Voter Registration

The 2008 Presidential Election is going to be remembered as one of the most monumental elections in our country's history not just because of the possible implications associated with its winner, but because of its ability to make the American public care enough to want their voices to be heard. According to the Census Bureau, over 142 million people (72.1% of the eligible voting public) were registered to vote in the 2004 Presidential election. While this number may appear high or low depending on your feelings on public apathy, it actually represented a sizable increase from the 2000 and 1996 elections where registration numbers were 129.5 million (69.5%) and 127.6 million (70.9%) respectively. What makes the the 2008 election truly historical is the fact that 184 to 187 million people or 80% of citizens over 18 years old have registered to vote.


Such a considerable increase in voter registration shows that Americans understand the issues at hand and believe that the winner of the election will ultimately take steps to resolve our country's problems. The United States can go in many directions on issues like the economy, foreign relations and energy. Whether people have registered because they are concerned about one issue or the sum of all the issues, it is clear that they want their opinions to be accounted for when the final decisions are made. The idea that Americans appear more knowledgeable and engaged in the voting process also suggests that the candidates and the media have done a better job reaching different segments of the population and educating them on key positions and issues than during elections of the past. This speaks to the fact that technology and media advances has increased the ways in which people can receive information. With more focused, specialized programming and advances like Youtube and blog sites like the one you are currently reading, Americans are now exposed to a much higher level of information than they ever were in past.


Clearly, such an increase in registered voters and the reasons behind the increase are meaningless if those registered voters don't actually go to the polls and vote on November 4th. However, this increase clearly represents a significant change in our country's political atmosphere and shows that more and more people care about the direction in which our country is headed. Hopefully, this atmosphere of political engagement lives beyond the short term and that the achievements of this election can be carried into elections in the future.



http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p20-556.pdf

2008: Not Just a Presidential Year

When considering the implications of the 2008 Presidential Election and all the media coverage given to Barack Obama and John McCain, it is easy to understand how one could to lose sight of the other governmental positions that will be filled as a result of the November 4th election. It almost goes without saying that the President of the United States is the most powerful political figure in our country and is the captain of the ship on which we, as Americans, all sail . Just because we are selecting a new captain , however, it does not mean that we should not give careful consideration to the candidates for the ship's empty officer positions. Although these positions are not as glamorous, each position plays a vital role in determining the course and direction of the ship and how the ship, itself, operates.

As a resident of New Jersey, I chose to register in Pennsylvania because of its status as a "swing state". Since New Jersey has long voted along Democratic lines and is considered a lock for Senator Obama, I felt that a vote in Pennsylvania could go a longer way in deciding which candidate would earn the state's seats in the electoral college. Although I registered in Pennsylvania to have my voice be heard in greater volume in the Presidential election, it would be naive of me to simply vote along a certain party line for the rest of the open positions. As a voter, I have a responsibility to educate myself on all the candidates for all the positions of a particular election. While I am not a Pennsylvania resident and the decisions made by many of the candidates in this election will have no real bearing on how I live my life after I graduate in the spring, I feel that I have the obligation to the inhabitants of this community and this state to critically analyze each candidate and put the most qualified person in office. Regardless of what the average voter may think, every vote counts and to vote based on a party line without knowing any information about the respective candidates is plain irresponsible.

Below I have provided links to each candidate's website for the office of President/Vice President, House Representative, Attorney General for PA, Auditor General for PA, State Treasurer PA , and State Representative. Although it could take a few minutes to educate yourself about each candidate and their stances on the issues, to not do so would prevent you from making a truly informed decision on November 4th.


President/ Vice President
Democrat Barack Obama/ Joseph Biden
Republican John McCain/ Sarah Palin
Green Ralph Nader/ Matt Gonzalez
Libertarian Bob Barr/ Wayne A. Root

Representative in Congress 15th District
Democrat Sam Bennett
Republian Charles Dent

Attorney General
Democrat John Morganelli
Republican Tom Corbett
Libertarian Marakay J. Rogers

Auditor General
Democrat Jack Wagner
Republican Chet Beiler
Libertarian Betsy Summers

State Treasurer
Democrat Robert McCord
Republican Tom Ellis
Libertarian Berlie Etzel


Representative in General Assembly 133rd District
Democrat Joseph F. Brennan
Green Guy M. Gray http://www.votesmart.org/bio.php?can_id=47096


http://www.northamptoncounty.org/northampton/lib/northampton/northamptonvote/proclamation.pdf

