During discussions around the education system a phrase that comes up quite a bit is this idea of School Choice. School Choice basically gives parents the power and freedom to choose their child’s education based on the school's quality and their children's needs and not their home address. This freedom to choose is supposed to encourage healthy competition among schools and other institutions to better serve students’ needs and priorities.
When it comes time to choose my where my child will go to school some important factors are going to be the school's graduation rates, it's facilities and resources, motivated students and teachers, and an environment that will best prepare him for college.
When my wife and I were deciding on where we would be moving recently, a critical piece of that decision was to make sure that it was located near what we considered good schools based off the criteria listed above. The High School in the area we ended up choosing had an average student GPA of 3.6, average ACT score is 24.5, 92% of the students graduate, 87% of those students will go on to college and is on the list of Newsweek's 2012 Best High Schools in America. Seemed like a perfect school district to raise our child in.
Yesterday, I was reading through our local newspaper and saw that there was an article about that very same High School which talked about how it was considered failing according to No Child Left Behind Standards. The article also mentioned that 2/3 of all Illinois schools including all but 11 high schools failed to make adequate yearly progress according to NCLB standards. Now having gone through our Public Discourse class and having understanding the lack of credibility of the NCLB standards, this really didn't surprise but only reaffirmed my belief that the criteria in which current reforms measures school success is, for lack of a better term, crap.
This made me wonder, how many other people read that same article or chose not to send their son to that High School because they heard that it was considered failing, when in all actuality it's an excellent school where nearly every student graduates and most move on to higher education. This was just another example of how current reforms and the way they measure success vs. failure are extremely skewed and need to be changed.
.
Thursday, November 15, 2012
Friday, November 9, 2012
2012 Elections: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
As I had a few days to reflect upon the 2012 Election and the campaigns prior to the election, there are some highlights that really stick out in my mind that I will remember from this election. Regardless who won, this election has exposed many things wrong with our country and now more than ever we need these elected officials to step up and deliver on their promises. Below is a brief summary of my thoughts:
The good: It's over. America can finally take a break from all the media hype and political ads that have taken over our televisions, radios, telephones, and computers. It was also good to hear President Obama mention that the immediate next steps will be for both parties to attempt to work together to start to improve our nation. Now whether this will actually happen...only time will tell.
The bad:
- Campaign Spend - This year's Presidential campaign was the most expensive in history and as I mentioned in previous blogs, our nation is in desperate need of money and many other issues could have been addressed with those funds rather than wasting millions on television ads that few people even watch. Additionally there were allegations of misuse of campaign spend like Jesse Jackson Jr. who felt it was appropriate to furnish his home and buy his girlfriend a $40K watch with campaign money.
-Attack Ads - It was very discouraging to see this year that almost every candidate's ads focused on attacking the character of the other candidate rather than addressing the issues.
-Media Coverage - In my opinion, the mainstream failed when it came to informing the average citizen about the important issues and the candidates stance on those issues. Instead of focusing on what really matters, the media seemed to focus on candidate slip-ups or other stories which had no relevance to to their political strategies. So when the average citizen votes on an individual based off their personality rather than policy, we can't really blame them because that is all they hear about through mainstream media.
The ugly:
-Voting Polls - you would think that in this day and age and the technology that has become available we would finally be able to structure voting polls in a manner that allows people to get in and vote without any barriers or controversy. Voters in Miami-Dade County waited over 6 hours to cast their votes for the election and were still standing in line well after President Obama was projected as the winner. In Pennsylvania there was an issue where a voting machine lit up for Romney even when the voter was trying to vote for Obama. The election Protection coalition of civil rights and voting access groups said they received more than 80,000 complaints regarding this years voting process.
-Chicago voters - I can honestly say that I am embarrassed by the fact that the city of Chicago re-elected Jesse Jackson Jr. and Derrick Smith. Jackson has been accused of adultery, misuse of campaign funds, (to buy home furniture and a $40K Rolex for a girlfriend), and hasn't been performing his duties since the summer because of "illness" which I attribute to Igotcaughtitis. Additionally it has been reported that he has been in talks with authorities about a plea deal regarding the campaign finance allegations.
Smith was impeached and tossed out of the state House after being arrested in a federal sting for accepting a $7,000 bribe.
Chicago has made national headlines because of it's politicians who engaged in corrupt activity that took place after they were elected which you can't necessarily blame the voters for. But there is absolutely no excuse for re-electing representatives that have already proven they are corrupt. Has moral character lost its meaning? If one thing good came out of these two individuals being elected was that it proves all the money spent bashing the character of the other candidate was a complete waste. So hopefully this sends the message that they should use invest that money where it's really needed. In my opinion, the election of these two candidates is a black eye on our state and an embarrassment to the entire political system.
The good: It's over. America can finally take a break from all the media hype and political ads that have taken over our televisions, radios, telephones, and computers. It was also good to hear President Obama mention that the immediate next steps will be for both parties to attempt to work together to start to improve our nation. Now whether this will actually happen...only time will tell.
The bad:
- Campaign Spend - This year's Presidential campaign was the most expensive in history and as I mentioned in previous blogs, our nation is in desperate need of money and many other issues could have been addressed with those funds rather than wasting millions on television ads that few people even watch. Additionally there were allegations of misuse of campaign spend like Jesse Jackson Jr. who felt it was appropriate to furnish his home and buy his girlfriend a $40K watch with campaign money.
-Attack Ads - It was very discouraging to see this year that almost every candidate's ads focused on attacking the character of the other candidate rather than addressing the issues.
-Media Coverage - In my opinion, the mainstream failed when it came to informing the average citizen about the important issues and the candidates stance on those issues. Instead of focusing on what really matters, the media seemed to focus on candidate slip-ups or other stories which had no relevance to to their political strategies. So when the average citizen votes on an individual based off their personality rather than policy, we can't really blame them because that is all they hear about through mainstream media.
