Month: November 2019

Both of the readings focused on redefining leadership, or citizenship to better engage our current society. In McFarland’s piece on redefining leadership, there were several shifts in how leaders should be. It moved away from the traditional top-down style and more towards a collaborative, holistic, humanistic style of leadership that is prepared for constant change. This reading reminded me of the women’s leadership reading and the followership piece, because it called for recognition of leadership within the traditional follower group as well as calling for a more interactive leadership style.

I think the most important part of Williamson’s piece was when he stated that the foundation for democratic citizenry is “shared commitment to one another, our shared commitment to the common project of building an inclusive democratic society, and a shared willingness to take the concrete steps needed to bring that ideal into reality” (Williamson 20). This was similar to McFarland’s call for leadership, because Williamson wants us to all engage collaboratively and interactively together to make our democracy thrive. Hopefully, if leadership does shift towards the newer definition, Williamson’s vision of a more democratic United States will come to life.

Both of these readings focused on one thing: the need for change in the ways we think about and practice leadership. I was particularly drawn to Williamson’s essay, specifically when he states that in order to make our democratic framework more inclusive and applicable to our country today “we need to recover the democratic promise of our past, in all its complexity and tragedy. This means engaging with it, not running away from it” (8). Particularly in our most recent history, the failures of democracy make it very tempting to reject our framework and want to start over. However, as Williamson notes, this would be a disservice to our country.

Simply ignoring the history of our country means ignoring not only its failings but the principles it was built upon. While execution was certainly less than perfect, the ideas at the heart of the declaration and foundation of the nation are ones that are still applicable today. And by looking at our history through a critical lens we can the mistakes we’ve made and make efforts to learn from them and fix them. Forgetting the past does us no favors – we must face it, admit our wrongdoings, and improve going forward. As Williamson notes, “democracy is not a form of government that guarantees justice” (7). We must consistently work at improving our framework and molding it to fit our ever-changing modern society.

I really enjoyed reading “Redefining Leadership in the Next Century” because it was applicable to my generation’s future endeavors to become leaders; it is worth noting that in a corporate organization, leading now is much different than 30 years ago, and the definition of leading “successfully” is constantly changing. The Jepson School of Leadership Studies mission statement aims to educate students to “look at leadership as it was, as it is, and as it should be”– this article emphasizes the “should be” for the future of leadership. McFarland, Senn, and Childress address the changes happening in different leadership contexts and the world, and how we must adjust our mindsets to meet these differences. I was most intrigued by the leader’s growing need to embrace all different types of qualities and differences; this reminded me of the growing controversy over Trait Theory. Many scholars say trait theory is ineffectual and unrealistic for studying the effectiveness of leaders due to its failure to take into account situational and environmental factors. I was impressed by the authors’ inclusion of becoming a holistic leader because it helps break down the idea that there is one type of successful leader: “the successful leaders of the 21st Century will in fact have to approach their lives and their organizations from a much more holistic standpoint, embracing within themselves a broad range of qualities, skills, and behaviors,” (McFarland, Senn, and Childress, 462). In applying this holistic view to themselves, leaders and figures of authority in corporate organizations can better accept differences in their followers and employees.

Anna Marston

Reading this article furthered my understanding of the media and the power and influence it can have. Throughout Trump’s presidency, it was especially evident the role that certain media sources played in gained either support or disliking towards the presidency. It was during this time that the role of social media became more evident and had more impact on people’s viewpoints than it ever did before. Archer mentions fake news as something that has been on the rise but it is hard to critique or defend. This is understandable because it can be difficult to show news and relay information without including biases. Although we tend to simply ask for facts in order to make our own interpretations because the information revolves around other people they are bound to be filled with biases. Because of this, the media can be dangerous but it is evidently essential in revealing information which sometimes the officials themselves will not say. This, again, is relevant to Trump and the impeachment accusations which are taking place today. Without the use of the media, it would be difficult to gather multiple perspectives.

The unfortunate reality of this new emergence of tension between journalists/media outlets and political candidates/ officials. IT has become a back and forth of who wants to embarrass or expose the other the most. This, in my opinion, takes the factual information out of the news because it becomes more about an individual’s personality and their vendetta against another person or source instead of facts.

