Obama is losing millenials' support

The 18-24 demographic is not turning out to enroll in Obama's Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare") in numbers as high as the administration had hoped. According to this Market Watch article, "Obama administration officials were hoping that one-third of overall signups would be that of the so-called 'invincibles,' young healthy adults who can help spread out the risk for the program." But this demographic has not shown the President the same support they did during his 2008 campaign and in the years shortly after. Dana Milbank argues that millennials have "abandoned Obama" because once he was elected, he did little to engage their generation. Obama tried to garner more millennial support for the Affordable Care Act by participating in a mock-interview on FunnyOrDie with Zach Galifinakis.

This situation ties in with a few things we've read and discussed in class. Milbank's argument that the millennial generation is "unable to remain attached to a cause" is consistent with Stein's and Sanburn's stance in their "The New Greatest Generation" article. The President's attempt to reach this generation through meeting with a celebrity popular among them on a popular media platform connects with our more recent readings about the power of media to reach people and help shape their views on issues (agenda-setting).

Public Option via Public Sphere

In a recent article on the news anthology website "The Week" it was reported that,

"In town meetings across Vermont last week, residents voted in favor of converting the Vermont Economic Development Authority into a public bank. Modeled after a similar bank in North Dakota, the Vermont proposal would create an institution that held and invested the state's funds locally, on the hope that doing so would provide a boost to the local economy and cut out middlemen bankers."

This article entitled "America should have a public option for everything" went on to mention such an option under discussion during the debate over ObamaCare and how it was squashed by health insurance and pharmaceutical company interests. In the comments section of the article I put forth the idea that auto insurance is a prime candidate for such a public option. Somewhere between capitalist and socialist practices may be a good fit for an America that is reeling from the effects of runaway free market ideologies.

I relate this discussion to the articles "The Public Sphere" and "It's Complicated...", both of which allude to the idea that todays public sphere may be evolving into an online based discussion. The former notes that in 1964 the radio, television, and newspapers had become the media of public sphere as opposed to public meetings or discussion. In the latter it is noted that current social media may increase public discussion but too often is a panacea for action. The article I note here, with it's comment section, is an emerging form of news and discussion that we only hope can shed the "slacktivism" associated with social media and add the interactivity absent in traditional news media to further a kind of public discussion that could lead to public action.

Malaysian jet

In a new article on cnn.com about the Malaysian jet's disappearance the investigators are turning to speculations that the jet was purposefully trying to disappear. Since the eight days the plane has been missing the world has been intrigued with the missing jet that just seemed to drop off the Earth. At first there was speculation of a hijacking because of fake passports that were used to board the plane. Then there were reports about the plane just exploding in the air or being at the bottom of the Indian Ocean. Whatever the case is, it is a scary thing that is happening right now since this has never happened before and it is alarming that officials cannot even determine if the plane crashed or not. The story continues to develop as they search the pilots homes and continue to investigate whether the plane was hijacked or not .

From Lapdog to Watchdog

http://m.nydailynews.com/1.1712043#bmb=1
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2574366/American-anchor-Russian-state-funded-news-quits-air-protest-Putins-incursion-Crimea.html

Liz Wahl was a reporter for Russia Today, a state funded network, who quit live on air because the network used propaganda to support Putins' actions. It has been reported that there is millions of dollars put into the network from Russia, in order to help push their political agenda. Liz Wahl has been praised as a hero for standing up and quitting, because she refused to push his agenda and because she stated she is proud to be an American and refuse to support an anti-American reports. 

I want to relate this How the New Media Shape Political Campaigns, Russia Today is funded to give the Russian point of view and the network is actually established there is be a lap dog. I do think is a great the Liz stood up against the propaganda, but the same time the network established to push forward a Russian point of view. I think more effective was her ex co-worker Abby Martin who spoke out against the Russian government in her segment, and stated the military intervention isn't correct in the Ukraine. She spoke out with her point of view, making her a watch dog, but still reported the new with no bias. 