The ugly:
-Voting Polls - you would think that in this day and age and the technology that has become available we would finally be able to structure voting polls in a manner that allows people to get in and vote without any barriers or controversy. Voters in Miami-Dade County waited over 6 hours to cast their votes for the election and were still standing in line well after President Obama was projected as the winner. In Pennsylvania there was an issue where a voting machine lit up for Romney even when the voter was trying to vote for Obama. The election Protection coalition of civil rights and voting access groups said they received more than 80,000 complaints regarding this years voting process.
-Chicago voters - I can honestly say that I am embarrassed by the fact that the city of Chicago re-elected Jesse Jackson Jr. and Derrick Smith. Jackson has been accused of adultery, misuse of campaign funds, (to buy home furniture and a $40K Rolex for a girlfriend), and hasn't been performing his duties since the summer because of "illness" which I attribute to Igotcaughtitis. Additionally it has been reported that he has been in talks with authorities about a plea deal regarding the campaign finance allegations.
Smith was impeached and tossed out of the state House after being arrested in a federal sting for accepting a $7,000 bribe.
Chicago has made national headlines because of it's politicians who engaged in corrupt activity that took place after they were elected which you can't necessarily blame the voters for. But there is absolutely no excuse for re-electing representatives that have already proven they are corrupt. Has moral character lost its meaning? If one thing good came out of these two individuals being elected was that it proves all the money spent bashing the character of the other candidate was a complete waste. So hopefully this sends the message that they should use invest that money where it's really needed. In my opinion, the election of these two candidates is a black eye on our state and an embarrassment to the entire political system.
Monday, October 29, 2012
Education Conspiracy Theory - Dumber by Design??
Watching this year's Presidential campaign it seems like is much more of a focus on the personalities, characteristics, and slip-ups of the candidates then there has been in years past. After the last debate I read messages on the social media challenges and wasn't surprised to see that the messages reflected my initial observation. While there were messages regarding issues, the majority of these comments were based on the appearance or personality of the candidates. People commented about Romney's bad spray tan while other's questioned President Obama's love for Chicago sports since he was debating during the Bears Monday Night Football game. Although some of these were just meant to be funny, it was still a bit disappointing to see the lack of conversation about actual issues. But can we blame them? Very rarely do you see one of the news channels stop to provide in depth coverage of the issues facing this nation and what each candidate's plans are to fix them instead, as we saw last March, you see a 60 minute program of President Obama filling out NCAA Basketball bracket with his predictions.
I thought back to some of the readings/discussions in class about the media and the issues facing the American Education system and I put on my conspiracy theory hat and began to wonder if Americans are becoming less informed about politics and less educated in general according to the design of those with power. Many of our readings in class may not have come out and said it directly, but they certainly provided some supporting evidence. Kumar, for example talked about how our Political leaders explain history in a way that helps support their political agendas instead of providing facts that may go against their actions or agendas. They create this image of the enemy (ie. terrorists, bad teachers) and the average uninformed citizen becomes afraid and buys into the decisions being made and rarely challenge them. They feel that the decisions and policies being made are in their best interest and they should cooperate. Kumashiro would describe this as the winners (those with power) making the rules in a way that convinces the losers to keep playing.
And let's face it, its much easier to convince the losers to keep playing when you control not only the messages they receive but also what they learn and their access to education. Our education system is in the midst of a huge crisis and the solutions from the those with power and influence are reforms focus on standardizing what is taught and ignoring the substance of learning. This focus on standardization and test scores create a huge disadvantage for those quality teachers who engage students in alternative teaching methods that require students to think critically, but will benefit a teacher who can simply teach the basics. So what we have is and education crisis with significant issues and the responses from our leaders have been reforms to structure schools in a way that limits teachers' abilities to teach as well as limit what and how a students learn. Oh, and by the way the structure of these schools are not structured the same as the most successful schools where most of those making reforms have children attending. And because of the extremely high increases of College tuition (which nobody seems to be paying attention to except those paying) those who are lucky enough to graduate can finish or even attend college. And those who have attended college know that it is a place where a great deal of critical thinking and alternative teaching methods take place. Could this be the reason why the Government hasn't stepped in to control tuition prices? Because it creates a barrier for students to learn how to think critically and they fear that this could create educated citizens that would challenge the status quo?
Now I'm not one to always believe in conspiracy theories (although I enjoy reading them) nor do I necessarily think there is an education conspiracy where they are trying to turn us all into robots, but some of these decisions being made really make you wonder who is really in charge and what their true motivations are. While researching information about education conspiracy theories, I came across this interesting clip by comedian George Carlin which is an extreme viewpoint but not very far off from some of the topics and ideas we've talked about in class. Carlin also challenges this belief of "The American Dream" which many public intellectuals seem to be doing nowadays.
(warning: the video does contain some vulgar language).
I thought back to some of the readings/discussions in class about the media and the issues facing the American Education system and I put on my conspiracy theory hat and began to wonder if Americans are becoming less informed about politics and less educated in general according to the design of those with power. Many of our readings in class may not have come out and said it directly, but they certainly provided some supporting evidence. Kumar, for example talked about how our Political leaders explain history in a way that helps support their political agendas instead of providing facts that may go against their actions or agendas. They create this image of the enemy (ie. terrorists, bad teachers) and the average uninformed citizen becomes afraid and buys into the decisions being made and rarely challenge them. They feel that the decisions and policies being made are in their best interest and they should cooperate. Kumashiro would describe this as the winners (those with power) making the rules in a way that convinces the losers to keep playing.
