood on certain issues, but they might not know the background of the election canidates, and how the candiates would run their policies if elected to be the Governor of California; therefore, on a scale of one to ten, my guess would be an eight.  My second hypothesis is that those who are of the same political party of their parents, are also most likely to watch the same broadcasting news network on television.

       The exact questions that I asked were these listed below:

True or False.  Was Meg Whitman the CEO of Ebay?
True of False.  Did Jerry Brown ever run for a presidential election?
On a scale of one to ten?  Ten being the most informed, how politically aware are you of the campaign issues facing Meg Whitman and Jerry Brown?
Are you of the same political party of your parents? If so, state the party.
If you had to pick one news broadcasting company out of the five listed here (CNN, FOX, MSNBC, BBC), which one would you most likely watch?

       The assignment was to create 5 questions regarding the common theme of the last unit read in Alexander and Hanson's book, Taking Sides, which to an extent, touched on the topic of whether people were more informed in a digital decade where almost anything and everything is accesible.  To expand on the theme of citizen's accesiblity to information, the survey was created in order to try and determine if people, specifically, Bay Area citizens, were well informed on the governor election canidates, and whether their own political party affiliation affects which broadcasting network they watch.  The last two questions of my survery were designed to uncover whether people were independent thinkers, and if they purposely sought bias news, to further validate their own political opinions. 
      As mentioned before, the actual survey itself was five questions long and required answers that were brief, and able to quanitfy as results, in order to gain a proper conclsuion of the two hypotheses' that I formed.  The survey questions were printed out on paper in numberical form, just as you can see above, with space for people to write their answers.  I surveyed forty people, which might lead to an inconclusive study due to the minimal participants involved.  One of the reasons the study only consisted of forty people, was because of the lack of availability to a large scale amount of people willing to take the survey.  Some people I asked claimed they were too busy to take the survey, while others did not want to take it due to embarassment, even though I said the survey would be anonymous!  I did the best that I could recruiting people to answer the questions, and I have to say in all honesty, that it was personally hard for me just to obtain the minimal amount of forty people.  Although agreeing with the assignment given, anything less than forty would not have been a conclusive unbiased study.  Also, when asking people to take the survey, I made sure to get people from differnt communities, neighborhoods, and tried to have gender be equally distributed amongst the participants.  In my opinon, I thought that making these efforts would even further prove my hypothesis, and if anything else, it would provide for a more unbiased study.
      
       My results were partially correct.  Hypothesis one was disconfirmed to an extent, so I would personally feel that more research should be conducted, and that the sample size should be increased.  85% of the participants answered correctly to question number one, regarding Meg Whitman being the CEO of Ebay, while a mere 45% answered correctly to Jerry Brown running for Presidency.  The average mean of the forty participants regarding political awareness was that of a 6.5, which was lower  than I predicted (I predicted an 8).  75% of the participants said that they were of the same political party afflilation in respect to those of their parents.  The majority of participants watched MSNBC or FOX, which comprised of 75% of the 40 people.  While BBC and CNN were the less popular and viewed broadcasting companies.  My hypothesis second hypothesis was confirmed in that those who were of the same Political Party of their parents, watched the same news broadcasting network of their parents.  Personally, I would find it extremely interesting to go a step further in this study to determine a) if republican voters watched FOX and if b)democrat voters watched MSNBC.  However, unfortunately this cannot be determined in the study that I conducted.
       The results that I obtained can mean a number of things, but considering my sample size of participants was extremely small, who knows how bias this study may be.  Overall, it is my assumption from these results that the only reason the participants answered so well on question number one id because Meg Whitman has more income to generate on ad campaigns that are flooded in between any and every TV show, which would explain the participants knowledge of her job as CEO at Ebay.  Question number two was not answered as well, and I also blame this on the lack of funding regarding Jerry Brown's campaign.  Even though the participants did answer well on the first question, it does not validate that they are politically aware citizens, and even the participants themselves said they were just over average on a scale of one to ten regarding their own political awareness.  My second hypothesis was correct, which means that parents have a strong influence over their children.  But in a day in age where information is so easily accesible, one would think the children would do reserach on their own for how they feel on certain issues.  I can go as far to say that the children that affiliate with their parent's political party watch the same news broadcasting company, but I think it would be necessary to solely focus on this issue at hand.  Overall hypothesis one was incorrect, and hypothesis 2 was correct to an extent, due to the fact that the sample size was small, and I could have asked a more detailed question.  I believe that those participants who are republicans would be more likely to watch FOX and those particpants that were democrats would be more likely to watch MSNBC.  In this day and age where infomration is EXTREMELY successful, my findings have been that people are not more politically aware than they were twenty years ago, and that even though there is more information out there, it can be filled with bias and untruthfulness.