Scott Brown used in the political fight

MSNBC reported that Scott Brown running for Senate is making significant ground to obtain one of the six senate seats in the red Republican states. According to the article, this election years looks really good for Republicans as they have gained more favoritism. The article then begins to talks about the favoritism between President Obama and former president Bill Clinton. According to a poll, Clinton has much more favoritism in the red states then Obama does, and that is why he plays such a vital role in this campaign. His platform is very good for Obama. The article further compared Obama's ratings to the same as Vladamir Putin, saying that his approval rating is exactly the same as Putins.

I related this article to Holihan's "How the News Media shapes Political Campaigns." My first argument is that this article is almost completely one-sided. It tells you all the good things republicans want to do, but then ends with comparing Obama's approval ratings to Putin. Whoever wrote this article is definitely favorable to republicans.  The article states that the "news media shapes the perceptions that are pieced together to form the social reality that motivates the political action" (103). I feel this article is definitely attempting to shape the perception of the reader, proposing that if you are a democrat then this information is reason to change your mind. Media is very powerful in perception but does not always report the full picture. I felt that this information was to benefit the republican candidates, example Scott Brown, as they named him a force in this year's election. The reading stated that those who use the internet for politics will be involved, and this is an important aspect because it shows how useful and powerful a tool that internet is when it comes to shaping perceptions and receiving news.

Jlo sexualizes men

Entertainment Weekly posted an article on March 14 about J.Lo's new video called "I Luh Ya Papi." In the article they praise Lopez for Turing the tables on the classic rap video. The video itself portrays  numerous chiseled men in minimal clothing such as underwear and speedos oiled on dripping with water. The article even asks "sick of all the underdressed ladies that rappers like to have decorating their sets like lawn ornaments?" And boasts that this is what Lopez does in her video.

This reminds me of the medias influence on how we view things. With so much talk about sex and power structure in politics, it seems that women are truly trying to flip that on its head. Women are now pushing forward to bring light to the fact that in so many places there is still large inequality in gender. My question is, are videos like this going to make any difference in the way men and women see the videos they view?

Blog Post 5: U.S. Turns Over Internet Responsibilites To the World

Recently, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration or NTIA, a U.S. Commerce Department agency that manages and oversees a large portion of the internet, claimed that they are transferring their internet management responsibilities and duties to the "global internet community." The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers or ICANN, which is a non-profit organization based in Los Angeles and is under contract with the U.S. Commerce Department is responsible for managing .com and other domain names since 2000. ICANN's contract with the United States will expire or get canned in 2015, which is why the U.S. is deciding to end their overseeing management function, because they CAN, but some U.S. officials and businesses are worried about the idea of letting the United Nations, Russia, or China having control over the internet. Some officials like Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller, yes the descendant of the great John D. Rockefeller himself, supports the idea of the United States transferring oversight responsibilities of the internet to another organization mentioning that it resembles "other efforts the U.S. and our allies are making to promote a free and open internet, and to preserve and advance the current multi-stakeholder model of global internet governance."

I found this event related to the Kevin Michael DeLuna and Jennifer Peeples "From Public Sphere to Public Screen: Democracy, Activism, and the "Violence" of Seattle" reading because according to them through Jurgen Habermas, "the public sphere denotes a social space wherein private citizens gather as a public body with the rights of assembly association, and expression in order to form public opinion" (128). The internet is an area of the public sphere or it is the public sphere because there are several ideas floating around in the free marketplace of ideas for everyone and anyone to see. By turning over oversight responsibilities to the "global internet community," I think that the United States is promoting the idea of ultimate internet freedom and it makes them look like they are not the extreme watchdogs that monitor everyone's online accounts that several people see them as. Also by doing this, it opens up more views and perspectives to the world that may not have been exposed yet, building on the idea of imagery as discourse. I also find this story related to the cause of the World Trade Organization protests themselves because by the U.S. turning over oversight functions of the internet to someone else seems as if some large unannounced corporations are working a scheme in union to monitor the entire global scale, just because ICANN did it means they CAN do it too.