And let's face it, its much easier to convince the losers to keep playing when you control not only the messages they receive but also what they learn and their access to education. Our education system is in the midst of a huge crisis and the solutions from the those with power and influence are reforms focus on standardizing what is taught and ignoring the substance of learning. This focus on standardization and test scores create a huge disadvantage for those quality teachers who engage students in alternative teaching methods that require students to think critically, but will benefit a teacher who can simply teach the basics. So what we have is and education crisis with significant issues and the responses from our leaders have been reforms to structure schools in a way that limits teachers' abilities to teach as well as limit what and how a students learn. Oh, and by the way the structure of these schools are not structured the same as the most successful schools where most of those making reforms have children attending. And because of the extremely high increases of College tuition (which nobody seems to be paying attention to except those paying) those who are lucky enough to graduate can finish or even attend college. And those who have attended college know that it is a place where a great deal of critical thinking and alternative teaching methods take place. Could this be the reason why the Government hasn't stepped in to control tuition prices? Because it creates a barrier for students to learn how to think critically and they fear that this could create educated citizens that would challenge the status quo?
Now I'm not one to always believe in conspiracy theories (although I enjoy reading them) nor do I necessarily think there is an education conspiracy where they are trying to turn us all into robots, but some of these decisions being made really make you wonder who is really in charge and what their true motivations are. While researching information about education conspiracy theories, I came across this interesting clip by comedian George Carlin which is an extreme viewpoint but not very far off from some of the topics and ideas we've talked about in class. Carlin also challenges this belief of "The American Dream" which many public intellectuals seem to be doing nowadays.
(warning: the video does contain some vulgar language).
Saturday, October 20, 2012
Is Education Really a Priority - Response to Blog Prompt
Isn't it amazing that there never seems to be a funding crisis when it comes expanding America's political agendas through war or a shortage when it comes to the hundreds of millions of dollars that presidential campaign's cost, yet when it comes to educational resources for our children, finding the funds to provide them with the basic necessities proves to be difficult. To put things in perspective, according to the Washington Post's 2012 Presidential Campaign Finance Explorer, President Obama and his allies have raised $775 million dollars and already spent $606 million. Mitt Romney and his allies have raised $784 million and sepnt $534 million. Much of this money goes toward advertising on the TV and radio and that advertising usually consists of attacking the other candidate or feeding the public with promises that the candidates will most likely not deliver upon.
Throughout these campaings the candidates never fail to talk about the critical issues facing the nation including the state of the economy, unemployment, national defense and education. President Obama himself has preached the importance of education reform yet according to the projected Federal Budget spend, only 4% will be spend on education as opposed to 24% on defense. The projected budgeted spend for welfare is 12%, 3 times that of education, does anyone else see the irony of this? Because many of these people don't have the education or resources to obtain jobs they have no other choice but to depend on the government for assistance. This government assistance is simply a band aid to stop the bleeding instead of attempting to fix the the issues that lead to the need for financial assistance.
Kumashiro brings forth a very compelling and accurate argument around the fact that those elites framing today's educational reforms have very little knowledge of what the issues really are and how they should be fixed. As he mentions in his book both President Obama and Mayor Emmanuel are telling us what changes need to be made in struggling public schools, all while their children attend schools with the best resources, facilities, and teachers. And since these schools with the best teachers obtain high scores, then it's very easy for these elites to simply point the fingers at teachers rather then themselves, who actually have the power and influence to make the changes. In my opinion, the elites don't necessarily address these issues with as much urgency as they should because they don't directly impact their children.
I agree with Kumashiro's belief that all schools are in need of improvement and the reforms that should lead to those improvements should not be framed or influenced by those who don't have children's best interests' in mind (the elities, teacher unions, etc.). The fact of the matter is that the current structure of the education system is failing when it comes to preparing children for their future and the proposed reforms are only going to contribute to that failure. Those elite schools may not be failing when it comes to test scores and education but the fact that these students are surrounded by others just like them who don't know what it means to struggle or face adversity, doesn't prepare them for life after school. The workforce these children will soon be entering is an extremely diverse place in which these people of all races and cultures will interact with one another, and dealing with these new cultures for the first time could prove to be challenging. Growing up I was blessed to attend some very good schools that continue to be succussful today. These schools were made up with kids that looked just like me and came from very similar backgrounds, so that was the only world I know. When I started my career, the diversity within the corporate environment was very intimidating and definitely took a while for me to get used to. So although my the schools I attended were considered great when it comes to providing education, they failed when it came to giving me the tools to succeed after shool.
Unfortunately I can't provide the answers as to how to fix the education crisis today, but I definitley think they need to get a more diverse group of individuals involved in the framing of the reforms. The entire educational system could use improvement, and instead of having the decisions made by the elites and politicians who have their best interests in mind, they need to include those directly impacted like the teachers and parents of these children in struggling schools. Of course these improvements will cost money, but if Education was truly a top priority for those with power, finding the money wouldn't be an issue. Perhaps instead of candidates spending hundreds of millions of dollars advertising and pursuading people to vote for them, perhaps they can invest that money into improving our nation and let their actions earn votes instead of their words.
Monday, October 15, 2012
To Compete or not to Compete...
One thing that can't be when it comes to the educational system and those who have influence it, is that they are very effective at teaching students about contradictions. A prime example of this is when it comes to "competition." A few weeks ago I was with a group of friends and the discussion of education came up and one of the people involved in the conversation was a first grade teacher and shared a story that I could not believe. She explained that her principal was requiring that the teachers keep a bulletin board, visible to all students and anyone who entered the room, with a list of the students ranked according to test scores. The thought process was that this would drive competition amongst the students and motivate them to perform better. Parents would also be able to see where there child ranked against others in the class. A few weeks have past now and I recently found out that after a great deal of pushback from the teachers, the principal modified the request to where the bulletin board would only contain the students ID numbers. Is that really the extent that schools have gone to get students to perform well on tests?