RA # 2 Survey Questions

1. True or False.  Was Meg Whitman the CEO of Ebay?
2. True of False.  Did Jerry Brown ever run for a presidential election?
3. On a scale of one to ten?  Ten being the most informed, how politically aware are you of the campaign issues facing Meg Whitman and Jerry Brown?
4. Are you of the same political party of your parents?  If so, what party.
5. If you had to pick one news broadcasting company out of the five listed here (CNN, FOX, MSNBC, BBC), which one would you most likely watch?

Unit 6, Issue 18, pg. 364

Are people better informed in the information society?

              Hanson and Alexnader's book Taking Sides, decided to explore the current information age, and whether people are actually more informed or less informed.  Linda Jackson, amongst her other colleagues Alexander von Eye, Frank Biocca, Gretchen Barbatsis, Yong Zhao, and Hiram Fitzgerald, all advocate that specically, low income youth who used the internet more, had higher scores on the SATS and higher GPAS.  The study that they conducted further suppports the growing eagnerss in the world that the Internet may have just been the greatest communicative tool invented, in the sense that one the many reasons of the tool's credibility is that it will level the "educational playing field" for youth in low income houses.  In contrast, Mark Bauerlein advocates that people are not better informed in this "high speed information decade" (p. 364).  He finds this new digital age to be an "empty promise"(p. 364), in th esense that digital tools such as the TV and the Internet, distract kids from reaching their potential in school, resulting in a less infomred public in topics such as economics, politics, and varying, subjective local issues.  Both authors are trying to answer the same age, old question that has been around for generations, "Is the ability to communicate faster equivicable to the quality of the communication experience in and of itself" (p. 364).  Even though this is a great question to ask, the question has been around for generations, specifically when the world came out with news papers, radios, televisions, and now the world wide web.  However, in this new digital age, certain elements have appeared that have not been present in the past, including the plethora of excess of information, and if that excess information "truly informs". 

       Jackson and her colleagues seek to address this "age old problem" by trying to demonstrate the potential of the internet to enhance educational outcomes of low-income families.  Although her survey did conclude with that of a successful result, her survey was extremely subjective, in that the citizens of the United States do not only consist of low-income youth.  Her study offered three explanations for four out of the five hypotheses' that were confirmed.  First, the variability in the 16 schools that participated in this study, had access to great computer and software programs.  Secondly, the inability of the 140 students teacher's did not incorporate their lesson plans with this online techonoly offered, which could explain why the majority of student's academic perfomrance in mathematics did not change, while SAT scores and reading comprehension showed a dramatic improvement across the board.  Third, even though the study was conducted over a 16 month period, this was nearly not enought time for student's to gain adequate information on how to use technology in an effective manner, which could have further promoted the low-income youth's academic performance.  From these three points, Jackson gathered that the use of the internet improved cognitive skills, including visual intelligence, spatial, iconic, and image representations skills (p. 366).  Moreover Jackson states, "Having a home computer as been associated with ghihger test scores in reading, even after crontrolling for family inome and other factors related to reading and test scores" (p. 367).  However, Jackson's main point is that the future of our Country rests in our children, and considering that 30% of the United States Youth Population lives below the poverty line, the internet could be an extremely useful tool in order to get youth a better education, and possibly a better job futuristically in this Country.  As I said before, Jackson's study was extremely subjective, and very detailed.  Through this complex study, she found one conclusion that was inescapable from the readers that read her article: "The internet showed the potential to enhave academic achievement" (p. 365).  Hanson's and Alexander's book Taking Sides agrees with this statement due to the blatant fact that other studies have been "equivocal" (p. 365) to the one that Jackson conducted.  Personally, the judgements that I tried to make myself particularly aware of was that of the validity and reliability of the study, and if this finding that Jackson made is inescapable and should be taken seriously in the sense that our local, state, and country should provide tax benefits to further fuel the internet being a great and reliable source for lower income youth, which do in fact comprise 30 percent of the overall youth in the United States, and our the future of our country's well being. 

