Category: Uncategorized

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.

The relationship between the media and politicians has always been interesting to me. I always wondered if the politicians actually pay attention to the press and it is clear that they do. Archer says that the tension between the two parties goes back to President George Washington when he thought he was being bashed by the press. It is easy to see how the press talking badly about you would cause aggravation, but I it is just part of the job. Professional athletes get talked about badly in media all of the time and most of the time most of them are able to move on from it because they know that it is what comes with the job.

I liked how Archer talked about Trump’s twitter. I find it fascinating how technology has changed the way that people are able to view news. In his findings, Archer found that Trump used twitter a lot to talk about the press and news. Most of the time, he is talking about how they are falsely reporting and “fake news.” Archer also mentions how this could be a tactic for politicians in general because it excites their followers and makes them listen to their leader more.

I am always annoyed about the way that CNN and Fox cover news. I think that there should be no biased when reporting news because their sole job is to give the public information on what is happening. Not only is their biased, but sometimes Fox won’t even report a big news event that is liberal and vice versa for CNN.

I have always found the relationship between the media and the white house very interesting. It is completely understandable how the white house could get very frustrated with a group of individuals who are monitoring their every move and criticizing every mistake made. I also believe that the importance of an accountable media is underestimated. They are the sole connection between politicians and the people that they govern and one of the only institutions that keep politicians in check.

In the reading, it discussed how many presidents and presidential candidates throughout recent history have believed that the media has been against them. This includes candidates from both sides of the political spectrum from Hillary Clinton to George Bush and Bernie Sanders. This notion made me realize that the media, as a whole, is not really for anyone because that isn’t their job. The media is responsible for calling out faults more than it is responsible for giving praise. I think its particularly easy to call out the media for being biased, though I don’t believe its accurate. Because there are two sides to the current media, with some channels being conservative and some being liberal, the news is not really consistent anymore which makes it hard for the people to decipher what is really going on within the government.

That being said, media also has to be held accountable for being accurate. Not often to media channels go out of their way to make any corrections on mistakes that they have made, which I think is a major problem within media. I also think people have to reconsider what actually is news. When people begin to take sources such as Breitbart and Huffington Post for news, that’s when problems arise and people’s idea of what is actually occurring becomes skewed. In other words, when people start listening to what they want to hear.

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.

The C.C.E. brought in 4 non-profit firms from around richmond. the firms’ representatives proceeded to talk about how and why you should not volunteer your time. kinda seem counterproductive doesn’t it? but the reasonings they gave though were very compelling arguments. The first reasoning was privacy of those being served, all to often do those volunteering forget that they are there to help others not help their public image by bolstering their instagram page. Another reason they put as “don’t be a Savior Barbie.” Expanding on this concept the representatives don’t want people who volunteer again to make themselves feel good, or again bolster their image. this is seen through who go to other places, Africa is stereotypical, to “save” those less fortunate than them. but as the representatives said, you need to think about the long term impact of your visit and how you affect the community not just while you are there. they said that your goal as a volunteer should be to make an impact to where the group no longer needs people to come in and help.

When thought about I completely agree with the representatives. the motives of a volunteer should matter. a person should never help someone to help themselves. it kinda completely defeats the whole point of helping people.

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.

I attended Pure Confidence on Wednesday November 20th. I thought it was an extremely well done play. It started right before the Civil War, skipped through the war, and ended about fifteen years after it when slaves were free. It was about a very talented jockey named Simon. Through a deal with the auctioneer, a man named Colonel Wiley was able to consistently buy Simon for a very cheap price of $14. Simon would ride Wiley’s horse, Pure Confidence, in races and consistently win. Simon wants Wiley to buy his freedom, but the Colonel refuses. This causes them to have a fight and Simon races for Wiley’s race rival, George Dewitt. Simon buys Wiley’s wife’s slave, Caroline, because he likes her and they get married. By racing his own horse and Pure Confidence, Simon is able to raise enough money to buy his own freedom. In the second act, just about fifteen years after the war, Simon is working as a bell hop at a hotel and is still married to Caroline. Wiley and his wife, Mattie, appear at the hotel and the four of them are able to talk and the Colonel apologizes to Simon for mistreating him.

