MUCH TO DO ABOUT NOTHING...by Jared Hill

"Deep change does not begin in the political process or with single issues; it
begins among ordinary people deciding to change their circumstances." Bill
Moyers, Inequality Matters.....
Do we honestly believe that this kind of change is even a possibility in
contemporary society considering the structure of society in regards to upward
mobility, political participation, and the general inequalities of income and
wealth? Imagine CEO'S being OK with being compensated at the same rate as
individuals in low-income families or the Bush Administration passing up tax
cuts to benefit the wealthy elites while simultaneously putting the poor at
more of a disadvantage for upward mobility. You're better off finding a needle
in a heystack! This is how the wealthy stay wealthy but more importantly it's
how inequality in America threatens democracy.
If these actions were not beneficial to us all this would certainly be a
problem. At the same token, you also have situations where individuals on
welfare will not go out and look for a full-time job with benefits because of
the benefits they do receive that they otherwise wouldn't if they were not on
welfare.
How can we expect change when we have people in this nation (from the poor to
the wealthy) who value self-interests that contribute to inequalities of income
and wealth? The link between ownership of work and inequality of reward
prohibits participation for individuals who are unable to voice their opinions
and have influence on decisions being made regarding their lives as well as
others.
With all due respect, an ideal world for middle class, working class
families is undeniably different from an ideal world for the wealthy and the
elite, not to mention those in poverty. With that in mind, how can we begin to
come to change when the master-servant relationship in this country in regards
to ownership thrives off of power rather than collaboration?

Which one did you watch???

Interview with Rep. Ron Paul "for president"



OR....

Anna Nicole on drugs




...Which one did you click on?

The Fourth Estate yo.

I believe that there are still journalists around that fulfill their duty as watchdog's over the government. But at times I think it's hard to not report on issues that people are paying more attention to.

I think it does make all journalists look bad however, when some of our colleagues think that covering a bald headed Brittany or a still dead Anna Nicole is news. But like I said, a majority of the people in this country are more concerned with pseudo news than the real stuff. Tonloc out.

Ricky Almada - Social Participation

First and foremost, I like to give a shout-out to my friend “Nana.” Second, Mark thanks for the opportunity to this (I said in a sarcastic tone). Now, lets get to business. In Inequality Matters the basic of the reading was that social groups such as the American Legion have decreased and lobbyist groups have increased. The problem with this is that people from the lower class are now not participating in social movements. In the past, groups like the American Legion had a mixture of classes in which each class had a voice. Now, many lobbyist groups are just seeking for corporate funding or as the book put it “wealthy ‘angles’” and have steered away from the “common” people which leaves them no room to participate (well no as much room).
Which brings me to Tuned Out. This chapter basically reinforced what I learn in J470 and that is the Fourth Estate (which is us) needs to be the government watchdog. As journalist, we need to keep an eye on the government and can’t be afraid to ask the “hard hitting questions.” I think some journalist really are, but others in the main stream media aren’t. I turn on the TV and some of the news channels are their talking about how and why Britney Spears shaved her head (I hope she’s ok, too. It must be hard having all that money, poor girl). Or about Anna Nicole Smith and who will get the baby (a matter, I think should be keep personal). I’m sorry, in both cases this is not news or at least not as important (no just not news). As a country we are really close to a war with Iran and I haven’t seen much news on that. I have seen some reports, but not as much as Spears and Smith.
Which brings me to the “conversations starter,” judging from the readings are journalist at least partially to blame for the lack of participation in groups such as the American Legion? If journalist we’re too considered over “why she’s gone crazy,” are we doing are duty in patrolling the government? Or have we stopped doing this duty which as lead the public to believe that the government is peachy and we can place our trust in them? Sorry, about the long post.

Eclipse of the Local

Chapter 5 in Tuned Out goes over the failure of citizens, and journalists to keep up with local news. Mindich questions if television and the Internet really have something to do with the decline in young people watching/reading the local news. My opinion? Of course it does.

He believes sex, celebrities, and especially violence, sell, and hes right. More than 90 percent of all local television news stories came from police scanners or public relations events and less than 10 percent of all stories came from initiative reporting. I happened to notice that at my internship over this past summer. All over the newsroom there are police scanners and tvs and everyone is working on their own story but when there is a chase going on every single person in the room is watching.

Supposedly, African Americans tend to watch more local news than whites or Hispanics due to the crime and violence that is shown on a daily basis. I feel as though it should be based on each community, because each community is different. A community that is tight can drive news consumption.

On the other hand, many young people do not watch the news simply because it is boring and depressing. Mindich says that unless “sensational” figures such as celebrities become fixtures on the campaign trail, local news outlets may be short lived. In my opinion, I know for a fact many people my age are more inspired to go out and do something if they see their favorite celebrity doing it. Mindich points out that many people will volunteer or do something simply because they have to. But maybe if it was encouraged better more people would have the desire to do it?

Then there is the case of the Internet. Young people now a days would rather IM and chat with friends online than watch the news, I mean it is more enjoyable and socially involving. Most young people today feel they deserve to watch tv or go chat online after a hard day at school.

The question is, how can we get the younger population to actually enjoy the local news?

Reading Response

I think young people are tuned out regardless of it being a money issue. Politics just don't generally spark interest in young people. But that's not necessarily the case for everyone. I happen to enjoy politics but that's because it's my minor. Maybe more political science classes in middle school and high school could possibly generate more interest in the future. But for now here is a funny picture:

Inequality Matters

In chapter “Of the few, by the few, for the few” Moyers says that the reason why one of us can’t go have lunch with our senator or reach a politician to voice our concerns is simply because of money. Money makes politicians available to those helping then financially with their campaign, other politicians or simply a rich old guy with power, before they make time for anybody else. Politicians are more interested in pleasing corporations than pleasing citizens. Why? Money again. How far could I really get if I try to reach a state senator to voice a concern that young people in Tucson might have? I have no money to give to their campaign, don’t belong to a political party so really I’m not in their priority list. Millions of dollars are spent on political campaigns as well as on propositions that want to pass in each state. In order to get that money politicians must make friends with those in big corporation and promise a reward or a “get out of jail free” card to the companies aiding them financially. So why would any of us have any chance at being on the appointment book of Jon Kyl?
I believe that the disengagement of politicians with the real people of their city, state or even of their country drives young Americans to tune out of the political world. Because politicians do not make an effort to reach a middle-class college student, the same college student will make no effort to engage in the news and what is going on in the political world. NPR did a series on economic inequality last week and one of the points made in the reports was that while some things have gotten better (women's average pay compare to men's) other have gotten worse (health care availability and help from the government for those who don't have it) so there really is a lot to be done in order to reach a more equal society.
Do you agree that the influence money has on politicians and the political world in general have pushed young people to tune out of political news even more?