Author: Leah Kulma

The history of Fox News, as presented by Archer, was very enlightening to the current landscape of our news and media platforms. Ailes was one of the masterminds behind Bush’s public strategic response to the Iran-Contra scandal he was dealing with in 1988. He pushed Bush to attack Rather, the reporter, and his work in order to take away the bad attention from himself. Ailes and Bush were incredibly successful in their tactic and ushered in a “new era of hostility towards the press” (p. 4). Following the Bush campaign, Ailes went on to create the Fox News Channel because he saw a gap in the media that was in high demand- “conservative-leaning news” (p. 5). The whole purpose of Fox News was to be partisan and to report on Republican-supported issues.

Journalism, as the fourth estate, is supposed to be unbiased and in pursuit of the truth. Ailes’s media platform for journalism was never based in these same principles. Within these differing foundations lies the problem of the major distrust and criticism society currently has of our news. Before reading this essay, I was unaware that from the beginning the goal was for Fox News to be a primarily Republican sources of information. From an unknowing perspective, it is easy to assume corruption or a carelessness from the journalists at Fox News. But in reality, there creation of headlines and stories closely aligns with their company goals that stemmed from a very successful media run of turning the tables all the way in 1988.

3 Comments

The play Pure Confidence is the story of a black jockey and slave named Simon during the Civil War era. Simon is a famous horse jockey that is owned by two little children through inheritance. In the beginning of the plot, the audience sees Simon trying to convince his employer, the Colonel, buy Simon and in return he will be his jockey and trainer and eventually be able to buy his own freedom. With his immense success in horse racing, Simon racks up a lot of cash and begins to take steps towards buying his freedom. First, he buys his wife from the Colonel’s wife. Then, he buys himself a horse to race and increase his profits even more. But after an increasingly tiring race tour, an accident caused by two white jockeys, and the beginning of the Civil War, Simon’s journey to freedom becomes more complicated than buying himself free. After the war, Simon is technically a free man, but working as a bell hop under a man who used to know him as a slave jockey. He and his wife Caroline eventually are offered the chance to go back to the south with their former slave owner, the Colonel. But they decide to find freedom in the option to finally choose their own future.

In class, we discussed that historical context is crucial to fully understanding the purpose that drives a piece of literature or art. I think this idea is also prevalent in the case of Pure Confidence as it explores race and gender. Now, blacks in America have worked to reclaim the n-word as their own. It was a word that was so widely used to dehumanize slaves and further black oppression by whites. But that word does not belong to the whites that enslaved them, but the black people whose ancestors suffered at their hand. But this play is set pre-Civil War, a time that the n-word was still used by white people. Thus, it is abundantly used by the white actors in the play. Although this could be controversial and justly so, the development of the use of the n-word in the play is a testament to the greater historical context of today. Immediately following the Civil-War, or in the second act of the play, only the racist antagonist still dares to use the n-word. The change almost certainly was not this quick in reality, but obviously the playwright gets to decide how he speeds things up. If you pay attention closely, the plot of the play follows the current 21^st century narrative of blacks reclaiming the n-word for themselves and the shame that should fall upon the white people who ever thought it was in their place to use it.

Leave a Comment

Every time I study the Vietnam War I am left with the same question: how did LBJ and his administration let it get so far? The video shows the continuous escalation of the war through numbers and protests. At first, protesters were peacefully marching and performing sit-ins to fight back against what was supposed to be an “equalizer” draft. Then in August 1967, 50,000 more troops were ordered to fight in Vietnam. This meant that a half a million soldiers were now going to fight in Vietnam. This escalated protests to larger stages: the senate, pulpits, and other governmental or societal platforms. The video says that in this moment LBJ knew the opposition had shifted- it was no longer just on the streets. Yet that following April 44,000 more troops were called. This number was an escalation to more recent drafts that had been happening. So, in the face of an escalating public push back, LBJ and his administration still decided to continue to fully participate in the Vietnam War. Once Nixon took over protests got even worse and culminated in 1.5 million college students involved in protests and famously 4 college students dying on Kent State’s campus. People from across the nation, from all different background came out in that moment to be a voice of protest. This ignorance of the peoples’ protests is a reoccurring theme throughout history. I just don’t understand how presidencies can turn such a blind eye to the results of their actions.