“Fake news” has become a colloquial saying at this point, coined by Trump. It’s kind of a meme, it’s a little funny, but after reading Archer’s essay… it’s disconcerting. Taking a step back and looking at the scope of American history, it’s a bit phenomenal how much the press has been vilified. Freedom of speech and freedom of press are sewn into our constitution, as they have been for ages and yet… here we are.

The media being biased isn’t news (pun intended). There’s nothing recent about that. We’ve learned that anything written/said/recorded by a person… is biased. Covering one thing and not another… that’s bias, whether it’s intended or not. I don’t think such a thing as unbiased news can exist. But… the bias can be dialed back for sure. However, the media is a business… so they have to be exciting, inflammatory, shocking, and the like. It’s a dilemma that Archer shows as being exploited by politicians to distract from their own shortcomings.

Archer brings up Nixon, Bush 1, Bush 2, Clinton, Obama, and other presidents, showing an escalation in this politician vs media war. This escalation has reached a peak now, and I wonder if it will keep climbing (probably). This awareness, or as Archer says it, the way I’ve been primed to view the media makes it hard for me to believe anything I see on the news. I’m constantly wondering what’s not being said, what was actually said, if anything that I’m reading is true or not… It really turns me off from the news entirely. Because to understand one thing, you have to read from so many angles that it becomes an amalgamation of mismatches… or you can just take what you get from a single source and risk missing a pretty key detail.

Rather than declaring a war on the media… shouldn’t there be just a mutual understanding? I think the Machiavellian way to handle the media would just be to… do the things you say you’ll do. There might just be less for the media to attack that way. Easier said than done, I know.

**Fun fact: I had Archer for LDST 102!

The play that I chose to see was “Pure Confidence”. This play consisted of a married couple with 2 slave owners in which they both have their own slave. The male slave owner would chose to bet on race horsing. His slave was a jockey and wanted nothing more than to become free. Another slave owner was also very competitive in horse racing and bought out the original slave owners slave and he won the race against his slave master and bought himself free. This is relevant to the leadership class because in my opinion, all of the class has been on how basically all of our source of media and leadership is not fair by any means. The fact that history has been racist and not fair goes back to a point that was earlier made in the course that everyone is going to always have an upper hand on everything. This is why bias has such a large impact on news. 

A couple weeks ago I went to the Institute for Contemporary Art to see their newest exhibit, Great Force. I knew the exhibit was going to be about race but I was surprised by the different perspectives the exhibit consisted of. Most art exhibits about race talk about black and brown people but this exhibit discussed whiteness a lot. It discussed the problems white people have with their whiteness and how it affects the world. At the beginning of the exhibit there was a quote from James Baldwin that said “History, as nearly no one seems to know, is not merely something to be read. And it does not refer merely, or even principally, to the past. On the contrary, the great force of history comes from the fact that we carry it within us, are unconsciously controlled by it in many ways, and history is literally present in all that we do.” from The White Man’s Guilt. Another thing that interested me was a picture that was pitch black with tiny earth on it called “rearview mirror”. It is supposed to represent the constant fear black people live in while driving and the Earth is supposed to represent the otherworldliness black people feel in America. The exhibit as a whole was super interesting and is open until January for anyone who wants to visit.

Towards the beginning of the semester, I was walking through the Modlin center when I stumbled across the Annual Student Exhibition. There were a lot of beautiful things in there but one piece stood out to me the most. When I walked into the exhibit I realized that there was a video playing to my right. The first time I watched it, I watched it from the middle of the video to the end without sound. I noticed that the screen was split in the middle and it played clips from old videos on both sides. The second time I watched it, I watched it all the way through with the headphones that were attached to the tv. The headphones played the audio that went with the various different clips. Before the video started it said that it was following a boy and a girl comparing what young kids are taught about sex depending on their gender. I found it very interesting and watch this eight-minute video about four different times because I could not tell who was who. I wasn’t sure which side of the screen was supposed to be a boy and which was supposed to be a girl and I wonder if that was because I did not understand or if that was the point.

Joshua Kaplan gave a great presentation on the current state of the electoral college as well as some proposed alternatives and their effects on future elections. The way he presented his own opinion on the electoral college was actually quite comical but very effective. He said that if the constitution were to have gone missing and a new one had to be written, he doesn’t believe that anyone in their right mind would come up with a proposal such as the electoral college, especially when considering the possibility of what is often referred to as “the faithless elector”. Interesting enough; however, electors have only voted against their states candidate 167 times, which is not that much considering the 538 every single election.