       Mark Bauerlein argues that the availability of the digital age only further promotes the "over achhieving" children to only be focused on success and anxiety (p. 376).  With anxiety, Bauerlein argues that students will do anything to get an "easy A".  Even if it means relying on easily accesible websites such as wikipedia which contain terrible secondary source information.  To get an A with honor, takes time, responsibility, and integrity.  Bauerlein points out the strucutural settings of highschools are partially to blame for this, driving students into a competive frenzy, which makes schools a "hotbed for Machiavellian strategy" (p. 377).  When Daivd Brooks toured Princeton and interviewed students, his conclusion was this, "Just get the grades, they tell themselves, ace the test, stduty, study, study.  Assignments become exercises to complete, like doing the dishes, not knowledge to acquire for the rest of their lives.  The innfer life fades; only the external credits count" (p.377).  Although this may sound like torturous work, the surprising fact about all of data is this: when students were asked how much time they spend studying each week for each class that they were enrolled in, 90 percent of them said they spent a REDICULOUSLY amount of 5 hours or less, which led to the embarssing consequence of statistical evidence that students retain information that is scatterted and underanalyzed (p. 378- 379).  These findings can refute the main stream norm that is usually televised on TV shows stating how "over-worked" and "extremely stressed" students are.    In addition to this, there is problem that may be more imminent than student's lacking capability to retain unscattered analyzed information which is this: even due to increased techonoly and information available to the American public, young Americans today are nomore knowledgeable, fluent, inquisitive, or up to date on any type of social, economical, or political event in the world.  And if for some reason they do obtain information on issues such as these, the information provided from the digital era can more than likely be biased or false!  "The autonomy as a cost: the more they attend to themselves, the less they remember the past and envision a future" (p. 381).  The ability to not analyze and fully comprehend information that these students are obtaining falls into dangerous waters in the sense that democracy thribes upon a knowledgeable citizenery, not just citizens who can recite random theories, a democracy needs citizens that can think for themselves, and have a broader knowledge that extends from they have learned from websites such as Wikipedia; they need to analyze what they are learning, and not just try to strive for that "easy A".  But in a structural system of highschools, where there is a breeding ground for "mainstream" thought, who can blame them?  An existentialist, would say take responsibility for your own actions, and make sure you get the valuable education you deserve, and use this digital age as a way to further increase your analytical knowledge. 

       Personally, I do not entirely agree with both authors.  With the birth of the digital age, has come along a mixed sense of optimism and pessimism.  The ability to retrieve information drastically quicker than you could have 20 years ago, is a great accomplishment for this world, and deserves recognition in the sense that citizens not just in the United States, but in the World, can have access to information they never thought they could before.  But with any great accomplishment, comes its downsides.  Lots of information not just on the web, but on TV as well has bias information, and information that might not necessarily be true.  In addition, it makes a person "more lazy" in obtaining information, and one might not strive to obtain that primary source information.  Jackson does have a point that the internet can definitely benefit low-income youth, but at the same time, her study was so subjective, it really cannot predict whether easy access to information is a benefit or a drawback.  Baurelein made some valid points as well.  Students are focused on cramming information in their heads, and receiving it from websites, radios, or TV shows that might not be reliable.  The result is a person who cannot think for themself or think analytically to the best of his or her potential.  I do howevever believe that he is a bit of an alarmist, and I think that the easily accesible information in this day and age has more benefits than drawbacks.