This made me think, wasn't there just a heated debate about whether or not youth sports should keep score and the impact of winning and losing had on children? Critics of competitive youth sports believe that they were becomming far too competitive and putting too much pressure on children to win as opposed to just "do their best and have fun." However many of those same critics support the current educational reforms which are clearly competition based. So are we trying to teach students that competition is good or that it's bad?
Educational reforms today are framed in a manner that competition will solve our problems and author Kevin Kumashiro points to programs such as Race to the Top and school-choice programs that presume schools will improve when schools, teacher preparation programs, educational services, and even teachers compete. So how do we explain that competition against other schools is acceptable when it comes to test scores but not acceptable when it comes to a football or basketball game? Isn't the pressure of performing well on tests or risk losing your teacher and perhaps your school much more pressure than losing a ball game? Although I don't agree with the standards-focused framework of the recent educational reforms, if those reforms are promoting the importance of competition in the classroom, then this certainly should be echoed throughout other activities including sports. After all, the real world is a compeititive market place and the minute they apply for their first job outside of school they will realize how important it is to be better than somebody else and stand out from the crowd.
This made me think, wasn't there just a heated debate about whether or not youth sports should keep score and the impact of winning and losing had on children? Critics of competitive youth sports believe that they were becomming far too competitive and putting too much pressure on children to win as opposed to just "do their best and have fun." However many of those same critics support the current educational reforms which are clearly competition based. So are we trying to teach students that competition is good or that it's bad?
Educational reforms today are framed in a manner that competition will solve our problems and author Kevin Kumashiro points to programs such as Race to the Top and school-choice programs that presume schools will improve when schools, teacher preparation programs, educational services, and even teachers compete. So how do we explain that competition against other schools is acceptable when it comes to test scores but not acceptable when it comes to a football or basketball game? Isn't the pressure of performing well on tests or risk losing your teacher and perhaps your school much more pressure than losing a ball game? Although I don't agree with the standards-focused framework of the recent educational reforms, if those reforms are promoting the importance of competition in the classroom, then this certainly should be echoed throughout other activities including sports. After all, the real world is a compeititive market place and the minute they apply for their first job outside of school they will realize how important it is to be better than somebody else and stand out from the crowd.
Monday, October 8, 2012
Too Much Political Knowledge
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/188933/october-22-2008/too-much-political-knowledge?xrs=share_copy
Here is a pretty funny bit Stephen Colbert did after he heard how well his viewers scored on a PEW Research Poll that measured Political Knowledge.
Here is a pretty funny bit Stephen Colbert did after he heard how well his viewers scored on a PEW Research Poll that measured Political Knowledge.
What does a Terrorist Look Like?
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-09-16/news/chi-man-charged-with-trying-to-blow-up-downtown-bar-with-car-bomb-20120915_1_fbi-agents-jihad-bomb
The above articles contain two separate terrorist plots with local ties that were recently uncovered thanks to the work of law enforcement and a civilian tip that potentially saved the lives of hundreds of innocent civilians. The two individuals, Gregory Weiller II and Adel Daoud, come from completely different backgrounds, had different reasons for carrying out their crimes, but both were part of extremist religious groups. The interesting thing about the articles are the way in which the plots were discovered. In the first article, the Islamic teenager was arrested after plotting an attack for months with informants whom he actually thought were other extremists and the other was a Christian extremist who was discovered after authorities were notified by a worker at a motel who came across some suspicious items. How was one terrorist's activities able to be monitored by authorities and the other was discovered merely by luck? Public Intellectual's like Deepan Kumar would say because of the fact that the individual was outspoken about Islam he was already considered a suspect and was being monitored by authorities for fear of violence. But given the outcome of the investigation, was this a bad thing? It could be a bad thing if our nation is focusing too much of its attention on a certain group(s) rather than being aware of all threats.
In her book Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire Deepan Kumar summarizes the US approach to obtaining intelligence and averting future terrorist attacks as "preemptive prosecution" and states that it focuses mainly on "islamic terrorists" especially after 9/11. Kumar refers to the tactics used as entrapment, where individuals are enticed to act in ways they otherwise wouldn't have. In my opinion, the "entrapment" argument is a weak one because these individuals are not being forced to do something they don't want to do, and are we supposed to think that if the informants were actually extremists plotting a terror attack, that the individual would not have made the same choice? The fact that these individuals would actually carry out such violent crimes whether influenced or not justifies the fact that they should not be on the streets. While I think the entrapment arguement is a weak one, I can't disagree with the notion that the US has focused their attention and stereotyped certain groups with who they have constructed as terrorists.
The truth of the matter is that terrorists come in all shapes and sizes and we need to be aware that in this day and age, any individual with access to the right information or weapons can pose a terrorist threat. Unfortunately there isn't a blood test that can be issued to determine whether someone will commit a terrorist act so those agencies responsible for our security must utilize all resources possible including surveillance and undercover operations. While I do condone taking appropriate efforts to stop violent attacks and ensure our nation's safety, those efforts should not be isolated to only individual groups that our leaders tell us are the enemy. Below is a picture authorities collected of Gregory Weiller II from his computer following his arrest for planning to firebomb 48 churches in Oklahoma, this is certainly not an image of an individual we would suspect of being a terrorist. Sadly though we wouldn't say the same thing if this image contained an individual with darker skin, a beard, and a turbin.