Change: Part II

The concept of change is one that has been used to great lengths by Senator Barack Obama and the Democratic party. Whether calling for a change of the status quo or a change from 8 years of Republican leadership, Senator Obama's ability to shape his personal image and narrative around change has played a large role in political success. Given his success, it should come as no surprise that John McCain, and his Republican advisors attempted to construct a counternarrative that questioned Senator Obama’s message for change and anointed Senator McCain as the true “change candidate”


At the Republican National Convention in September, John McCain assured his audience that “change is coming” and that he possessed the maverick personality to light the metaphorical fire under Washington to pursue drastic measures of change. However, as it became evident that Senator McCain trailed Senator Obama in opinion polls, Senator McCain has looked more and more like the Presidential candidates that have preceded him. While he does call for change when speaking to audiences, Senator McCain has failed to truly construct a powerful counternarrative because the blaring volume of his actions have muted the volume of his words. Although he considers himself a maverick who defies popular conventions, the fact that Senator McCain has resorted to name-calling and the tactless questioning of Senator Obama’s character and associations shows how truly attached Senator McCain is to the archaic political maneuvering that lies at the heart public’s distrust of government.


With 72 years of age and 26 years in national office, Senator John McCain certainly has the knowledge and experience to become the next President of the United States. While he has tried to convey a positive image in regards to change, however, his years in public office will ultimately prevent him from advocating the movement that he is trying to represent. In hard times such as these, change is the optimistically vague concept that the masses can cling to and stand behind. It offers hope when all signs of hope appear to be disappearing. Having flaws of his own, it can be asserted that Senator Obama is not prepared to lead the United States of America. Given his status as a minority and his education in modern politics and Senator McCain’s connection to the past, however, there can be no question as to who the real “change candidate” is in this election. The only questions that remain are how much of an impact the concept of change will have on the election and how that impact will translate into who is elected to office.



http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/04/mccain.transcript/index.html

The Marginalization of Third Party Politics

Democracy. Just hearing the word stirs the feelings of pride and privilege that come with living in America. In the United States, no term stirs more of a positive response in those who hear than “democracy.” Yet, what has caused “democracy” to have such a positive connotation? What has created the notion that the American brand of democracy really the best system at ensuring and protecting individual freedoms? Is it possible that because we have been so indoctrinated with the American psyche that we have grown passively resistant to questioning all that encompasses America and the intermingled system of corporate elitist politics under which it functions?


To answer any of these questions requires one to analyze the means by which information is disseminated throughout the general population, namely, through the mass media. The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress off grievances” (Kommers 430). By mentioning the necessity of a free press so early in a section dedicated to personal liberties, it is quite clear how important the founders of our country felt an independent mass media would be in the operation of a democratic system of government. However, it through their construction of the American propaganda model in their book, Manufacturing Consent, that Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky allude to the fact that this basic freedom is being obstructed due to the ownership structure of American mass media outlets. The infringement of this basic freedom leads to one of the most elemental aspects of the American representative democracy to be altered: the ability of the people to have their voices heard and vote for a candidate that best reflects their views. And while this may seem melodramatic at first, the ultimate consequence is one where voters are manipulated into using their votes for mainstream candidates simply because they reinforce the mainstream values of big business rather than use their vote in a way that best allows for their concerns to be addressed.


To Herman and Chomsky “the mass media serve as a system for communicating messages and symbols to the general populace” in which “it is their function to amuse, entertain, and inform and to inculcate individuals with the values, beliefs, and codes of behavior that will integrate them into the institutional structures of the larger society” (Herman and Chomsky 1). The media, therefore, serve as the country’s key socializing force whose main responsibility is to promulgate the ideals and values of the civilization under which it operates. In America, it may seem that the media exist to promote democracy; that they should provide the public with the most relevant and nonbiased information so that they can develop their own opinions and vote for representatives and issues accordingly. However, it is not the tenets of real democracy that the American media system functions under. Being that our founding fathers adopted the ideals of liberal ideology, the American mass media is forced to adhere to the rules of capitalism more than those of real democracy. As a result, the ownership of the major mass media corporations is consolidated into the hands of a few business elites who have, in a sense, monopolized the entire industry. The principles of capitalism have also forced media companies to rely on revenue generated from advertising in order to operate. This has created a situation, where selling advertising has become more important that the actual news and information these companies distribute.