      

RA # 1

       Dear Rupert Murdoch and John Prescott Ellis,
Let me say first, that I applaud you on your mission to generate "fair" news, as it says on your website.  Because we live in a democracy, your news corporation allows us the freedom to understand and analyze what is going on in politics and society, and I truly applaud you for that!  I understand that with every news company, the good must come along with the bad, and I wanted your corporation to read this letter because FOX might get higher viewership and ratings from the opinion that I want to share with you today.  I am writing you today because it has come to my attention that the news you choose to cover can at times, be biased.  I do not want you to discard this letter just because I am writing to criticize your broadcasting company, instead I truly hope you can gain insight from what I have to say about the issue that you cover on TV, online, and in your newsletters.  I have been a fan of FOX for quite some time, in fact, I receive your newsletter in the mail!  As a concerned citizen regarding the direction that your corporation is moving in, I think that FOX should have more liberal commentary, to draw in other viewers.  In this letter, I hope for your corporation to improve, and perhaps you will gain more insight on what some of your viewers want.
       In order to gain a complete view of how FOX delivers and covers its news, I decided to critically read the FOX newsletters that are sent in the mail on a weekly basis.  I read online articles, watched your TV shows, and read your newsletters avidly for two weeks straight.  What I found did not really surprise me after an article I read on FOX's contract with GOP canidates to exclusively interview with their network.  In fact, this exact article was what sparked my interest in trying to find a way to get rid of FOX's biased image.  Although, FOX is one of the most highly rated news companies, it has gained that prestige with poor reporting, biased coverage, and shows that viewers may watch just to become even more outraged with the makings of this company.
       Interestingly enough, FOX's main slogan on their online website is "fair and balanced".  Unfortunately this is DEFINITELY not the case...  Over a series of two weeks, specifically the first two weeks of October 2010, Fox's newsletters main headline was on the Republican GOP canidates.  I am not entirely sure if these main headlines were due to their exclusive contract with four of the main republican future canidates for presidency, or if these were the stories that the news corporation thought were most pertinent to the American public.  Although this is my own person opinon, I do not think that FOX news is adhering to its "journalistic integrity", and is just trying gain more viewership for its broadcasting company due to the "imitation of success".  In addition, it does not necessarily help when shows such as the O'Reiley Factor and the Glenn Beck show openly admit that they are a "die hard" republicans.  For example, during Glen Beck's show on October 5th, he explicitly said that America has lost its authenticity and he is 'proud' to be a republican.  Secondly, Bill O'Reiley has always publicly stated that he is a republican on his show and on other talk shows such as the view, BUT during the two week period that I "critically" watched his shows, he made no mention of it.  Instead, he just talked about Obama's health care policy failing, and that Obama has made us more in debt than the Bush Administration had.  Obviously, his opinions are conservative and right-winged.  Interestingly enough, there are NO shows that have hosts that are openly democratic.  To me, this is explicitly showing that FOX news is not trying to have substansive coverage, rather they are relying on biased political statistics and even more biased commentary on heated political and social issues, in order to get high viewership, and as a consequence, generate more income for their network.  Going back to FOX's main slogan "fair and balanced".... In what way are these aspects of the corporation fair and balanced?
       In analyzing the actual television broadcast of FOX news, I noticed the same trend in the sense that the main headlines were usually concerning about what the republicans are doing in the political spectrum.  For example, on the Glenn Beck show, when he had a campaign at the Lincoln Memorial paralleling Martin Luther King's civil rights movement to what the republicans are trying to accomplish for the 2012 election campaign.  His speech did not make any sense at all, and was clearly targeting the aspect of republican canidates being superior to democratic canidates in the sense that he was making trivial assumptions that the God- loving republican candiates were the people who were going to take this country in a positive direction.  Just to further my opinion on Glenn Beck, he was the man who on his show, publicly said that gay people were not born naturally that way, "they were made".  As a political correspondent, I thought that this statement was extremely inappropriate. 
       While viewing the website, the bias theme was yet again confirmed.  The main tabs located on the websites home page was very US focused, and each article that I personally read, was bias in the sense that they only explained the United State's side of the story, instead of going further as a news company and interviewing and asking how other countries felt about the stance that the United States was taking on various issues.  News companies such as BBC and Al Jazeera make it a point out of journalistic integrity to show both sides of the story.  Even though BBC and Al Jazeera to cover the United States more than other countires around the world, their stories have primary facts and cover BOTH sides of the story, and let the readers or viewers decide how to feel on whatever issue is presented.
       In summary, I think the FOX news broadcasting company needs to restore its journalistic integrity and stop focusing on getting high viewership, and a high influx of money as a consequence.  If every news broadcasting company focused on maintaing journalistic integrity, and state just primary facts, I think that the world's opinon of the United States would be dramatically different; in a positive way!  My advice to you FOX news, "Start the trend!"  You will increase your viewership by adding liberals, and maintaining your conservative audience.  This is a win-win situation, if you construct your broadcasting company in a less bias way, and make smart moves in the news anchors, political shows, and articles that you decide to cover.  If every news corporation was fair, they would gain the viewership of both liberals and conservatives, while keeping that controversial edge, and using it in a positive way!