The above articles contain two separate terrorist plots with local ties that were recently uncovered thanks to the work of law enforcement and a civilian tip that potentially saved the lives of hundreds of innocent civilians. The two individuals, Gregory Weiller II and Adel Daoud, come from completely different backgrounds, had different reasons for carrying out their crimes, but both were part of extremist religious groups. The interesting thing about the articles are the way in which the plots were discovered. In the first article, the Islamic teenager was arrested after plotting an attack for months with informants whom he actually thought were other extremists and the other was a Christian extremist who was discovered after authorities were notified by a worker at a motel who came across some suspicious items. How was one terrorist's activities able to be monitored by authorities and the other was discovered merely by luck? Public Intellectual's like Deepan Kumar would say because of the fact that the individual was outspoken about Islam he was already considered a suspect and was being monitored by authorities for fear of violence. But given the outcome of the investigation, was this a bad thing? It could be a bad thing if our nation is focusing too much of its attention on a certain group(s) rather than being aware of all threats.
In her book Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire Deepan Kumar summarizes the US approach to obtaining intelligence and averting future terrorist attacks as "preemptive prosecution" and states that it focuses mainly on "islamic terrorists" especially after 9/11. Kumar refers to the tactics used as entrapment, where individuals are enticed to act in ways they otherwise wouldn't have. In my opinion, the "entrapment" argument is a weak one because these individuals are not being forced to do something they don't want to do, and are we supposed to think that if the informants were actually extremists plotting a terror attack, that the individual would not have made the same choice? The fact that these individuals would actually carry out such violent crimes whether influenced or not justifies the fact that they should not be on the streets. While I think the entrapment arguement is a weak one, I can't disagree with the notion that the US has focused their attention and stereotyped certain groups with who they have constructed as terrorists.
The truth of the matter is that terrorists come in all shapes and sizes and we need to be aware that in this day and age, any individual with access to the right information or weapons can pose a terrorist threat. Unfortunately there isn't a blood test that can be issued to determine whether someone will commit a terrorist act so those agencies responsible for our security must utilize all resources possible including surveillance and undercover operations. While I do condone taking appropriate efforts to stop violent attacks and ensure our nation's safety, those efforts should not be isolated to only individual groups that our leaders tell us are the enemy. Below is a picture authorities collected of Gregory Weiller II from his computer following his arrest for planning to firebomb 48 churches in Oklahoma, this is certainly not an image of an individual we would suspect of being a terrorist. Sadly though we wouldn't say the same thing if this image contained an individual with darker skin, a beard, and a turbin.
Monday, October 1, 2012
Americans and Access to the Internet
Critics of the internet as a benefit to democracy are quick to point out this whole notion around accessability. It's the basic argument that this is a benefit for the rich and creates a disadvantage for the poor. In my opinion, this is a very simple and weak argument and the articles we reviewed this week failed to support this argument with any relevant facts or statistics. Of course not everyone in this country can afford to have a computer in their home but this certainly doesn't mean they don't have access to the internet through other means (work, public libraries, smart phones, etc) if they truly had a need or want to access the internet. I would argue that the problem is not the access to the internet but rather the lack of motivation to use it for educational purposes. And I put a great deal of blame on the structure of mainstream media for this lack of motivation.
According to data provided by Nielson Online, in 2011 approximately 273.1 million (almost 78.6%) of the population used the internet and that number is on the rise. That remaining population who didn't use it aren't necessarily those that cannot afford it. There is a whole population of senior citizens who avoid technology all together so for them not accessing the internet is a choice rather than a disadvantage. Additionally just because someone has access to the internet doesn't mean they use it for eduactional purposes or to participate in political discussions. Using the internet as a first resort for information is not the norm, typically an individual sees or hears something that sparks their interest and leads them to the internet for more information. I believe that it's the responsibility of mainstream outlets such as newspapers and television to spark viewers' interest by providing enough information from both sides to entice that viewer to want to learn more. Instead media today with its fragmented, biased reporting, fails to create interest in politics let alone motivate individuals to go out and obtain more information on their own. This is the reason why more and more people aren't participating in the public sphere the internet has created, not because they can't afford the internet at home.
So it's very easy to use the accessability theory and the rich vs. the poor as a scapegoat for why people don't participate in political discussions on the internet but the truth of the matter is that even those who have access aren't motivated to use it to engage in political discussions. There was an article last week in the Sun Times about Chicago's plan to increase internet access in low income neighborhoods and provide additional sources of public places with internet access. If implemented, it will be interesting whether or not we see an increased participation in the public sphere and polical activity. Unless we change the structure of mainstream media, I doubt that more access to the internet will result in more engaged citizen. If that's the case, it will be interesting to see what these same critics will have to say.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/15350928-418/emanuel-aims-to-bring-internet-access-to-chicago-parks-underserved-neighborhoods.html
According to data provided by Nielson Online, in 2011 approximately 273.1 million (almost 78.6%) of the population used the internet and that number is on the rise. That remaining population who didn't use it aren't necessarily those that cannot afford it. There is a whole population of senior citizens who avoid technology all together so for them not accessing the internet is a choice rather than a disadvantage. Additionally just because someone has access to the internet doesn't mean they use it for eduactional purposes or to participate in political discussions. Using the internet as a first resort for information is not the norm, typically an individual sees or hears something that sparks their interest and leads them to the internet for more information. I believe that it's the responsibility of mainstream outlets such as newspapers and television to spark viewers' interest by providing enough information from both sides to entice that viewer to want to learn more. Instead media today with its fragmented, biased reporting, fails to create interest in politics let alone motivate individuals to go out and obtain more information on their own. This is the reason why more and more people aren't participating in the public sphere the internet has created, not because they can't afford the internet at home.