2 Comments

Mae Ngai, an American historian, spoke about refugees in America and the myth that surrounds them. American stance on refugees and immigrants is encircled by a myth like the one that surrounds the founding fathers we talked about in class. The narrative we tell in history classes about the founding fathers is one of humble beginnings and extraordinary success. We do not hear of the slaves they owned, their refusal to grant all humans rights, the lack of flexibility the system has upheld beyond those eight men. A similar narrative reigns true for refugees. Professor Ngai summarized the narrative by the poem on the base of the Statue of Liberty. “The Colossus” poem suggests that a part of American’s foundation is immigrants and that not only would one find liberty in America, but also refuge. That myth defines the surface of our nation’s immigrant and refugee policies, but Professor Ngai went on in her speech to share staggering statistics about refugees in the US and around the world.

First and foremost, she put a crack in the foundation of the founding fathers. The Second Amendment went into the constitution to protect the vast diversity of religions in the new colonies. But in fact, in the beginning, each state still held their own policy and affiliation with a certain religion. The mythical utopia of diverse religions isn’t true. Then, globally the first policies to support refugees stated, and still do, that any person has the right to exit a country but holds no formal right to enter another. That policy is paradoxical. I believe as a result to this foundational declaration, there are 71.44 million “persons of concern” across the world. Most of these people are internally displaced, and refugees and that number does not include the 5 million people currently displaced in and near Pakistan. Only 1% of the world’s refugees are resettled. The rest remain in camps or are temporarily hosted in countries. One refugee camp has now hosted three decades of Somalian refugees. Professor Ngai emphasized that this is not an issue to be discussed country by country, but as the Geneva Convention on Refugees in 1951 states, a problem that is international. Yet, the US is accepting less and less refugees and asylum seekers as the total number of these people rises. The facts break the myth that begins at the base of the Statue of Liberty.

Leave a Comment

Both of these stories teach the same lesson: one must suffer for the good of the rest. I had read The Lottery before, so the ending was not much of a surprise. But this time I took notice to Old Man Walker’s opinion on the lottery tradition. Upon hearing that other towns have abandoned the tradition or changed it slightly, he was disappointed. He even said, “There’s always been a lottery” (pp. 32). This made me think, sure there has always been one, but is it still right? We have talked a lot about voting in class and how the popular vote more and more does not match the electoral college vote in presidential elections. This system has always been in place. But is it failing in modern day politics, so much so that it would be okay to rethink the system?

The tale of Omelas’s theme reminded me more of the trolley effect we have talked about in class. When the town thinks about changing their tradition and releasing the child from the darkness, they believe it would ruin all of the happiness of the city. That “to throw away the happiness of thousands for the chance of happiness of one” wouldn’t make sense. In the case of the trolley problem, it is not common for one to decide to save one life over five because of mere numbers. If thousands are to benefit, it would seem extreme to save one life. But does that still make it alright to lock a child away? 

2 Comments

Two interesting ideas stuck out to me in the two readings from Zinn: resistance and disproportionality. Zinn’s chapters make it clear that resistance in so many ways is/was a daily occurrence in black peoples’ lives. In slavery, Zinn says the “salve resistance” was “expressed in countless ways in daily life and culture” through “music, magic, art, [and] religion” (pg. 179). The way in which slaves came together and formed this culture of “extended kinship” was all to resist the system in which they were forced into (pg. 177). Slaves bonded and held each other up because as a whole they could imagine resisting the system and they could dream of freedom beyond the plantations. Later, in the 1950s and 60s Zinn argues “the memory of oppressed people is one thing that cannot be taken away” (pg. 443). The resistance and anger embedded deeply in black history was “all there in the poetry, the prose, the music, sometimes masked, sometimes unmistakably clear” (pg. 446). Decades after slavery blacks continued to resist the inequality through their daily expression of song and religion and other tactics. Resistance is ingrained in black culture just as much as racism is embedded into American culture.