The consequences of a capitalist driven media are clear. Because the ownership of the media is the hands of such a small group of corporate elites, the information given to the public is manipulated to support their interests. Since the media are the main socializing force in America, elites have used this medium to develop and allocate a set of values that support their interests. By virtue of their ownership, elites control the types of news stories and information given to the public, and in doing so, instill the general population with a set of “mainstream values” that allow the existing social structure to be sustained over time. Clearly enjoying their social standing, ownership of the media provides these elites with the ability to dispense information that supports their interests while marginalizing all other interests in the process.


According to Herman and Chomsky, this is just one of the news filters that elites use to control the social order of society. The fact that advertising is the primary source of income for media companies also creates a situation where the programs and information provided by the media are filtered to protect elitist interests. Rather than provide articles and programs for the sole enjoyment of the audience, they are created with the intention of keeping the public entertained. Since “an audience gain or loss [for a television network] of one percentage point in the Nielsen ratings translates into a change in advertising revenue of $80 to $100 million a year (data from 1988)…there is a strong tendency for such considerations to affect policy profoundly (Herman and Chomsky 16). Therefore, there is an extremely large incentive for media companies to keep corporate sponsors pleased by keeping sales/ratings up and audiences interested. If ratings drop or sales fall, the amount of people exposed to advertising decreases and eventually, businesses will advertise elsewhere. In the long run, decreases in advertising revenue will prevent a media outlet from competing with other outlets and will force it to close. Outside of this incentive, the media also have the broader impetus to dilute the information they distribute to the public to keep corporate elites in the top tier of the social structure.


Other filters in Herman and Chomsky’s propaganda model include the reliance of media on information provided by experts of government and business, the denunciation or omission of flak towards an action of business or government and the use of anti-communism as a national religion. Regardless of whether the media use one of these filters or all of them in a particular case, the end result is still the same: Elitist interests are protected, a set of mainstream values are created and constantly reinforced and all other dissident interests are pushed to the margin. Through their control of the media, a sphere of legitimate discourse has been established where the media dichotomously report in favor on areas that support corporate interests and negatively convey areas that do not. Now when one hears a theory like Herman and Chomsky’s it is quite easy to dismiss their argument as the nonsensical bantering of leftist radicals. However, their perception of how things work in the United States is quite valid. To test their theory, one needs only to compare how the Green party was covered before and after the 2000 presidential election by mainstream news sources and independent news sources.


Of all the Presidential elections in American history, none have been more controversial and gone so long before a winner was officially announced than the election in 2000. 2000 brought more than just the Y2K virus and the celebration of the new millennium; it brought Ralph Nader into the public spotlight and made him one of the mainstream’s most marked men. Although Nader had run for President in 1996 and was one of the nation’s most famed consumer advocates for decades before, the months leading up to the 2000 Presidential election brought Nader into mainstream discourse because of the feared impact he would have on the election chances of incumbent Vice President and Democratic nominee Al Gore (Weisbrot 1). In the weeks leading up to the November 2000 election, Gore campaigners mounted a sizeable effort to convince Nader’s supporters that “a vote for Nader was a vote for [George W.] Bush” (Weisbrot 1). However, as Mark Weisbrot titled in an article on the progressive website, ZMag.org, “A vote for Nader [was] a vote for democracy” (1).


As the Green Party’s candidate in 1996, Nader spent only $5,000 and refused to raise any funds in an attempt to protest against the system under which elections are held (Dao 1). However, in 2000, Nader made a vow to campaign hard and get his views out to the general public. According to Weisbrot, Nader was there “to bust open the gates” (1). He visited all 50 states, gained celebrity endorsements from actors like Paul Newman, Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon, and focused on issues that separated him from Gore and Bush. To writers of the independent U.S. media, Nader was “the candidate of the Center” (Weisbrot 1). In other words, he was the one candidate whose ideas and policies best reflected what most individual Americans wanted. He promoted grassroots democracy, universal health care, feminism, diversity, the abolition of NAFTA, IMF and WTO due to the deleterious effects they have had on American workers, decreased military spending, proportional representation in government, humanitarianism, environmentalism, campaign finance reform, consumer rights and other enhanced civil liberties (2000 Green Party Platform).