There were 4 total presidential election change proposals that Kaplan presented, two of which just modified how the current electoral college system works and two that were basically versions of the national popular vote. Given the results of the past election, currently, democrats tend to be in favor of the removal of the electoral college and republicans tend to be in favor of the current system. One of the Democrats’ main arguments is that rural states have more say per person than those in states such as California or New York. So, Kaplan presented the results of the previous election if every person were represented in their state equally and the results were shocking; it would have been essentially the same. Trump would have lost 3 electoral college votes which is negligible due to the substantial amount that he won by. Kaplan also discussed a version of the popular vote that would have, in fact, caused Trump to lose, but unexpectedly, using that specific system, Mitt Romney would have actually won in 2012.

When it comes down to it, there is no perfect way to run presidential elections, because all of the proposals have flaws. History has also shown that people don’t really have an opinion on the electoral college until it negatively affects them. If Trump were to win the popular vote but lose the electoral college in 2020 it is extremely probable that partisan stances on the issue would flip. This doesn’t surprise me at all honestly, politics have always been about convenience, and I’m not sure that will ever change, unfortunately.

I recently watched the Sean Theriault lecture and it was extremely interesting, to say the least. I really enjoyed some of the data that he presented, a lot of it was very insightful in understanding the current state of the senate. He clearly demonstrated a very strong understanding of what he was talking about and was well informed to answer questions very thoroughly.

A very clear polarization in our national government is occurring. The current Congress is on track to be one of the least productive in history, which isn’t at all surprising. What did surprise me was that the people most willing to compromise on either side of the “aisle” weren’t necessarily the most moderate ones, rather a mix of moderates and those with very strong political ideologies. I think that this actually says a lot about the people that need to be voted into office. When people are looking for candidates that will get things done, willingness to work with others as a trait is much more valuable than being more moderate.

One of the aspects that gave me hope is when he talked about some of the great bipartisan relationships that have been made over the years. I think that if there were more strong relationships between leaders that disagree, congress would be so much better off. Walking out of the capitol building every day with arms over each other’s shoulders is a great reminder that they are all working with the same goal in mind, the betterment of the U.S. At the end of the day, a lot of important things count on the production of the US congress and without their success as a body, it will be hard for any change to ever come about.

The reading did a good job of explaining the influence public figures, like politicians, have on society’s perception of the media. It appears very problematic the rhetoric that is used by politicians on both sides of the political spectrum because it has an apparent affect on their constituents.  In fact, “…two separate studies, finds that elite attacks on the press powerfully shape perceptions of news bias even if the news itself is unbiased.” (page 17).  The influence from prominent figures, like Trump and Clinton, is real and scary because it can unfairly create bias in well-informed citizens.

A 2009 experimental study shows the existing bias that is existing in our society due to extreme partisan.  The experiment used the same content, but changed the logo to different news sources. The result of the experiment found that, “…Republicans prefer stories with a Fox label (regardless of content) and seem to avoid those with a CNN or NPR label. Democrats are equally likely to avoid Fox stories and instead prefer CNN- or NPR-labeled stories. Thus, partisans evaluated the same content differently depending on the partisan nature of the news source with which it was affiliated. This result aligns with more general findings of selective exposure and motivated reasoning among individuals, in which individuals seek out and avoid information that is friendly or unfriendly, respectively, to their preexisting beliefs.” (page 16).  The affect that partisanship, promoted by politicians, can have on the population is clear and concerning. What is more interesting while there has always been inherit bias among party lines, the delegitimization against the media is a more recent phenomena.  The creation of Fox news and Nixon’s attack on the press set the precedent for the divisions that have created some of the toxic ideologies that political parties have against the news outlets that are supposedly linked to other parties.

My grandfather’s thing was the news. He watched Fox pretty much all day long. I never really understood it because I would sit there and watch with him sometimes and the same story would pop up over and over again. “Breaking News” would tick across the screen but no real new information would follow. I think because of this, and articles like “Attacking the Fourth Estate” that I am much more cognizant about where I get my news. Love my grandpa, and where and how he got his news definitely had something to do with how he was raised and generational differences but he probably could have benefitted from a few days of watching MSNBC or maybe taking a break from the whole TV thing.