The theme of disproportionality is repeated by Zinn in his two chapters. In the first chapter he argues that the US system was exploiting not only poor blacks, but poor whites. While being pushed by capitalism, society was willing to entrap both poor blacks and whites into systems of slavery by working for other people that owned their land. The note written into the reading says, “systemic oppression is harmful to everyone (although disproportionately)” (pg. 210). This disproportionality is also shown in the 1950s when the actions of each branch of government are placed side by side. In 1954, the Supreme Court ruled the clause “separate but equal” unconstitutional. However, the executive branch, meant to uphold the laws, allowed 10 years to pass and “more than 75 percent of the school districts in the South” to remain segregated (pg. 450). Systems affect people disproportionally and work together disproportionally. At its core, the theme of disproportionality directly points to causes and effects of racial inequality in American society.

2 Comments

Derek Thompson, a journalist for the Atlantic and the host for the podcast Crazy/Genius, spoke about how advertising companies online succeed in making money and major societal change. He also discussed how ethics online and in journalism can have a more positive impact on the growing negative outcomes of online freedom. Free entertainment companies charge absolutely nothing to their users, yet make billions of dollars more than companies that do charge their users, because they sell their audience to advertising companies. This business model is incredibly profitable, but it has ethical consequences due to the unprecedented fake news, extremism growth, and other unethical internet side effects. Thompson argued that these popular advertisements can occur because fiction outsells nonfiction. An audience is much more keen to pay attention and spend their time on something dramatic or enticing and these types of events are most usually not nonfiction. He believes that without an underlying of ethics, attention gives way to false stories. This alone can undermine journalistic integrity as companies tend to favor making money over not and advertising companies make them their money. This argument brought light to how easily companies allow fake news and other false stories appear to their audience because of their money making processes. Unfortunately, it makes sense that a company that is free of charge that can be so incredibly successful isn’t going to want to put their mode of income in jeopardy. 

Another topic Thompson discussed that I found really interesting was the way online dating has changed society. One major change is that online dating has successfully shown increases in connecting minority populations. People in minority populations are no longer isolated by their surroundings when it comes to meeting a partner. This side of online dating is one I had never considered before and casts a much brighter light onto online dating. This change can be linked to an even more fundamental change online dating has had on how we make important decisions in our lives. Thompson discussed research that shows the internet has almost completely displaced friends and family in the decision making process of, what he called, one of the most important decisions of our lives. This may be good in the sense that it broadens our inner circle and releases us from hometown biases. But, it is fascinating to realize that we no longer rely so much on the people closest to us to find someone to commit to for the rest of our lives. 

Leave a Comment

I honestly didn’t know how to interpret this article until the very last sentence: “‘Tyranny is Tyranny let it come from whom it may’” (p. 75). That chant summarized the article, in my opinion, to be about the irony of American history. The author discusses major events during the late 18^th century leading up to the American Revolution and how class structure and money played a role in the events. Gary Nash’s study of Boston in the 1770s is a prime example of the foreshadowing this time period had for the rest of American history thus far. People in Boston, those who were upper class men but “excluded from the ruling circles close to England,” rallied together to form caucuses that voiced lower-class laborer opinions in the face of the wealth gap and taxation (p. 60). This movement exemplifies American political habits of “the mobilization of lower-class energy by upper-class politicians” (p. 61). Furthermore, the article discusses how land rioters were trying to fight the wage gap as the mere fact of property owning dictated a citizen’s rights. The Boston Massacre itself was underscored by impressment according to the article, meaning they were fighting back against forced recruitment by the British forces (p. 67). These all serve as examples of steps Americans needed to take in a fight against the monarchy, they didn’t want any part in anymore. Yet, four days after the official Declaration of Independence was read by Thomas Crafts, the Boston Committee of Correspondence ordered a mandatory military draft- for the poor men (p. 75). All they had fought for in Boston, through massacres and boycotts, culminated in impressment for the lower-class citizens from the upper-class politicians. How ironic.

2 Comments

Both of the new ideas introduced in the readings, domination/subordination and dissent, echo similar themes we discussed in class regarding groupthink. Miller talks about how in situations of inequality we often “speak in abstractions” which “permits us to accept what we might not admit to on a personal level” (p. 223). This concept reminded me of how we discussed that groupthink creates an environment where the individual suppresses their own opinions in favor of the assumed group opinion. Furthermore, similarly to the invulnerability symptom groupthink has, Miller states that dominants experience a similar false confidence in the fact that “the way things are is right and good” for them and their subordinates (p. 227). These ideas of the oppression of individual opinion and the assumption that the situation is right or good parallel groupthink symptoms and dominate/subordinate relationships that Miller discusses.