I thought that this play was very good. The actors at Richmond so far have exceeded my expectations. I really did not know where to put my expectations because I did not know how serious college theatre programs were or even how good Richmond’s was. That being said, they have been remarkably good. The only thing about the play that I did not like was that the stage was in the middle and the audience was on two sides facing each other. I thought it was kind of distracting and I have never seen anything like that before. Overall though, I would highly recommend seeing this play given any extra time this weekend.

I think it was really interesting to learn about the Sedation Acts if 1798 because it is extremely surprising to me that John Adams was able to establish laws that completely eliminated the freedom of the press. This only proved the extent to which presidents are willing to go as a mean of attacking the fourth estate. Another instance in history that I enjoyed learning about was how Nixon’s vice president, Spiro Agnew, was often ordered to attack the press over their publications about the Vietnam War protests. Earlier in the semester, we talked a lot about how these protests impacted our nation, and I think it is important to observe ways in which the protests reflected poorly on Nixon’s presidency. 

I also think it is crucial to analyze the ways in which presidents impact Americans by attacking the press. Archer described, “citizens have been primed to doubt the media’s intentions and reporting” (page 7) as a result of the behavior of politicians. This has led to the famous assumption that various news sources are delivering “fake news.” In addition, discrediting the press allows presidents to raise their follower support base. It was stated that “by 2018, roughly one-fifth of Trump’s Twitter posts about the media included a claim of the media lying” (page 12), which influences his supporters to also disbelieve the press.

For this leadership class, I read the piece, “Attacking the Fourth Estate,” by Allison Archer. Archer opens this piece by explaining that President Donald Trump is not the first political leader to attack the press and media. Ironically, Archer claimed that Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, and many others have also launched attacks on the media in a bid to control what was said about them. However, Archer argues that in recent times there has been a shift in our access to worldwide communication, and, because of this, the way that Trump attacks the media is different than the leaders that came before him. Specifically, she claims that “journalistic accounts suggest the nature of such attacks in more recent years is qualitatively different than before,” and a prime example of this can be seen through President Trump’s twitter account. 

One thing I found interesting while reading this article is that Archer argued that there “should be an inherent tension between elected officials and journalists who seek to poke and prod at them, asking tough questions to inform the public of their representatives’ motivations and actions.” I had never thought about this before, but I realized that this was necessary in order to maintain transparency between the people and their leaders. Additionally, I found it interesting that many leaders before Trump did have issues with the media, but spoke of those issues in private. This could have been because of their personalities, but also because they didn’t have the social media platforms that Trump holds today to speak their minds. And, while social media gives many opportunities, Trump needs to keep a balance because too much aggression can cause distrust within his followers. I never really thought of this, but realized that there is a very delicate balance that needs to happen in terms of one’s projection on social media platforms.

In the reading Attacking the Fourth Estate: The Nature and Effects of Political Leaders’ War with Press, the effects of politics attacking the press are explained. To my surprise, the attack on media did not begin with Trump but has been tied all the way back to George Washington as he expressed concern with the calumnies saying things about his administration in the press because they would affect his ability governing. 

In that same way, Trump attacks the media through Twiter to his advantage. During his campaign which when his attacks on media were at an all-time high, he attacked the media by calling it fake news to divert from accusations against him like the rape scandals. 

Understanding how politicians use media to attack the news sources of the people affects people’s trust in the news can show how media affects presidential elections and the people’s knowledge of the facts. Taking that into consideration, what limitations should politicians have on social media especially when it comes to attacking the press and new sources that provide citizens with important information?

Archer begins the article by explaining that while Trump’s attacks on the news media have gotten a lot of attention, he is not the first president to have issues with journalists and try to control what the media publishes about the government. The tension between the government exists because the media’s job is to give the public the information they need, which sometimes means exposing information that the government may not want everyone to know. According to Archer, this tension is natural and has existed since the beginning of the United States. She compares Trump’s criticism of the media to Nixon, who also called the press “the enemy of the people” and even sued the New York Times for publishing information about the Vietnam War. By attacking journalists’ credibility, politicians can detract attention from the issue being reported about and prevent it from influencing followers away from supporting them.

Despite this long history of tension between the government and the media, Archer argues that Trump’s attacks are unprecedented. One reason for this is that his attacks are extremely public. While Nixon had similar views about the press to Trump’s, most of his inflammatory comments were made in private. However, Twitter has given Trump the ability to attack the media much more publicly and frequently than any other president. Archer also talks about how attacks on the media have exacerbated divisions within our society because when elites question the media’s credibility, it “creates a permission structure for citizens to dismiss anything they disagree with as fake news.” These divisions have led to an increased demand for news outlets with partisan bias such as Fox News and MSNBC.