So it's very easy to use the accessability theory and the rich vs. the poor as a scapegoat for why people don't participate in political discussions on the internet but the truth of the matter is that even those who have access aren't motivated to use it to engage in political discussions. There was an article last week in the Sun Times about Chicago's plan to increase internet access in low income neighborhoods and provide additional sources of public places with internet access. If implemented, it will be interesting whether or not we see an increased participation in the public sphere and polical activity. Unless we change the structure of mainstream media, I doubt that more access to the internet will result in more engaged citizen. If that's the case, it will be interesting to see what these same critics will have to say.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/15350928-418/emanuel-aims-to-bring-internet-access-to-chicago-parks-underserved-neighborhoods.html
Saturday, September 29, 2012
Cyber Spheres
As I prepared to critique Sunstein's essay "Is the Internet really a blessing for democracy" I noticed that it was written in 2001 and since much has changed since then, I decided to cut the author some slack. Sunstein gives the mainstream media far too much credit by describing it as a source for facts and unbiased opinion rather than acknowledging the fact that mainstream media has actually contributed the need for people to search elsewhere for facts and create new public spheres. The internet and social media have replaced the old physical public spheres such as town meetings and public gatherings with a new cyber sphere where average citizens have access to more information than ever and can share this information with people all over the world in a matter of seconds.
We've described the public sphere as the social space where information and ideas can circulate freely, debate can take place, and opinion can be formed and this space is critical for democracy to function. But the "physical" public space is something of the past. When was the last time you actually saw a public debate amoung citizens taking place at a park or other public area? I think back to the previous city that I lived which was experiencing a huge scandal with it's public officials, if you read the social media's pages and blogs filled with opinions and heated debates criticizing the city's public officials, you would think that there would be lines out the door at the village meetings waiting to confront the officials. Surprisingly the meeting I attended had very low turnouts and very little debate or confrontation. The internet has made it much more convenient for people to gather and share their opinions with others so much so that I predict that the existing format of town meetings will soon be obsolute and replaced by cyber meetings in which people can gather and discuss important topics without even leaving their house.
Rather than highlighting the benifits this new cyber space creates for citizens, it's surprising that Sunstein's essay doesn't support the idea that the internet is good for democracy. Instead she provides support for mainstream media and television as the ideal outlet for citizens to gather facts and unbiased opinions. This couldn't be further from the truth. As I mentioned in previous blogs, the News on the major media channels does very little to provide enough facts or unbiased opinions for the average citizen to learn about a current issues and form their own educated opinions about those issues. When it comes to the public space that Sunstein describes, I would argue that these have actually forced people to these cyber worlds rather than conventional physical spaces. If you watch any major channel's morning or evening news, the major stories, especially in Chicago are reports of what seems to be senseless murders or other crime that has taken place. This does very little to entice people in those areas to feel comfortable being out in their neighborhood let alone engage in debates or discussions with neighbors. The news does provide individuals with very high level reports of current events but doesn't provide nearly enough information for viewers to form educated opinions. For this additional information, there is no better resource available than the internet. Of course all information on the internet isn't always accurate or unbiased, but at least it gives the individual the opportunity to decide what information they want to read instead of what the elites who control mainstream media choose for them.
We've described the public sphere as the social space where information and ideas can circulate freely, debate can take place, and opinion can be formed and this space is critical for democracy to function. But the "physical" public space is something of the past. When was the last time you actually saw a public debate amoung citizens taking place at a park or other public area? I think back to the previous city that I lived which was experiencing a huge scandal with it's public officials, if you read the social media's pages and blogs filled with opinions and heated debates criticizing the city's public officials, you would think that there would be lines out the door at the village meetings waiting to confront the officials. Surprisingly the meeting I attended had very low turnouts and very little debate or confrontation. The internet has made it much more convenient for people to gather and share their opinions with others so much so that I predict that the existing format of town meetings will soon be obsolute and replaced by cyber meetings in which people can gather and discuss important topics without even leaving their house.
Rather than highlighting the benifits this new cyber space creates for citizens, it's surprising that Sunstein's essay doesn't support the idea that the internet is good for democracy. Instead she provides support for mainstream media and television as the ideal outlet for citizens to gather facts and unbiased opinions. This couldn't be further from the truth. As I mentioned in previous blogs, the News on the major media channels does very little to provide enough facts or unbiased opinions for the average citizen to learn about a current issues and form their own educated opinions about those issues. When it comes to the public space that Sunstein describes, I would argue that these have actually forced people to these cyber worlds rather than conventional physical spaces. If you watch any major channel's morning or evening news, the major stories, especially in Chicago are reports of what seems to be senseless murders or other crime that has taken place. This does very little to entice people in those areas to feel comfortable being out in their neighborhood let alone engage in debates or discussions with neighbors. The news does provide individuals with very high level reports of current events but doesn't provide nearly enough information for viewers to form educated opinions. For this additional information, there is no better resource available than the internet. Of course all information on the internet isn't always accurate or unbiased, but at least it gives the individual the opportunity to decide what information they want to read instead of what the elites who control mainstream media choose for them.
Friday, September 28, 2012
Deepa Kumar - "Muslim Enemy" 9/26 NCC Lecture
Deepa Kumar presented unique and informative critique of the way in which the image of Muslims, history of the Muslim culture, and the relationship between the East and the West are communicated throughout mainstream media. Much of the information and facts supporting this critiques were never mentioned to the majority, if not all of the audience. The reasons behind this are precisely what her speech and book reveal. Her argument is that the elites and mainstream media have constructed their own image of Muslims, an image of uncivilized, violent and terroristic and use this constructed negative image as a way to advance political agenda and justify their political actions. This is especially appearant after the events that took place on 9/11. Additionally Kumar provides detailed analysis and facts that discount the West's historical timeline describing the history of East and West as a "clash of civilizations." Her critique of this reconstructed historical timeline provides support and examples of history that included mutual development the East and the West worked together for mutual development where both civilizations respected and learned from one another.
