Cost of increasing jobs

Recently the media has been filled with stories of president Obama’s trip over to Asia. The trips purpose is to bring back jobs from overseas. Some people in the media interpreted this as meaning that America wanted its telemarketing jobs from India back. That was not the point though. The point was to get other countries interested in American made products. For example, Obama and the leader of India made a pact that India would buy new plans from America. The figures the white house gave said that this alone should employ 20,000 American workers. This seems like a slightly inflated number, but the real inflated numbers have come from the cost of the trip. One media outlet is quoted as saying the trip would cost “$200 million a day, $2 billion total, 34 diverted Navy ships, a 2,000-person presidential entourage, and 870 hotel rooms in India.”
These numbers are so over inflated the white house has actually had to come out and tell the media what they really are spending. They have said that, no, they are not sending a 5th of the navy abroad with the president, no they did not hire 1000 security officials, and no they did not rent out the taj mahol, which, contrary to popular belief, is not a hotel. This just goes to show that all you need is one little off the wall news report to end a carrier. Something like this could ruin a person if they don’t use effective spin control

everything wrong with the media

Recently everyone has heard about the comedy central “rally to restore sanity/ march to restore fear” put on by Steven Colbert and john Stewart. This was the talk of everyone everywhere. All the other news station were trying to guess what the rally would hold.
Would it be political?
What would the goals be?
Would it have a point, or was it just to make fun (most likely at glen beck)?
Well it finally happened and it turned out to not be the earth shattering moment in history some people were hopeing it would be. It had its up moments and it had its down (the part with the myth busters was the worst from what this article below reads). At the end of the rally though john Stewart made the comment that “no matter what happened today it will either be remembered as an amazing success, or an epic failure.” That quote right there sums up everything that is wrong with the media. everything has to be an extreme. No one wants to hear the story of an average rally, or a senator who just did am alright job. We want entertainment, scandal, disaster, and devastation. That’s what sells. And its because of this that the rally can’t just be ok. It has to be something that is earth shattering amazing, or destroys the country.
Why is it that we cant have average? Why cant we hear stories what aren’t over embellished to the point of ridiculousness. If we could achieve this it would fix every problem we have talked about in the media all semester.

mass media and the end of the world

There has been a lot of talk over the last year or two about the end of the work as predicted by the Mayan calendar in 2012 and of course this means the media has picked up on it. It’s a good story. Violence always sells, so what could be better than enough violence and destruction to kill everyone on earth. Ive seen shows on the discovery channel, im watching a show on the history channel right now called “seven signs of the apocalypse” in which they try to convince the view that all the events we see today are signs of the end times.
One bit of evidence they try and use is that we are witnessing more and more natural disasters than ever before, but are we really? Are we victims to more earth quakes than ever before, or does it just seem that way because we hear about every single one now. 100 years ago you could probably go your entire life without ever hearing about an earth quake in china, now though you hear if there’s a car accident in china. By the mass media showing us more and more of the bad that happens every day, it seems like there is more.
The mass media loves to show the bad. The worse something is the more entertaining it is. Some media is promoted just by the idea that it is hard to watch. (for example no one wants to see the movie human centipede for the great plot, the whole reason is because its suppose to be the most disgusting movie ever). This is why the media talks about 2012 so much, but in reality the mayan calendar was never suppose to end the world, its actually suppose to be a great thing. a rebirth of the world. The media doesn’t say that though.

Manufactured consent vs. just plain crazy?

The other day in class we talked about the idea of manufactured consent, the idea that if you continually show something to people in a positive light they will eventually except it. this idea isn’t just pulled from thin air though, its real. One such study that has been done on the case is teen desensitization to violence through games and violent tv programs
“Summarizing his findings, Dr Jordan Grafman, of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke in Bethesda, US, said: “Exposure to the most violent videos inhibits emotional reactions to similar aggressive videos over time and implies that normal adolescents will feel fewer emotions over time as they are exposed to similar videos.”
He added: “Continued exposure to violent videos will make an adolescent less sensitive to violence, more accepting of violence, and more likely to commit aggressive acts since the emotional component associated with aggression is reduced and normally acts as a brake on aggressive behavior.”
He said: “I don’t think anybody would deny that people do become desensitized to violence. But the real issue is whether that in and of itself causes negative consequences.”