Something I think this article does a really good job of is stressing the fact that distrust in the media and “fake news” as a political campaign platform did not start with Trump and distrust between elected officials and the journalists questioning their every move is natural. In a world where news is instant and sometimes even reporting before things actually happen, the economic competition of news outlets is more intense than ever and will probably continue to intensify. Personally, this makes me not want to watch the news at all. I think there is a difference between watching and reading the news. I like to think I am up to date on what is happening but I also put a lot more effort into finding multiple sources that cover certain events and combine sources to find out the actual truth. What is tricky is that the kind of news you watch is easier to fit into your day than reading many many articles. Convenience is key and I think people choose convenience to get half the story instead of choosing to put in the effort to get the whole story. I think the articles suggestions to research how attacking the press affects how citizens seeking information and how it affected their beliefs about government regulation of news outlets especially in this next election.

Recently, my dad came to visit, and us being from Chicago, we wanted to learn more about Richmond and its history. We went to this museum and went to all of the exhibits. I learned a lot of cool stuff and I think that a class just about Richmond history would be really cool to have here at UR.

One thing I found particularly interesting was the split of the Virginias. I knew that there were two, but I didn’t know that it happened that recently, in the beginning of the Civil War; when the northern part didn’t want to secede, they split and formed West Virginia, while the other part wanted to secede, so they stayed and made it the capital of the Confederacy. Another interesting, yet disappointing, fact I learned was that Virginia rejected the women’s right to vote in 1919, which angered a lot of progressives during the time (they didn’t know that 1920 legislature for women to vote was going to occur, so they were angered and saddened at this).

Another exhibit I particularly enjoyed was the one room full of paintings from the Civil War, slave trade, and historically racially segregated times. The paintings were just elegant and the people they were portrayed were all types of people. They had people who were enslaved and working in the fields, slaves coming off the boats from their homelands, white people on horseback with guns, and so many others. One that got me was a painting, maybe the smallest in the room and in the far corner, was of an African-American man standing solo right in front of a boat. He obviously looked distraught and lost, but his eyes also faintly showed hope – in my opinion, maybe that he would find his family or friends that he had lost in the chaos of being captured and being brought here.

I recommend this museum to everyone because it’s so informative and also just really cool in its exhibits and how its really pushing for equality and for everyone to be aware of history and how brutal/mean it was to certain groups of people.

After reading this chapter about “Attacking the Fourth Estate” I found that media and what they have to say means a lot in elections. The fourth estate is really important because it often influences the people and it can create conversation along with arguments. Media also spins stories and it can lead to different things coming out of different sources which can lead to polarization. Polarization is very apparent in our country right now and having a bias in media outlets certainly does not help. It is clear that the media plays a role that isn’t even that controlled by the government even with its ability to influence so much.

When Archer says “In the middle of the twentieth century, Republicans and Democrats alike viewed the news media as an institution that was fair and worthy of the public’s trust.” I was shocked because as a young teenager, I’ve only experienced the times of polarization and it’s crazy to me to see just how much has changed if this is really true.

Allison Archer provides some interesting insight into the relationship between the media and politicians. She opens her article by using a quote from Donald Trump discussing how the press is “The enemy of the American People.” I find this relationship between politicians and media fascinating and at the same time confusing. In addition, I find President Trump’s remark about how the media is the enemy of the American people humorous because the only reason why he is saying this is due to CNN what he calls fake news. What I believe he means in saying this is the media that disagrees with and opposses his view points is the enemy. The reason why I believe the relationship between media and politicians is one of hate because the media challenges and dissects each politicians view points, political stance, and so on. The media essentially calls into question whether this specific politician is capable of being a strong political figure. 

However, on the other side especially in today’s world these conservative news channels such as FOX support Trump’s ideals, view points, as well as policies. Which is an example of a positive relationship between political figures and media. The reason why there is such hatred or a perceived hatred between the two because we only pay attention to the differing side. The saying is the bad outweighs the good and in this sense of the matter it holds true. We tend to pay attention to the news stories that contradict and call into question the policies of these political figures and see the bickering between the two political parties. We do not see the sides of the media that support that politician’s views because controversy is more interesting than agreement so we pay more attention to those news stories/media coverages.