Cheney and Lair define dissent “as ‘the rejection of the views most people hold’” (p. 184). As we discussed in class, dissent is a major concept rejected in groupthink. Dissent would mean going against the group and thus is highly unpopular as we saw in the case of the Bay of Pugs and the Cuban Missile Crisis. Towards the end of the essay, the authors state that “as long as the glamor of [war] is sufficiently represented in popular culture… it is difficult to mount credible opposition” (p. 198). Because society accepts war and its consequences, it is hard to oppose it publicly. Dissent in the case of the Iraqi or Vietnam war and other global situations with negative outcomes, in my opinion, is like groupthink on a societal level.

Leave a Comment

Transformational leadership is defined by James Burns as occurring when “one or more persons engage with others in such a way that leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality” (Burns, 1978, p. 101). This type of leadership requires a mutual bond between the leader and the follower. Unlike transactional leadership, the benefits to the relationship must be mutual. I find it really interesting that research into transformational leadership tends to find that women are more effective in transformational leadership than men (Bass, 1999, p. 17). However, Bass then went on to point out that women might not necessarily be better transformational leaders naturally, but that by societal standards they are forced “to be that much better” in comparison to male leaders “to attain the same positions” as them (Bass, 1999, p. 17).

These observations remind me of the different expectations of leaders based on genders and races in our society that we have discussed in class. A white woman that is assertive and hard-working will more likely be called bossy and a workaholic, whereas a white man that is assertive and hard-working is simply admired. Women have to work harder to overcome the negative evaluations of their work than men do. In that process, I think it is incredibly plausible that women would also appear to be better transformational leaders because of the effort they must put into their work to surpass societal barriers. In order to break down sexist boundaries, a woman has to put in more effort and thus ultimately making her a stronger leader in the exact same position as a man.

1 Comment

While reading about charisma, all I kept thinking about was whether or not I know someone who matches the numerous definitions. The common themes of “the charismatic individual’s ability to attract attention, to communicate effectively, and to affect followers at an emotional level” seem to create a picture that is some how very explicit, yet elusive (Riggio 3). Charisma, without a clear definition, has a connotation of unattainability for the average person in my mind. To have enthusiasm and to be self-confident and responsive to others, amongst the other characteristics common to charismatic individuals, alone as qualities is not rare. But, for one to possess each trait in a combination that results in someone being attractive, in more ways than one, to large groups of people seems to call for the stars to align perfectly. And beyond simply being charismatic, to be a charismatic leader calls for even more situational aspects to unfold perfectly to develop.

The ideas of elusiveness surrounding charismatic leadership echoed many of the ideas surrounding the Great Person Theory, specifically the nature versus nurture argument. Within the Great Man Theory, I highly agree that a leader is made in part due to their situation. For example, the text by David Cawthon points to Martin Luther King and what his career would have turned out to be without the Civil Rights Movement. Would he have “remained an obscure minister in the South” (Cawthon)? This similarly themed question could be asked on the topic of charismatic leaders as well. Without an interaction between the followers and the charismatic leader, would all charismatic characteristics emerge? Riggio suggests that the answer to this question would be “no”, as he references twin studies by Richard Arvey that suggest leadership in general is “2/3 ‘made’ and 1/3 ‘born’” and points to a project performed by the University of California that effectively taught people to increase their natural charisma. Certainly, people are born with at least a few of the seven main characteristics associated with charisma. However, it seems clear to me that it would be easy to fake other unnatural traits in the public eye when no one can truly know the full story behind another individual. As we said in class, Barack Obama appears to be an incredibly eloquent speaker, but he could be puking back stage before and after the speech for all we know. Charisma, by lack of definition, has left me to still wonder if I have ever personally met an individual with such a power “divine gift of grace” (Cawthon).

 

4 Comments

Leader: Abraham Lincoln

Role Model: Alex Morgan

Hero: Paul Rusesabagina

Leave a Comment