So why are so many Americans unaware of this historical account of the East & West and only see Muslims predominately as this negative image of terrorists? Kumar argues that the elites and American politicians have recreated the history of the East and West and portrayed Muslims as "evil" to make it easier to justify their political actions being taken to what Kumar refers to as "advance their political agenda". Also because these elites and politicians have the most access and control over mainstream media, counter arguments like ones Kumar present are rarely, if ever, made available throughout the Space of Opinion in the US. Instead mainstream media has created this image of Muslims as one of a violent and terroristic group that America US
Monday, September 24, 2012
Key Political Intellectuals in Today's Media
Americans today are constantly reminded of the pressing issues facing our nation including a struggling economy, high rates of joblessness, increases to cost of living expenses and lingering memories of the recent wars and terrorist attacks just to name a few. Unfortunately finding unbiased information or even the facts surrounding these issues or proposed policies that address these issues in language that the average American citizen can understand is extremely difficult in today's media space. Intead they are subject to partisan writings and commentaries that focus placing the blame or attacking the other side. By now, I think that many Americans are turned off by this type of reporting and just want to be able to understand the issues that affect them, the key players who are proposing changes to address the issues, and the facts surrounding those changes so that they can form their own opinion and ultimately cast an educated vote. This lack of autonomy and complexity of material in the public media space have pushed a large portion of the general public to other outlets such as political satire shows for their political information.
Two of these political satire shows that play an important role in reaching out to a wide variety of individuals within the public sphere include The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. The hosts, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are two PI's who report out on the same issues as the other public intellectuals, journalists, and political commentators, but their messages are delivered in a language and format that the average citizen as well as an elitist can understand as well as enjoy. In a style that Jacobs and Townsley would classify as "infotainment" Stewart and Colbert use their media platforms to poke fun at the personality-driven political opinion shows that saturate the mainstream media channels. The intents of the shows are not to make light of the pressing issues facing America but rather to poke fun at the way in which the current political media space covers them. Posner would be quick to point out that these intellectuals have no influence and wall statements lack any sort of accountability but they do provide the most important piece which is providing facts in language that the general public can understand and use to form their own opinions. And it's those educated opinions that will spark debate and discussion with other informed citizens.
Two of these political satire shows that play an important role in reaching out to a wide variety of individuals within the public sphere include The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. The hosts, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are two PI's who report out on the same issues as the other public intellectuals, journalists, and political commentators, but their messages are delivered in a language and format that the average citizen as well as an elitist can understand as well as enjoy. In a style that Jacobs and Townsley would classify as "infotainment" Stewart and Colbert use their media platforms to poke fun at the personality-driven political opinion shows that saturate the mainstream media channels. The intents of the shows are not to make light of the pressing issues facing America but rather to poke fun at the way in which the current political media space covers them. Posner would be quick to point out that these intellectuals have no influence and wall statements lack any sort of accountability but they do provide the most important piece which is providing facts in language that the general public can understand and use to form their own opinions. And it's those educated opinions that will spark debate and discussion with other informed citizens.
News Makeover
Since the mainstream media is already flooded with reality makeover/improvement shows and it seems that people enjoy watching programs that improve the appearance of either an individual or other entity that has not kept up with the times, now would be a great time to change the appearance of something that really needs it.....the News. Now by news, I am not talking about CNN, Fox News, or any of the cable channels, I'm talking about the major network news programs that everyone with a television has access to. Many Americans don't have the free time needed to research the various media outlets and understand the issues affecting them while others cannot afford cable or the internet that provides access to this educational information, so these news programs provide an outlet for them to be caught up to speed with what is going on around them. The media needs to take advantage of this space and use the small amount of time in front of this public space wisely. Instead, using this morning's news as an example, viewers were reminded that there were more murders in the city during the middle of the night with no suspects, there was segment where a reporter spoke with the CEO of Lamborghini regarding cars that 98% of the viewers can't afford in their lifetime, and listened to opinions about who the best dressed celebrities at the Emmy's were.
Did this news program teach me anything new or provide me with facts that would challenge me to think and perhaps engage in a debate with my peers about major events taking place in America today? Absolutely not. Now in fairness, they did provide a brief segment about upcoming Presidential election with a quick recap of the recent speeches during which the news anchor spoke over what the candidate was saying before heading to a commercial break. And leading into commercial right they made mention that Obama Administration would be releasing a series of media spots this week criticizing Romney's statements in recent interviews but that was it. It's sad to think with all the issues that America is facing today, the major media news outlet I watched felt that conversations about Sofia Vergara's dress should be alotted more time than providing facts about the upcoming election.
Did this news program teach me anything new or provide me with facts that would challenge me to think and perhaps engage in a debate with my peers about major events taking place in America today? Absolutely not. Now in fairness, they did provide a brief segment about upcoming Presidential election with a quick recap of the recent speeches during which the news anchor spoke over what the candidate was saying before heading to a commercial break. And leading into commercial right they made mention that Obama Administration would be releasing a series of media spots this week criticizing Romney's statements in recent interviews but that was it. It's sad to think with all the issues that America is facing today, the major media news outlet I watched felt that conversations about Sofia Vergara's dress should be alotted more time than providing facts about the upcoming election.
Posner's Critique of PI
Posner's critique of Public Intellectuals, although extreme, does provide some valuable agruments worthy of acknowledgement. Do I agree that ALL Public Intellectual's are careless with facts and rash in their predictions as Posner states? No. But his critique that PI's predictions lack accountability and aren't held to tight scrutiny is justified, especially in the case of Public Intellectuals of the past. This makes you wonder if some PI's are providing predictions based of valid data and trends or just merely making extreme predictions to get a reaction from people and draw attention to their work. This is somewhat different today though. With all the new outlets available for both the intellectuals and the Public Sphere, debates and comments can pop up on the internet even before the public intellectual is done speaking. Additionally, the public now has access to nearly anything and everything that has ever been said or done in the public arena so those individuals making predictions or providing controversial opinions need to worry now more than ever about losing credibility.