Above all else, however, Nader and the Green Party promoted the elimination of the very system that Herman and Chomsky describe in Manufacturing Consent. The Party platform reads as follows: “The separation of ownership of major societal assets from their control permits the concentration of power over such assets in the hands of the few who control rather than in the hand of the many who own. The owners of the public lands, pension funds, savings accounts, and the public airwaves are the American people” and these people “have essentially little or no control over their pooled assets or their commonwealth” (2000 Green Party Platform) It goes on to state that “a growing and grave imbalance between the often-converging power of Big Business, Big Government and the citizens of this country has seriously damaged our democracy” and declares that “it’s time to end ‘corporate welfare’ as we know it” and “rekindle the democratic flame. (2000 Green Party Platform). From this and other parts of the party’s platform it becomes clear why the independent media felt that a vote for Nader would be a vote for democracy; he called for democracy and the destruction of corporate driven politics above all else.
Despite his calls for drastic change, the mainstream media refused to cover Ralph Nader’s positions. Rather than portray him as a man of the people, the mainstream simply looked at Nader as a “spoiler” to Al Gore’s chances of becoming President and as “an enormous zit on prom night” (Naureckas 2). In fact, when Gore lost the election, it was Nader that was blamed for engaging in a “self-indulgent exercise that distract[ed] voters from the clear-cut choice represented by the major party candidates” (Naureckas 1). While independent sources assert that Gore lost the election because a combination of a lackluster campaign, an inconsistent environmental policy, voting error, voter intimidation and fraud, mainstream sources placed the majority of the emphasis on Nader and the Green Party (Albert 1). The fact that the blame was placed almost squarely on the shoulders of Nader emphasizes the media’s desire to marginalize dissidents to the existing system. Although Nader stood on a stable platform of social change and political and economic restructuring, his intentions for entering the race were questioned to reduce his credibility and to prevent his counterculture discourse from gaining momentum.


In an April 15, 2000 New York Times article titled, “The 2000 Campaign: the Third Parties; Nader Runs Again, This Time with Feeling,” Nader and the Green Party are portrayed with extreme bias. The article starts by depicting a crowd at one of Nader’s campaign stops and reads as follows: “the students with purple hair, the graying academics with Jerry Garcia beards and the union organizers their anti-WTO buttons had crowded into a college auditorium in Minneapolis…” (Dao 1) Simply by starting the article is this manner; it is clear how the New York Times want Nader to be depicted. They want him to come off as a bleeding heart radical who is 40 years out of touch with the current political environment. They want to reduce his credibility before addressing his beliefs so that the general public will not buy into whatever he has to say later on. The means they use are effective. What professional or elderly person is really going to support a candidate who is already supported by someone with purple hair? The Times also mentions how Nader refused to raise money in the ’96 election and states that, “this time he is serious” (Dao 1). The Times also questions his integrity by asserting that “the goal of Mr. Nader’s run is not to win, of course, but to get more than 5% of the vote, the number that would qualify him for millions in federal campaign matching funds that he says he would use to build the Green Party” (Dao 1). The anti-Nader propaganda campaign fails to stop here. Shortly beyond this section, the Times states that “aides to Vice President Al Gore say they are not losing sleep over a Nader challenge” because Nader does not possess the political ego of a skillful campaigner and because the Green Party is better known for its internal squabbling than its ability to raise money or run a campaign (Dao 2). One must also look at the location of this article in the Times. Although the article goes on to describe some of the aspects of his platform, it is clear that the Times is doing all it possibly can to discredit Nader in the eye’s of their readers and to dissuade them from supporting him come election time. Nader could have been the most qualified candidate running, but if you read the New York Times, you would not have known it.


To the ordinary person, an article like the one previously described, on the front page of the New York Times (Actual Location: Section A Page 1-the front page) may seem like a sufficient way to damage the reputation of a Presidential candidate. However, just a few months later in the July 1st, 2000 issue, the Times were back at it. In this article they reemphasized the Democratic party’s lack of concern in regards to Nader’s potential siphoning away of votes from Al Gore. In the article, Bob Mulholland, campaign adviser to the California Democratic Party, is quoted as saying, “This is the most serious vote of people’s lives and they’re not going to throw it away. Nader became famous because of the Corvair (a car whose engineering design problems Nader brought to the public eye) and he’s been doing college campuses ever since. And now he wants to be president? It’s a joke; it’s ridiculous. Only in America can someone completely irrelevant run for president” (Verhovek 2). By including this quote, the Times is basically giving their opinion of Nader. He represents a non-mainstream viewpoint and they are doing what they can to make sure that his views stay in the margin.