One thing I found super interesting was a concept found in the conclusion, where Archer asserts that when elites question the credibility of the media, it allows for citizens to dismiss anything they disagree with as fake news and exacerbates divisions of society. I think this is very relevant because as we’ve laughed before in this class, people tend to follow others in positions of power or higher rank, for example groupthink. I think that if a person in power, like the President, says that “the press is the enemy” and calls out fake news or discredits the news then people will also do this in order to be in the in-group and have a sense of belonging. This is very detrimental in my opinion because once a society or group of people begin to vilify or not believe the news, the already visible divisions in society will be emphasized and enlarged, which isn’t good.

However, I do think that news should not not be criticized because sometimes they get it wrong or they step too far in their research. An example of this would be the Chicago newscaster who lied about being in a helicopter who was hit by enemy fire (everyone onboard died) but instead was in the other helicopter that safely landed. This aspect of news, the lying to create a story, should be criticized and removed but the informative nature of the news that usually occurs should be trusted and continued in society.

Ever since Donald Trump entered the political arena it feels like tensions between politicians and the press have been heightened. I feel like I never really noticed this before, but ever since I started paying attention to Trump it is clear that he does not get along with the media in a way that can be considered funny. This reading, however, pointed out to me that tensions between press and politicians have existed for a long time. This theme did not start with Trump, but certainly became more apparent. He criticizes the press very publicly and everyone sees it. I think the language he uses is also what makes it so clear that he may never get along with the press. Other politicians might be a little more secretive about their issues with press and use less harsh language so people don’t pick up on it in quite the same way.

To me, the article seemed to show that tension with the press has picked as our country has become more and more polarized. I wish we had never created partisan media outlets. These outlets only feed into our current problems. They also work to solidify people’s confirmation bias. Many people might be unclear on the truth of situation because they only know what members of their own party think about the issue and how it is presented in their media, rather than the actual facts.

Dr. Laura Knouse, clinical psychologist at UR, gave her “last lecture” about the concept that being a person is hard. She discussed human’s psychological tendency to perpetuate upsetting memories despite our efforts to lessen these painful experiences. In other words, we create our own suffering. This is a fundamental, unwindable, human process.

She then went on to talk about the controversial idea that “people are doing that the best that they can.” It is much easier to refer to this grouping as “people” rather than saying I am doing the best that I can. By excluding yourself from this narrative, you are not owning your mistakes. At this point in the lecture, Dr. Knouse became very emotional. She then shared a personal anecdote about her son who has been diagnosed with autism. As a psychologist, Dr. Knouse never thought that she would be able to cope with having a child who is unable to connect on a social level. Fortunately, Dr. Knouse realized that her assumptions of what she needed to live a happy life were wrong. Her son shows his love in his own way, and she has learned that everyone can live a vital life, as long as you show the world that you are a person too.

On Friday, November 8th, I attended former Jepson grad, Sean Theriault’s lecture titled “Contempt in Congress: The Decline of Statesmanship in the U.S. Senate.” Theriault’s lecture was the final in the 2019-2020 Marshall Center Lecture Series. Theriault is a professor at the University of Texas, and has spent most of his professional career analyzing Congress. He is currently conducting research regarding the extreme polarization of Congress in recent years. Because his research is unfinished, he spent a lot of time explaining how he hopes to continue his research.

Theriault attributes the grid lock in congress to a group of senators that he has nicknamed “the Gingrich Senators.” This name comes from the Republican senators who previously served in the House after 1978, the year of Newt Gingrich’s first election to the House. These senators are more conservative, more likely to obstruct legislative process, and more likely to oppose Democratic Senators that their fellow Republicans in Congress. He thinks that these “partisan” warriors have radically transformed the way that the Senate operates. In 2011, Senator Al Franken started an annual Secret Santa in Congress in order to combat partisanship. Gingrich Senators are the least likely to attend. It makes sense that members of congress who are more moderate and want to “work across the aisle” would be more likely to attend. Interestingly, participants of the Secret Santa are no more likely to pass legislation that leads to problem solving that those who did not attend. Theriault’s research aims to understand why this is the case.