Posner's arguement about PI's lack of influence is also an interesting one. I don't agree with the notion that they don't have influence but I would argue that their influence is restricted to those in the public sphere characteristics and beliefs similar to that intellectual. This is great for the elitists and informed older white male segmentation (that both Jacobs and Posner would agree make up the public intellectual masses) but what about the rest of the Public Sphere? Individuals or groups that don't connect with a public intellectual are much more likely to make that decision based off a candidate's personality rather than their policies. I've heard of people that had no knowledge of a candidates interests or policies but voted for them because they thought that they were better looking than the other candidate. This failure to influence and reach out to all individuals in the public sphere is not due to the failure of public intellectuals but rather the lack of diversity in the PI field.
Posner's arguement about PI's lack of influence is also an interesting one. I don't agree with the notion that they don't have influence but I would argue that their influence is restricted to those in the public sphere characteristics and beliefs similar to that intellectual. This is great for the elitists and informed older white male segmentation (that both Jacobs and Posner would agree make up the public intellectual masses) but what about the rest of the Public Sphere? Individuals or groups that don't connect with a public intellectual are much more likely to make that decision based off a candidate's personality rather than their policies. I've heard of people that had no knowledge of a candidates interests or policies but voted for them because they thought that they were better looking than the other candidate. This failure to influence and reach out to all individuals in the public sphere is not due to the failure of public intellectuals but rather the lack of diversity in the PI field.
Monday, September 17, 2012
Media 10 Accuracy 0
Americans are skeptical in what they hear in the media. In a 2011 survey done by The Pew Research Center, negative opinions about the performance of organizations surpassed all-time highs on 9 of 12 core measures. What's even scarier is the fact that those same surveys show that news organizations are more trusted sources of information than other institutions, including government and business.
So when Richard Posner talks about the lack of accountability when it comes to public intellectuals, I think that theory can be expanded across all media outlets. Now after about 50+ failed predictions about the world coming to an end, the public has, for the most part discounted these claims. But the sad thing is that Americans don't have an outlet where they can go for unbiased truth and reporting. We have now become a nation where the facts take a backseat to obtaining ratings and votes. News stations are reporting what they are being told to report rather than presenting the facts and our Political campaigns are filled with candidates who spend the majority of their time and money attempting to challenge the credibilitiy of the other candidate. So we end up choosing the elected official who seems to be the lesser of the two evils according to how they are portrayed during the campaign.
Richard Posner's idea of an accountability scorecard seems promising in theory however finding an unbiased 3rd party to regulate the scorecard is most likely impossible. After all, would we expect the same media that we currently don't trust to provide data regarding the accuracy of what it reports? And who would provide the oversight for this scorecard, a Government who people are just as skeptical of?
Reason For Concern...
I am very concerned about the fate of public life and rightfully so. We now live in a world where Snooki's baby is more news worthy than the Presidential race or the countless issues our nation is dealing with. I understand that news stations are only reporting out on what its viewers want, but what point did we become so out of touch with caring about issues that will affect our lives and our children's lives and instead caring about the Mr. Lohan's legal troubles. Rational debate has now been replaced with debating on which celebrity's outfit looked the best. It's time that credible media outlets get back to reporting out on what really matters in this country as we depend on you to provide us with knowledge and accurate facts instead of wasting our time with nonsense. The fate of public life has been deteriorating and there is a great deal of blame to go around.
Public Intellectuals and Weathermen
Posner’s main criticism of public intellectuals was that they lack accountability. Although very few public intellectuals have a good record of predictions, this doesn’t deter the public from reading their work or hearing what they have to say. Since there is no recourse or penalties, public intellectuals aren’t extremely worried about being incorrect and for those reasons the public doesn’t take their predictions too seriously.
In reading Posner’s critique I couldn’t help but to compare public intellectuals to weathermen. Both public intellectuals and weathermen reach out to the general public with information they are interested in and both groups struggle with the accuracy of their predictions. Many public intellectuals are often incorrect with their predictions but still survive as Posner puts it, “the falsifications of their predictions.” The public protects themselves by not taking their predictions too seriously. I think the same goes for weathermen. As many times as their predictions have been incorrect, we will still tune in to our favorite weatherman or weatherwoman to hear their forecast, and if that forecast happens to be incorrect we aren’t too upset. They have almost built the reputation where we expect them to be incorrect and when they aren't we are pleasantly surprised. So in a sense, the public is also protecting themselves by not taking those that provide weather forecasts seriously either. When it comes to record keeping neither the public intellectual nor weathermen post their successes vs. failures so it’s very hard for the public to have access to that information and make associations between credible resources and those that aren't.
Now I understand that there are some very big differences between the way that public intellectuals and weathermen make predictions, but I thought the similarities were worth mentioning. The folks that predict the weather obviously use a much more scientific approach and are most likely right more times than they are wrong. Additionally there is much more at stake for weathermen to be accurate in their predications because although the public doesn’t keep score, I’m sure that the news stations do, at least to some extent. Additionally the folks that predict the weather through the public outlets have much more influence over the general audience than public intellectuals do. If a weatherman tells you its going to storm, you are highly likely to plan accordingly whereas if a public intellectual is predicting dates for when the word is going to end, you are much less likely to take that prediction seriously.
Posner mentioned creating a public scorecard for public intellectuals which I think is a great idea, and I would also like to see those same scorecards created for weatherman.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)