The Washington Post also provides their opinions on Nader in their “news articles.” In a May 25, 2000 edition of the Post, an article titled, “Nader’s Bid Complicates Gore’s Task” depicts Nader in a negative light. The article concludes with a quote from Gore campaign spokesman, Doug Hattaway, in which he says, “We are not taking their [environmentalists and labor] support for granted, but at the same time, we are not quaking in our boots about Ralph Nader. The real choice in the election is between Al Gore and George Bush; and Al Gore is clearly the better choice” (Edsall 2). The Post followed this vow to support only Bush and Gore by responding to questions on why Nader was getting so little coverage by stating in a 9/3/00 op-ed piece by stating that, “We’re a newspaper, and we cover things based on what is newsworthy. People who have half a percent or less following among the public are much less newsworthy than people with 40 percent or 50 percent” (Naureckas 1). The attacks on Nader failed to stop here and were seen in mainstream media sources across the country up until and after the election. Although the media is supposed to present the public with unbiased information, it is articles like those of the New York Times and Washington Post that really show the hidden agenda that media outlets have to protect corporate elitist interests.


If candidates like Ralph Nader only had a biased media to contend with, their goal of obtaining a larger percentage of the vote would be more feasible. Unfortunately for them however, the structure of the election process as well as the existence of the Federal Election Commission and the Commission on Presidential Debates both support the two party system that we live under today and marginalize third parties even further. To be considered a candidate for President, one requires many assets. Above all else, though, one needs a considerable amount of money to gain the exposure needed get your messages to the people. The real problem with the current system is that the two major political parties have the incentive to support the status quo. Since their success relies on private fundraising, Democrats and Republicans are forced to support the interests of the corporate elites so that they donate the money needed to run a successful campaign. Minor parties tend not generate the same funds as the larger parties because they typically stand for issues outside the mainstream discourse and alienate themselves from large corporate sponsors.



In addition to the lack of corporate sponsors, according to the FEC, “minor party candidates and new party candidates may become eligible for partial public funding” only if they have “received 5 of the total popular vote in the preceding Presidential election” (“Public Fundraising of Presidential Elections” 3). This obviously puts minor parties at a severe disadvantage because, not only do they have to worry about drawing funds into a lesser known party, they are forced to compete with major parties that have their private funds matched by public funds. Just to get 5% of the popular vote requires a lot of skillful fundraising, but more importantly a lot of luck. In the 2000 election, Ralph Nader and the Green Party failed to even come close to this requirement. The CPD also marginalizes third parties because in order to participate in nationally televised debates, one must have “a level of support of at least 15% of the national electorate as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations” (“Candidate Selection Process” 2). Since it is near impossible for minor parties to participate in debates, it is hard for them to get their messages out to the people and as a consequence, hard to raise funds. Because their funds are limited to begin with, it is hard to get messages out to potential fundraisers. When one combines all of these factors with the fact that America operates under a “winner-take-all” system, it is clear that the infrastructure of the system, itself, is ridden with internal gridlock influenced by the interests of the corporate elites that prevents minor parties from gaining any traction.

To substantiate the validity of the propaganda model and sphere of legitimate discourse that Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky describe in Manufacturing Consent, one need only to look at how third party politics are marginalized in the United States. Regardless of whether a change can be made to a system where corporate elitist interests drive both politics and the media or not, the fact that the basic freedoms inherent to a democratic system are being violated is quite clear. Although many people did not see “ a vote for Nader as a vote for democracy” in the 2000 election, Nader still walked away a winner. By becoming marginalized by mainstream, elitist values, Nader was able to put his own face on the very issue he found most problematic.

Media Ownership and Bias

When analyzing the environment under which American media outlets operate, it is certainly understandable why public mistrust and cynicism of the media are so prevalent in today’s society. To completely understand the roots of this cynicism, it is necessary to examine the role of our country’s media institutions and the external forces acting upon them. While many areas have influenced the operation of American media, it has been the pressures of society and economy that have been most responsible in constructing the roles of media and the way in which it functions today.


Throughout his life, Karl Marx asserted that “the state was clearly a servant of those who had the greatest accumulation of material resources” (“The Many Facets of Political Psychology” 27). To protect the status quo, Marx stated that those who possessed enormous economic wealth, would use their prosperity to influence politics, business and public perception to ensure that their interests would be represented at all echelons of high-level decision making. If one were to analyze modern American society it would be found that Marx’s words are still valid. In America, those involved in goal formation and the direction of government, business, banking, education and media all belong to the highest social strata and economic class. While the naïve may insist that this control is merely coincidental, it seems clear that the primacy of wealth and the market over the state is the result of a designed plan to control and protect the interests of a small group and prevent any force from rising to defy their social and economic power.