What other things have the media used to manufacture our consent beside violence though. well depending on who you watch for news; CNN makes you thing that republicans are evil, and fox makes you think democrats are stupid.
Some people feel it goes deeper than this though. all the way down to music videos as a form of advancing a secret world domination take over. One such article I found like this dissects the lady gaga music video Alejandra, and describes how it promotes the sexiness behind being controlled by a police state Nazi like government.

http://vigilantcitizen.com/?p=3979


There is no question that the media influences us without us knowing it some times, but to what extent and reason?

Could deceiving the media win a war?

A basic principle of war is, whoever has the bigger army has a better chance to win. So in some instances just showing your opponent that your forces easily out number there’s can result in a surrender before one shot is even fired. Apparently that is the thinking of the Russians. Building up a massive army and sustaining it is extremely expensive though. so how can a country build up a massive intimidating army and not go bankrupt? Easy. Balloons!!!!
That’s right balloons. But these aren’t your average everyday 4 year old birthday party balloons. No these are life sized, realistic looking, inflatable balloons coated in a special chemical to make them appear is a regular tank on radar and heat sensing devices. Why would they do this though?
Well at first it sounds like they want to trick their enemies into thinking they are much more powerful than they are, resulting in the surrender of those they challenge. No one would ever look to the horizon, see 200 Russian tanks and think they could take that army down with a sharp pointed pencil, except that the Russians told everyone! If thet were trying to trick people into thinking their fake armies were real, why would they tell people their secret plan?
….. Unless they wanted everyone to know they had these balloons. Then if they actually had an unbelievable large army, no one would believe it was real…. Until they were right on top of them and it was too late to do anything about it. by leaking this new weapon to the media no army will actually be 100% sure if they are charging into a battle, or if its just a bunch of balloons.

wire tapes: protection vs. privacy

wire tapes


Dear ACLU Supporter,

The Obama administration and law enforcement officials are seeking greater power to invade your privacy.

Sign the ACLU's petition to Attorney General Holder: Rein in FBI surveillance power.


Did you hear about this? The Obama administration is seeking to expand the government's ability to conduct invasive surveillance online.1

This outrageous proposal would mandate that all online communications services use technologies that would make it easier for the government to collect private communications and decode encrypted messages that Americans send. This includes communications sent using texting platforms, BlackBerries, social networking sites, and other "peer to peer" communications software such as Skype.

While the country tends to other issues, the administration and law enforcement officials are seeking greater power to invade your privacy. We must take a stand against this proposal before it even makes its way to Congress.

Sign the ACLU's petition to Attorney General Holder: Rein in FBI surveillance power.


Former president George w. bush is one of the first people that comes to my mine when I think about the patriot act. The news is always beating this fact into our heads, but recently the Obama administration has started trying to expand the government’s ability to wire tape. If Obama gets his wish not only will the government be able to hear our phone calls, but will also be able to read our text messages. Of course the strategy for passing this law is the same as most that come about these days; defense against terrorists. Its hard for anyone to go against this type of idea. No one, save for the people the government might be watching, doesn’t want defense against terrorist, however though, few people want a unknown 3rd party to read their personal info. Where can we draw the line though?
The truth of the matter is the government does not have the man power or the money to read everyone’s texts so 99% of us might go our entire lives without ever having one government official read our texts ever. The only people that have anything to worry about are people with things to hide. Saying that though, who doesn’t have something to hide? And on top of that, how will this work constitutionally? Will having your texts read out loud be a violation of the self incrimination protection set out in the 5th amendment? Im sure if it passes that will be a challenge to it. maybe with the help of the ACLU though it might never get through. Or maybe it needs to get through. Only time will tell.

glen beck vs. comedy central

the rally to restore sanity/ march to keep fear alive hasn't event begun yet and it already promises to be bigger than there rival, glen beck's, previous rally, depending on who you look at. some statistics say over half a million people were at glee becks rally, but it seems it was more closely around 85,000. the rallies put on by Colbert and Stewart already have 125,000 people saying they are planning on going on facebook. from seeing a clip from the glen beck show the other day though its clear that he is not happy about this. glen becks gone as far as to say that the Colbert report is somehow using this rally as some type of activation process for the mind control that the daily show and colbert report have been pumping out for the past 5 years. this idea is crazy though, and i think glens just a little jealous people would rather go to a comedy like fun event than a fo-civil rights movement whatever thing he tried to do.