Issue of Global Warming on FOX versus MSNBC

       I decided to look at the issue of global warming from two very different news sources: FOX and MSNBC.  Global warming is an extremely contorversial issue that can most likely be determined whether one is republican or democrat.  Republican's lean towards global warming being a false issue where as democrats lean towards global warming being an iminent and extremely important issue.  I thouht it would be interesting to look at an issue that is usually decided upon according to political party affiliation.  Being as FOX is more of a right winged news corporation, I predicted that they would have articles trying to prove that Global warming was not an issue of importance.  By contrast, MSNBC is an extremely left winged news corporation, so I assumed the news corporation would have articles promoting the urgency to act upon the issue of global warming, and promote such slogans as "going green".
       Not to my surprise, my thoughts were confirmed.  FOX news used the example of the summer of 2010 being unusually cool, and that if global warming were actually ocurring, this would not be the case.  They went on to further state that since the beginning of the Earth's creation, there have been many temperature changes, and that this might be one more temperature change that our earth is going through.  Moreover, they dismissed the idea of "going green" projects, saying that the projects were draining our treasury, and were causing an increase in taxes. 
       MSNBC was an avid supporter on the issue of global warming.  Although they did not out right say that they supported and believed in global warming, they showed many stories on the dying polar bear population due to the ice caps melting.  Polar bears hunt on the ice caps, and without the ice caps being a hunting ground for polar bears, the bears will starve and their species will eventually become extinct.  In addition, they have interviewed Al Gore on his award winning movie an Inconvenient Truth.  FOX never interviewed Al Gore, and never covered the significance of many animal speicie's going extinct because of this temperature change.
      Nightly, I watched both of these news broadcasting companies on the issue of global warming.  If they did not air anything regarding it on TV, I went online to see articles that journalists working for each company had posted about global warming.  The news corporations took such different stances on an issue that should be only giving primary information on the subject, and not trying to sway viewer and reader's opinions on the issues by horserace and hoopla.  The only job of news corporations should be to provide substansive coverage in a non-bias way.