Today, 8 companies own and control all of the world’s media outlets. By its very nature, this consolidated system of ownership puts a considerable amount of power in the hands of only a few people. In America, no institution plays more of a socializing role than the mass media. Because of this, those with large equity positions in media institutions can dictate and influence the thoughts, behaviors and attitudes of the masses in a way that protects the elitist interests of society and the social and financial stratifications on which they are based. As a result, those with great economic wealth can safeguard the social and economic status quo and manipulate information about societal roles and norms and their positions.


Control of the media also prevents the masses from realizing their inherent position of social and financial inferiority. This is important when one considers the sheer size and numbers that the non-elitist class possesses. Through the use of media institutions to control discourse and frame certain topics, the elitist owners of society can direct mass attention away from the problems associated with society’s asymmetrical construction and prevent this group from organizing in a way that can drastically change society. According to C. Wright Mills in The Power Elite, “the media 1) tell the man of the masses who he is (they give him identity); 2) they tell him what he wants to be – (they give him aspirations); 3) they tell him how to get that way – (they give him technique) ; and 4) they tell him how to feel that he is that way even when his not – (they give him escape) (314). By doing so, the media socializes each individual and ensures that he or she will work/operate in a way that is most attuned to the goals of society’s owners and will not rise up to challenge their roles.


Besides being influenced by socioeconomic forces that protect elitist interests, mass media institutions are also driven by basic economic pressures that influence businesses all over the world. Regardless of what good or service is provided, a business must operate as efficiently as possible to increase profits by maximizing revenues and minimizing expenses if they wish to exist in the face of competition. In the world of media, advertising revenues comprise the majority of each institution’s income. Therefore, since these advertising revenues from businesses are directly correlated with the size of a program or station’s audience, the incentive exists for media outlets to create programs and disperse information that appeals to the largest part number of people over an extended period of time. Besides simply socializing these people to protect their interests, the owners of media companies have realized the public’s role in helping to generate their own personal profits. The sequence in which owners rely on audiences to generate sales revenue has created a situation where media institutions are induced to frame particular narratives to protect the interests of their corporate sponsors and advertisers before they even consider the interests of the masses.


Incorporated into the incentives to appeal to the largest audience and protect the status quo is the incentive to entertain. To entertain is to create an audience that will come back time after time. While pertinent, unframed news and information is certainly relevant to the life of each individual, it does not instill the same emotional ties as entertainment. Therefore, in order to achieve the high ratings and large audiences that they need to survive and compete against other news outlets, media institutions are forced to marginalize newsworthy and provocative information in favor of filtered stories designed to entertain and create emotions in their viewers (fear, happiness, etc.) Since emotional appeals create the largest audience, the greatest amount of revenue and are more entertaining than appeals based on “just the facts” , the media are also able to subvert the cognition and rational thought needed to mobilize a movement against the status quo.


The fact the media sets the agenda of relevant topics and news and does so out of an allegiance to profits and socioeconomic concerns has created a media system protected by certain routines and formulas. By having accepted ways of efficiently presenting news to the public and knowing exactly how to present each news item, media institutions are able to maximize their entertainment value while preventing thought provoking discourses from emerging. Routines and formulas act as the rails and wheels of the train car that is media; these prescribed ways of presenting information ensure that the media will always aim to maximize its entertainment value by avoiding the real discussion of relevant topics. Rather than breaking down over time as the rails and wheels a train would, however, the routines and formulas in place only become more and more effective as they are used and modified. Thus, as long as the media does not stray from its path, it will continue to achieve it corporate goals. Through the use of these routines and formulas, all of today’s news and information is filtered through opinions that frame issues with an emotional appeal. While they are restrictive, they are very effective and easy to follow and will not be discarded any time soon because of the success that is associated with them.


Upon analyzing the number of pressures influencing American media, it seems pretty obvious why some people are cynical of the media and feel that their needs and rights are subservient to many others; they really are! Before even considering what actual material to disperse to the masses, media must first consider the interests of the owner/ elitist class, the need to protect the status quo, the need to generate profits, the interests of the their advertisers, the need entertain the masses, as well as the political pressure that they receive from the FCC (pressure from above) and grass-root organizations (pressure from below) and the ideological pressures that force them to believe in this method of operation. Many Americans do not trust the information they receive from the media for this reason. When bearing in mind how late the interests of the American people are considered by the American media, it is hard not to blame them. Change can come, but considering the number of external forces influencing the information that we receive, it will only come as a result of a long-fought gradual modifications to the system under which media operates