Allison Archer covers an interesting relationship between the media and politicians. This relationship has always been interesting to me. It is as if the media sometimes plays the devil’s advocate. They push and poke at politicians to make quick decisions. This many times results in a frustrated politician. However, after reading this article I began to realize that the media is essential.

In the United Sates today politics are very polarized. Although the media contributes to this, the information is more important. The media having a love/hate relationship with politicians is essential to the people of the US. If it were not for the media, we would not be able to say…determine who the best candidate is for a position. The aggressive media can sometimes be the best as it forces politicians to think.

I think that Archer’s ideas in Attacking the Fourth Estate were very interesting. His usage of politicians’ involvement and disdain towards media was interesting to see along with the data from Donald Trump’s tweets. I do not believe that press is the enemy of the public, however, it does play a role in antagonizing a certain politician through their word usage and biases.

Although bias is inevitable, anything written by a human will have some sort of bias (whether intentional or not), it is more important that the audience is able to understand when it is happening, and pull apart biases from facts. As Archer stated, this bias will be amplified especially if the view is of an opposite party than the news is presenting. Looking at and understanding varieties of news sources can decrease someone from only looking at a source that is framed toward one party.

Earlier this month I had the amazing opportunity to attend the Legacies of Emancipation Event at the Virginia Museum of History and Culture Christy Coleman. Initially I expected the event to talk primarily about the legacies of emancipation, obviously, but I was amazed at the fluidity of conversation between Tanehisi Coates, a world renowned author, and Manisha Sinha, a lesser known but no-less credible historian from the University of Connecticut. Both guests talked at length about the myths surrounding the emancipation proclamation and how slavery never officially ended but instead morphed from a de jure to de facto practice and not just in the “Deep South”. After 30 minute or so of the panelists talking about their respective work, the moderator Chirsty Coleman (who contributed her own inspiring opinions and experiences as CEO of the American Civil War Museum) opened the floor to questions from the audience. A few of my SSIR classmates raced to the aisles to ask questions but I decided to sit and listen. I will never forget the question one woman asked. She began the question with a statement she had seen on some social media platform that said ‘slavery is better than what is happening in our country today’. The crowd gasped almost simultaneously and Tanehisi Coates sat there shaking his head for a good tow minutes. At first I was surprised and kind of disturbed that someone said that but at the same time I began to think things I have learned about in both my SSIR and LDST 101 that point out lots and lots and lots of things that are wrong with our country. The overall consensus from the panelists was that there is still a lot to do in terms of the legacies of emancipation and the remaining de facto institutionalized racism and the writing of history, but to say life for African Americans in 2019 is worse than life in the 1800’s is a massive claim. I think it is easy to go down a rabbit hole of finding things wrong with our country, especially with media exponentially infiltrating our lives more and more, but it is also important to reflect on all the progress and amazing people that have devoted their lives to making our country and our world a better place.

For one of my three events I chose to attend the social movement brown bag discussion this past Friday. Although I attended this event with the intention to learn more for my sociology class, I quickly able to turn apply what I was learning to the themes and lessons we have learned in LDST 101. The panel for the discussion included representatives from Virginia Organizing, Art 180 and Defenders for Peace, Justice and Equality. Students from a sociology class here at UR asked questions to the panelists. One question that I felt could be directly related to leadership was a question about how does each organization define success and how does each organization plan to grow in the near future. The responses across panelists were not the typical answers I would have assumed (not that these panelists were any typical individuals at all). I found it very interesting that even with very similar end goals (promote social diversity and equality in Richmond and the greater Virginia commonwealth), each organization had very different approaches to reach this goal. This reminds me of the articles we read about how women would lead differently and how the question we should be asking is ‘who are the appropriate leaders for specific positions or movements in order for them to be effective”. Obviously not all social movement organizations can have the same leaders; that would be impossible. I think one thing that makes social movements so challenging to work in and for is that they require a special kind of charismatic, ultra-determined, self-less individual to lead them. These characteristics can take different forms, but I think this event definitely made me see and appreciate the diversity of leadership while learning about important people and their work in a city and institution that effects me directly.